Nancy Pelosi Calls Iraq A 'Failure' -- Locking Her Feet In Concrete
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------------------
Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'
By: Mike Allen
February 10, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is
a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the
desired effect.”
“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the
government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to
Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”
The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless
them.”
Pelosi’s harsh verdict is a reminder of the dilemma for Democrats as
they head into this fall’s presidential and congressional elections:
They need to make the case that the country needs to depart from the
direction set by Bush. Yet they don’t want to look like naysayers at a time
when Iraq has become more stable, albeit still violent.
Republican strategists say one of their few chances to avoid a blowout
in November is to paint Democrats as defeatists.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sparked a furious response
from the right last year when he said the Iraq war “is lost.”
Bush announced in September that the surge policy of additional troops
would allow a gradual reduction in forces as a “return on success.”
Improvements in Iraq helped revive the presidential campaign of Sen. John
McCain (Ariz.), now the front-runner for the Republican nomination.
Shortly after Pelosi spoke on Sunday with Defense Secretary Robert
Gates in Iraq, a suicide bomber killed more than 20 civilians at a
checkpoint north of Baghdad, the U.S. military reported.
Pelosi’s comment came during a discussion of her call for “the
redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.”
Anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: “Are you not worried, though, that all the
gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?”
“There haven't been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have
not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This
is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them.
We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their
patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well.
“But they deserve better than the policy of a war without end, a war
that could be 20 years or longer. And Secretary Gates just testified in the
last 24 hours to Congress that this next year in Iraq and Afghanistan are
going to cost $170 billion.
“Afghanistan is not settled because the president took his eye off the
ball and took the full attention that should have been in Afghanistan, and
shifted some of that to Iraq, a war without end, without a plan, without a
reason to go in, without a plan to win, without a strategy to leave. This is
a disaster … we cannot perpetuate.”
On other issues, the speaker said a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton
ticket would produce great enthusiasm, but she declined to take the bait on
whether she would like such a so-called dream ticket to emerge.
“The decision as to who is the running mate of the nominee of the
party is the decision of the nominee of the party,” Pelosi said. “If someone
would ask my advice in that capacity, however great you are, Wolf, in that
capacity as nominee I might have a suggestion. But right now, let the
democracy continue and see how this plays out. And there are a lot of people
who would be very enthusiastic about it. I'll agree with you on that.”
Tiger
Gee, when did Nancy go to West Point? What is her command
experience? Where is her sorn for Nato? Oh I forgot, they are not
Republican.
eatfastnoodle
>
> On other issues, the speaker said a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton
> ticket would produce great enthusiasm, but she declined to take the bait on
> whether she would like such a so-called dream ticket to emerge.
>
> "The decision as to who is the running mate of the nominee of the
> party is the decision of the nominee of the party," Pelosi said. "If someone
> would ask my advice in that capacity, however great you are, Wolf, in that
> capacity as nominee I might have a suggestion. But right now, let the
> democracy continue and see how this plays out. And there are a lot of people
> who would be very enthusiastic about it. I'll agree with you on that."
Well, it's certainly not a success if you asked me. Seriously, what's
the point of invading Iraq in the first place? Just because of one
botched assassination against one former president who happened to be
the father of the current president? Actually, if that's the case, I
can at least understand the rational behind the decision to invade.
No, they had to pull the WMD card, the spread of democracy card, both
ended up miserable failures. There is no WMD, there is no democracy,
instead, the invasion gave a much needed lift to Muslim extremism and
anti-Americanism. Still, five years later, trillions of dollar wasted,
4000 soldiers dead, serious if not fatal hit to US military's war-
fighting capability and morale, you still got such large percentage of
American voters will punish the people who dares to spell out the word
"defeat", considering they were the same people electing Bush, a dim-
witted frat boy riding on his family's connection all his life, into
office twice, and considering these voters and the states they live in
are actually the people whom Bush ripped off the most, one might
wonder indeed how stupid those so called "god-fearing" 'average folks'
actually are.
Scott M. Kozel
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> a disaster ... we cannot perpetuate."
J A
> Her brain is locked in concrete.
That may well be true, but it wasn't her that got us in this trillion
dollar tar pit.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commander,
It matters not one wit whether Pelosi is right or Bush is right.
