Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Dear George, Here's a Democratic Plan for Iraq

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Usenet Supreme Loser ChuckWorth

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 4:12:01 AM1/27/07

To:
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, coh...@washpost.com, jdr...@nejm.org,
let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com,
motomani...@yahoo.com, con...@po.state.ct.us,
executiv...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com,
news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com,
spo...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, spin...@yahoogroups.com,
ma...@concentric.net, camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org,
thomas...@usdoj.gov, edi...@commondreams.org, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
leonar...@po.state.ct.us, FalN...@aol.com,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, mcne...@aol.com,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@po.state.ct.us,
randall...@usdoj.gov,patrick....@jud.state.ct.us
CC:
fra...@ucia.gov,dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, dh...@courant.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, eliot....@oag.state.ny.us, tr...@hotmail.com,
rast...@aol.com, billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
fra...@ucia.gov, govern...@po.state.ct.us, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net
Subject:

Dear George, Here's a Democratic Plan for Iraq

Date:
Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:04:31 AM

[View Source]

Dear George,

Pull back US forces to Kuwait and then deploy neutron
bombs to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria, since all you
want is the oil anyway. Get rid of all the people quickly,
as recommended by Michael Ledeen. Make it painless
and swift:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25479/pub_detail.asp
"The president would do well to remember Machiavelli's advice to the
prince:
If you must inflict pain, it is best to do it all at once, and not try
to
mitigate it or do
it bit by bit. The latter method always makes things worse, and
ultimately
requires
greater violence, and more pain. Or, worse still, your defeat."

You could be famous like Harry Truman and save more
American lives. Call it Operation Tehran-asaki, or Hiro-Shia.

Or, just say you're eradicating an infectious disease (Muslims)
and the treatment is radiation. Gonzales has already provided
you the legal privilege to determine who gets to be called a person.
You could say it was an animal diseases experimental treatment.

If some new diseases spread due to all the unburied bodies,
that's okay because the wind blows west to east over there.
http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_circulation/11.html

- - - - - - - - -

That's all if you want to achieve YOUR goals. For the rest of
the world, the treatment of Iraq is a too-long hangman's rope
for you and Cheney.

Beyond that, Iraq was always Saudi Arabia's problem. The true
existential threat is the devaluing of human life via the
misinterpretation
of God's law, either by Mohammed himself or later day distortions of
it,
but the human rights debacle over there in these stupid little
"kingdoms"
is a doctrinal problem that must be resolved in the open.

Some wackjob Muslim cleric said the reason women should be
covered head to toe is because a woman uncovered is like leaving
meat out on the patio and blaming the cat for eating it. If Muslim
men have that little self-control they have indeed self-declared
themselves to be animals. What's driving the nutcase extremists?
It's an Arab problem to confront them on their nonsense.

It is a US problem to confront the human rights atrocities committed
by Israel against the Palestinians with extended intent towards all
Arabs,
since we're supplying the Zionists the means. The Zionists have to be
confronted on their ideologies also. This "We're the victims,"
nonsense
doesn't fly any more. They shared this ploy with us on 9/11.

"Poor us, we were attacked by Al Quaeda with flying planes and
boxcutters."

BULL SHIT.

I understand these are heady moral matters and I am putting them
before a true psychopath, but you, George, were never elected
president.
You are not the legitimate president of the United States and that
makes
you not the Decider under any of Gonzales' infamous misinterpretations
of law.

KMDickson
23 Garden Street
Pawcatuck, CT, "USA"
ActionLyme.org

By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 27, 2007; A01

Declaring "I'm the decision maker," President Bush yesterday challenged

congressional efforts to formally condemn his Iraq plan, while Defense
Secretary
Robert M. Gates warned that a proposed Senate resolution criticizing
the
deployment of additional troops would embolden the enemy.

"Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives
encouragement to
those folks," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. "I'm sure that
that's not
the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect."

Bush consulted with Gates and Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will head
U.S.
forces in Iraq, at an early-morning meeting at the White House.
Speaking with
reporters afterward, the president complained that lawmakers "are
condemning a plan before it's even had a
chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious
responsibility,
therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work."