This is not 2003. This is 2008. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY
TO KEEP DOING FOR THE IRAQIS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO
FOR THEMSELVES. All we can do is continue to engage our
real enemy which is Al Qaeda. And that does not require
another trillion over the next 5 years. Vote for change.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a.spencer3
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6780131d-203f-471b...@70g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Shamefully, we have to accept that a tragic mess has been created that is
going to remain a Palestine or Lebanon for many years at least.
A big permanent blot on the reputation of the US, and on that of the UK too
for blindly following.
The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
dinosaur.
What to do now? That's another decision entirely. But if it doesn't start
from the above, it's doomed from the start.
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Commander,
>Cheers, David H
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agreed.
By messing around in Iraq we are in serious danger of losing
out in Afghanistan to a resurgent Taliban. They are the guys
who were hiding Al Qaeda.
We've created a perfect mess in the Middle East. And all
some folks can do is say that we must hang on.
Sometimes the best thing to do is to admit you've made a mistake
and change what you are doing.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Jack Linthicum
This is the anniversary of the surge. The Iraqi parliament seems to
realize that George Bush will not be around come next February and has
started to act like they should.
February 14, 2008
Ending Impasse, Iraq Parliament Backs Measures
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
BAGHDAD -- Iraq's parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through
three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter
political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers
threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body.
More than any previous legislation, the new initiatives have the
potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set
the country on the road to a more representative government, starting
with new provincial elections.
The voting itself was a significant step forward for the Parliament,
where even basic quorums have been rare. In a classic legislative
compromise, the three measures, each of which was a burning issue for
at least one faction, were packaged together for a single vote to
encourage agreement across sectarian lines.
"Today we have a wedding party for the Iraqi Parliament," said Mahmoud
al-Mashhadani, the speaker, who is a Sunni. "We have proved that
Iraqis are one bloc and Parliament is able to find solutions that
represent all Iraqis."
But the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most
contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility
that the accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in
future debates on the same issues.
The three measures are the 2008 budget; a law outlining the scope of
provincial powers, a crucial aspect of Iraq's self-definition as a
federal state; and an amnesty that would apply to thousands of the
detainees held in Iraqi jails. <more>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
D. Spencer Hines
Contrary to fact.
DSH
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:r_Usj.207$ay3...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Contrary to fact.
Defeatist...
Culled from boilerplate Democrat talking points.
DSH
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fp1hro$nkg$1...@reader2.panix.com...
J A
> Horsefeathers.
>
> Contrary to fact.
Tell us the facts that are contrary to what he said.
To most people with information about what's going on there, and
enough brain power to think, it appears that the Shiia governemt is
reluctant to compromise and share wealth and power with the Sunnis
becasue they don't have to.
And they don't have to, becasue we're in the middle of this civil war.
D. Spencer Hines
narrative of defeat...
And Gans is mired hip-deep in that narrative -- with his feet locked in
concrete.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------------------
Odierno says surge working, urges caution in transitioning troops
Thursday, 04 October 2007
BAGHDAD — The surge of additional forces into Baghdad and other areas
of Iraq is working, a top general commanding Coalition forces there said
yesterday.
Even as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan continues, levels of violence
in Iraq have dropped, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of
Multi-National Corps Iraq, said at the National Press Club here. The surge
allowed Iraqi and Coalition officials to wrest whole provinces from
extremist grasp.
In December, President Bush accepted recommendations of military
leaders to place five more combat brigades and their supporting complements
in and around Baghdad. More troops went into Anbar province, and Iraqi
forces also bulked up in Baghdad and surrounding areas. "The full complement
of surge forces were in place by mid-June and provided us with significant
flexibility and operational reach,” Odierno said. "The trends we have seen
over the past three and a half months since the surge was completed are
encouraging, and to this point they've been consistent.
"Violence throughout the country has dropped to a level not even seen
before the first bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006," he continued. "Last
week, we saw a slight rise in attacks as al Qaeda attempted its own Ramadan
surge, but for the large part, Iraqi Security Forces, as well as Coalition
forces, were successful in interdicting most of them."
In past years, Ramadan meant extremist attacks, the general said. Not
so this year. "Attacks have decreased, and signs of normalcy across Iraq are
starting to appear," he said.
The surge has allowed troops to disrupt al Qaeda in Iraq safe areas
and curbed the terrorist group’s freedom of movement.
"With many of its top leaders eliminated, the remaining al Qaeda in
Iraq leadership is increasingly being forced away from Baghdad," Odierno
said. "Over the past eight to nine months, numerous population centers have
been liberated from extremist control, including Baqubah, al Qaim, Arab
Jabour, Ramadi, Fallujah and Abu Ghraib."
None of this would have been possible without the bloodthirsty efforts
of the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda is losing its internal support within
Iraq because of its indiscriminate targeting of civilians, its reliance on
foreign leadership, and the Taliban-like mentality that suppresses the Iraqi
people, Odierno said.
The group remains dangerous and can still lash out with spectacular
attacks. But the Iraqi people have rejected al Qaeda in Iraq, and the battle
now shifts to bringing promised economic and political aid to the people,
"or we could squander this opportunity that we've developed," Odierno said.
While the U.S. provided considerable support, operations in Baghdad
were Iraqi-led. The surge gave commanders the presence in Iraq to uproot
extremists and keep them out. "Unlike previous operations, we now have the
forces to maintain our gains and prevent extremists from returning to these
safe havens and sanctuaries," Odierno said.
Iraqi security forces continue to grow and improve, and they are
another important reason for the improved security situation, the general
said. "They are slowly shouldering more of the burden and are fighting and
taking casualties," he said. "Their command and control, as well as their
targeting, gets better with each passing day."
Odierno cited the work of Iraqi security forces in Karbala after an
attack by Shiia extremists killed 100 pilgrims and wounded 100 more. He also
said he is pleased with progress in Mosul and Kirkuk, where Coalition forces
are essentially in “overwatch” as Iraqis carry out operations. "It is
imperative that we continue to transition security responsibilities to the
Iraqis," he said. "But it's equally important that we do so in a cautious
and thoughtful manner."
This is going to take time, Odierno said. Iraqi forces need time to
grow more leaders; they need more time to develop logistics and handle
transportation. "And there is still some sectarianism that the government of
Iraq, as well as us, are working towards eliminating," he said. "These
issues must be addressed and receive the complete attention of the Iraqi
leadership, and I think that they've done that, and they will continue to
work hard to eliminate this."
The surge has allowed engagement with tribes and communities at the
tactical level, and this "bottom-up process" has gotten Iraqis involved in
maintaining security in their own neighborhoods, Odierno said. "Local
reconciliation is playing a key role and continues to gain momentum," he
said. "Iraqis are getting involved in their own safety in a clear sign that
they are tiring of violence as well as extremist activities."
Cooperation between the people and their security forces is directly
proportional to improved security. "In those areas where local Iraqis are
providing intelligence, volunteering to serve in security forces, and
pledging their loyalty to the government of Iraq, we have witnessed dramatic
improvements in the security of the people of Iraq," Odierno said. "These
volunteers want legitimacy, and the government of Iraq is taking notice and
beginning to incorporate them into the Iraqi Security Forces."
Last week, more than 1,700 volunteers in Abu Ghraib graduated from
police training and are providing security in their own neighborhoods as
part of the official Iraqi police force, the general said. "While mostly
Sunni, we are also beginning to see Shiia participation in some of these
local security efforts, as they notice the progress being made. We must be
prepared to take advantage of the opportunities we are presented with, many
of which will no doubt be difficult to predict."
The general said that no one would have predicted the dramatic
turnaround in Anbar province. "Anbar now stands as an inspiring example to
the rest of the country for what is possible, as citizens come together to
reject extremist behavior," he said.
Less than a year ago, Coalition intelligence officials said the
province was as good as lost. "Today, the situation has improved to the
point where the awakening movement that began turning the tide in Anbar was
able to weather the loss of its charismatic leader, Sheikh Abdul Sattar,
without missing a beat," Odierno said.
Attacks across the province have fallen from around 350 in a single
week a year ago to just 37 last week, he said.
Odierno said success in Anbar is due to the surge, improved Iraqi
forces, and local engagement. "Iraqis have taken notice, and from Diyala to
Ghazalia, to Mahmudiyah and elsewhere, concerned citizens are reaching out
to become a part of improving Iraq's future for their children," he said.