Bush later met with House Republicans at a retreat on Maryland's
Eastern Shore
and, according to two Republicans present, mocked the Senate by telling
the
House members that he found it "ironic" that senators would oppose his
plan to
dispatch 21,500 more troops to Iraq but praise and unanimously confirm
Petraeus,
who helped design it.

Democrats responded angrily to Gates's comments, which were similar to
what
Petraeus said at his Tuesday hearing before his confirmation yesterday.
"The
American people will rightly dismiss these accusations as a desperate
attempt by
the administration to support a failed policy that is not worthy of the

sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

(D-Mass.).

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) disputed Bush's suggestion
that the Democrats have not come up with a plan. Speaking at the
Brookings
Institution, he said his party was united around the proposition that
the United
States should shift more responsibility to the Iraqis, begin a "phased
redeployment" of troops and initiate more aggressive regional diplomacy
to
stabilize Iraq.

Yesterday's administration comments were part of a White House campaign
to try
to keep Republican lawmakers from signing on to any resolution that
criticizes
the president's new strategy in Iraq. By keeping down the number of
Republican
defections, the administration hopes to make any vote appear highly
partisan and
to buy Bush's new plan more time.

With Bush's leverage on Capitol Hill at a low, the White House appears
to be
relying heavily on GOP leaders to orchestrate the opposition to two
resolutions
condemning the troop buildup, according to lawmakers, lobbyists and
administration officials. White House lobbyists and senior officials at
the
National Security Council are continuing to meet with lawmakers, but a
number of senators said they did not perceive the lobbying as
particularly aggressive. The strategy, as they described it, is to
muddy the
waters with a number of competing resolutions that could siphon support
from a
strong message of disapproval for the president's plan.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved a
resolution
opposing the introduction of the additional troops, calling for more
diplomacy
and a regional peace effort, and demanding that U.S. troops be deployed
away
from urban sectarian hotbeds to guard Iraq's borders, hunt down
terrorists and
train Iraqi security forces. Bush defied Congress yesterday to come up
with an
alternative to his Iraq strategy, but advocates say the committee's
resolution
amounts to one.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) has offered a similar resolution, while
also calling
for measurable benchmarks in Iraq. Warner's resolution includes
language
accepting Bush's constitutional powers as commander in chief, leaves
rhetorical
room for some additional troop deployments and treats the fight with
Sunni extremists in
Anbar province as a matter separate from the sectarian violence in
Baghdad.

GOP leaders, meanwhile, are coalescing around a resolution drafted by
Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) that would establish strict benchmarks for the Iraqi
government
and the Bush administration to meet, without criticizing the
president's plan.
The leaders may also offer a simple resolution of support for Bush,
saying the
president's plan should be given a chance.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said that the administration
would
still like GOP leaders to block any vote but that at this point even
some of the
most ardent Republican conservatives need some way to voice their
skepticism on
the record. The best the White House can hope for is what Senate
Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called a "smorgasbord" of resolutions that
splits both
parties and pulls senators in multiple directions.

Like other GOP lawmakers, McConnell said time is running out for the
president. "I think everybody knows what the consequences
are. The president doesn't have a stronger supporter in the Senate than
the
person you're looking at, but I repeat, this is the last chance for the
Iraqis
to step up and demonstrate this government can function," he said. "The
message
to the Iraqi government could not be more clear."

Administration officials say they realize their position on the Hill is

precarious. Many Republicans blame the war in Iraq for their electoral
debacle
last November, and if the situation does not improve soon, the
administration
will be faced with massive defections within the GOP -- not only on
nonbinding
resolutions but perhaps also on bills that limit the president's
ability to
prosecute the war.

But several administration officials said they felt they had a good
week, with
Petraeus making an effective case for more time at his confirmation
hearing
Tuesday and only one Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), defecting
when the
Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution against additional
troops on Wednesday.

"No one is under any illusion that we are going to win over many
Democrats or
turn around the country. What we need to do is stabilize Republicans,"
said one
senior White House official who was not authorized to speak on the
record. While
many Republicans are very anxious to vent their displeasure with the
situation
in Iraq, Republican stalwarts still seem reluctant to part with the
president.

"I think he made the case in the State of the Union message . . . that
this is
the best that he and his military commanders can come up, so give us a
chance,"
said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah). "If you are going to say no, you
better
have an alternative."

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul
Kane
contributed to this report.