Still, the country is not out of the desert yet. "The surge has
created time and space necessary for the government of Iraq to move
forward." the general said. "The military aspects of our strategy have
achieved momentum, but we have not yet achieved what I would characterize as
irreversible momentum. We fully expect the mixed sectarian areas and fault
lines to be the last to settle. That is where we will continue to maintain
higher troop concentrations. There will be challenges to the successes in
Anbar and other places, and it will be up to the Iraqi security force, with
our support, to meet these challenges."
Odierno said the time is now for the Iraqi government to aggressively
provide essential services to their fellow citizens, no matter what their
ethnic or religious affiliation may be. "A clear need for tangible and
sustained Iraqi political action and success does exist today," he said.
"However, there's no universal solution for Iraq, and some strategic
patience will be required to give Iraqis a chance."
The country is diverse, and not one solution will work all over the
country. "Progress will come in a variety of ways, in many shapes and many
sizes," he said." Any all-in or all-out strategy on our part is not viable.
"We can't maintain current force size in Iraq; we all know that," he
continued. "But we also I don't think can withstand a quick withdrawal of
forces from Iraq. I think the consequences could be catastrophic."
The Coalition’s goal is to move from the forefront to the periphery of
planning and conducting the majority of operations in specific areas as
local security conditions permit, Odierno said. This idea goes back to 2004
and entails the change from leading to partnering to overwatch.
Odierno said he and his commanders will continually assess the
security situation in the country and that he will make recommendations "on
what forces are needed and in which areas."
If Iraqi forces are ready to do more in a certain area, then they will
get the mission, he said. He noted that this was the thought process behind
his recommendations to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, Multi-National Force
Iraq commander, which led to a reduction of forces. The transition began
with a Marine expeditionary unit leaving the country in September and will
continue through summer 2008 as U.S. forces transition from 20 to 15 brigade
combat teams.
Any judgment on transitioning U.S. forces from Iraq will be made
deliberately and only after a review of the progress on the ground, Odierno
said. "It can be very tempting to overestimate progress and withdraw too
many troops before an area is ready," the general said. "The irreversible
momentum we need will come from gradual empowerment of the Iraqis, careful
transition of security responsibilities, and a deliberate change to an
overwatch role for Coalition forces."
How quickly the country stabilizes depends on whether it is done
violently or peacefully, he said. "The Iraqi people seem to be making that
choice today," he said. "They are tired of the violence that has engulfed
the country for the better part of the last four years, and they are
standing up to prevent extremists from further destabilizing their proud
country."
Story by Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service.
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
D. Spencer Hines
narrative of defeat...
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the
progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to
begin drawing down our troops there," he added.
----------------------------
And Pogue J. Gans is mired hip-deep in that narrative -- with his feet
locked in concrete.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------
Lieberman Blasts Democrats Over Partisan-Driven Foreign Policy
Thursday, November 08, 2007
FoxNews
WASHINGTON — Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his
party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign
policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing
what is right.
The former presidential candidate and hawkish senator from Connecticut also
came down hard on critics of a resolution he and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.,
co-sponsored calling on the Bush administration to label the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies.
"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined
by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined
Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very
principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our
best and strongest," Lieberman continued.
Lieberman — who has run for the top spot in the Oval Office as well as the
No. 2 — is unique in the Senate, having won re-election last year following
a Democratic primary election defeat tinged with anti-war sentiment. He ran
a rare successful independent campaign by stumping largely on his foreign
policy stance in support of the Iraq war and against terrorism. Lieberman
has maintained his Democratic affiliation, caucusing in the Senate with
Democrats.
On Thursday, Lieberman waxed nostalgic over foreign policy giants Democrats
like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy, but said that after
Vietnam, it took until the Clinton administration to regain an
internationalist, interventionist attitude among Democrats.
Just as soon as that attitude returned, it left again once the Bush
administration took the reins in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, atmosphere. He
said President Bush's call for the spread of democracy across the globe
followed a campaign in which, as Lieberman described it, Bush was less
interested in foreign policy than his Democratic opponent, Al Gore.
Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
"The Bush administrations post-9/11 ideological conversion confronted
Democrats with an awkward choice. Should we welcome the president's foreign
policy flip-flop? Or should Democrats match it with a flip-flop of our own?"
Lieberman said.
"I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework that the
president articulated for the War on Terror as our own — because it was our
own. It was our legacy ... But that was not the choice most Democrats made.
Instead, they flip-flopped," he said.
Lieberman said Democrats aren't being guided by principle, but partisanship.
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the
progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to
begin drawing down our troops there," he added.
Just as Lieberman was speaking, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that
the House will take up a temporary Iraq spending bill which will curb the
war in Iraq. The plan, known as the "bridge," provides $50 billion for four
months in Iraq and starts a withdrawal of troops to be completed by next
December.
"This (war strategy) is not working. There is no light at the end of the
tunnel. We must reverse it. We will again make a distinction ... to show a
new direction in Iraq. The goal is ending it within a year and leave behind
just a small force," she said.
Lieberman defended the IRGC amendment adopted in September as a peaceful
resolution designed to avoid further conflict with Iran, which military
officials accuse of waging a proxy war against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Sen. Clinton was among those voting in favor of the amendment, but others
have attacked the resolution and Clinton because of her support for it.
Critics argue the resolution could give Bush the authority to attack Iran.
One of the amendment's chief critics, Sen. Jim Webb, said that by labeling
the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, it is tantamount to a war
declaration on Iran because it is labeling the country's elite military
organization as a terrorist group.
The amendment was adopted on a 77-22 vote, with two senators not voting.
Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted
against the amendment; Barack Obama did not vote.
Lieberman said while he thought the amendment would be a no-brainer, what
resulted was a "case study in the distrust and partisan polarization that
now poisons our body politic on even the most sensitive issues of national
security."
He said left-wing blogs offered "wild conspiracy theories," and the
amendment had "nothing that could be construed as a green light for an
attack on Iran."
"There is something profoundly wrong — something that should trouble all of
us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about
how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops,
than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
"There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are
willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in
the Democratic base, even if it sends a message of weakness and division to
the Iranian regime," Lieberman said in a thinly veiled swipe at Clinton's
Democratic challengers.
J A
> As Senator Joe Lieberman has noted, the Democrats are invested in a
> narrative of defeat...
> ----------------------------
>
> "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
> strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
> narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq,
Petraeus is paying off the Sunni tribes to turn on al Qaeda.
That's fine- it should have been done a long time ago, but we're only
renting them - they're not our new pals.
Sadr has told his death squads to stop operating - but he's not our
new pal either.
We're not succeeding in why we had this war: WMDs, institutuing a
"democracy", fighting terrorists, or whatever.
Tell us what the US is getting out of this.
reluctant to acknowledge the
> progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to
> begin drawing down our troops there," he added.
> ----------------------------
>
> And Pogue J. Gans is mired hip-deep in that narrative -- with his feet
> locked in concrete.
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Lieberman Blasts Democrats Over Partisan-Driven Foreign Policy
>
> Thursday, November 08, 2007
> FoxNews
>
> WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his
> party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign
> policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing
> what is right.
>
> The former presidential candidate and hawkish senator from Connecticut also
> came down hard on critics of a resolution he and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.,
> co-sponsored calling on the Bush administration to label the Iranian
> Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
>
> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
> President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's
> School of Advanced International Studies.
>
> "In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined
> by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined
> Republicans in the 1990s -- even when it means repudiating the very
> principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our
> best and strongest," Lieberman continued.
>
> Lieberman -- who has run for the top spot in the Oval Office as well as the
> No. 2 -- is unique in the Senate, having won re-election last year following
> a Democratic primary election defeat tinged with anti-war sentiment. He ran
> a rare successful independent campaign by stumping largely on his foreign
> policy stance in support of the Iraq war and against terrorism. Lieberman
> has maintained his Democratic affiliation, caucusing in the Senate with
> Democrats.
>
> On Thursday, Lieberman waxed nostalgic over foreign policy giants Democrats
> like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy, but said that after
> Vietnam, it took until the Clinton administration to regain an
> internationalist, interventionist attitude among Democrats.
>
> Just as soon as that attitude returned, it left again once the Bush
> administration took the reins in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, atmosphere. He
> said President Bush's call for the spread of democracy across the globe
> followed a campaign in which, as Lieberman described it, Bush was less
> interested in foreign policy than his Democratic opponent, Al Gore.
> Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
>
> "The Bush administrations post-9/11 ideological conversion confronted
> Democrats with an awkward choice. Should we welcome the president's foreign
> policy flip-flop? Or should Democrats match it with a flip-flop of our own?"
> Lieberman said.
>
> "I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework that the
> president articulated for the War on Terror as our own -- because it was our
> "There is something profoundly wrong -- something that should trouble all of
> us -- when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about
Vince
how many more Americans should die to put a shiite fundamentalist
government in power in Iraq?
Vince
Vince
> On Feb 14, 5:25 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> As Senator Joe Lieberman has noted, the Democrats are invested in a
>> narrative of defeat...
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
>> strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
>> narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq,
>
> Petraeus is paying off the Sunni tribes to turn on al Qaeda.
>
> That's fine- it should have been done a long time ago, but we're only
> renting them - they're not our new pals.
>
> Sadr has told his death squads to stop operating - but he's not our
> new pal either.
>
> We're not succeeding in why we had this war: WMDs, institutuing a
> "democracy", fighting terrorists, or whatever.
>
> Tell us what the US is getting out of this.
4000 dead, a huge bill and a fabulous testosterone hit for those whose
sexual organs were flagging
They can swagger and think " we Whipped ass and those democratic pansies
want to quit and go home
of course all they did was install a Shiite fundamentalist theocracy to
join hands with the Iranians but thats too complicated for their dead
brains
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
narrative of defeat...
And Gans is mired hip-deep in that narrative -- with his feet locked in
concrete.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------------
February 14, 2008
Ending Impasse, Iraq Parliament Backs Measures
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
The New York Times
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three
far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political
maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try
to dissolve the legislative body.
More than any previous legislation, the new initiatives have the potential
to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set the country on the
road to a more representative government, starting with new provincial
elections.
The voting itself was a significant step forward for the Parliament, where
even basic quorums have been rare. In a classic legislative compromise, the
three measures, each of which was a burning issue for at least one faction,
were packaged together for a single vote to encourage agreement across
sectarian lines.
“Today we have a wedding party for the Iraqi Parliament,” said Mahmoud
al-Mashhadani, the speaker, who is a Sunni. “We have proved that Iraqis are
one bloc and Parliament is able to find solutions that represent all
Iraqis.”
But the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most
contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility that the
accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in future debates
on the same issues.
The three measures are the 2008 budget; a law outlining the scope of
provincial powers, a crucial aspect of Iraq’s self-definition as a federal
state; and an amnesty that would apply to thousands of the detainees held in
Iraqi jails.
An amnesty law was one of the so-called benchmark measures that the Bush
administration had built the 2007 troop increase around, hoping to create
better security to allow such legislative breakthroughs.
The vast majority of the 26,000 prisoners being held in Iraqi jails are
Sunni Arabs, some of whom have been held without charges for months.
That made the law a driving issue for Sunni lawmakers and the Sunni co-vice
president, Tariq al-Hashimi.
The budget measure was closely guarded by the Kurds, who wanted to maintain
the Kurdistan regional government’s current allocation of 17 percent of the
country’s revenues after subtracting the costs of ministries that serve the
entire country, like Foreign Affairs and Defense. That is a larger portion
than most lawmakers felt was fair, and the point will be renegotiated next
year, when the whole battle could well be re-enacted.
Similarly, the provincial powers law, which includes a provision requiring
that provincial elections be held by Oct. 1, will be difficult to carry out
unless Parliament approves a new election law and fills a number of vacant
election commission seats at the provincial level. Those details have been
contentious in the past.
But on the abstract level, a law to increase provincial powers has been
supported by members from all three major factions, Shiites, Sunni Arabs and
Kurds, all of whom have fought for less central governmental authority,
albeit in different ways.
The three measures were put to a vote as a single package and passed
Wednesday afternoon. There were 206 legislators of the 275-member body at
the session, according to Parliament’s press office.
Each article of each measure was voted on individually, with some lawmakers
walking out when items they had opposed came up. But almost everyone
returned in time for the final package vote.
The jubilation at the conclusion of the session and the atmosphere of amity
contrasted sharply with the stinging accusations and walkouts that have
characterized many of the negotiations in recent weeks.
Khalid al-Attiya, the deputy speaker and an independent Shiite, beamed as he
told reporters right after the vote that the laws had passed “unanimously.”
“It is a big achievement,” he said, and promised that approval of the budget
and spending associated with it would translate into as many as 700,000 new
jobs for Iraqis.
Parliament members estimated that the overall budget for the fiscal year
would reach 60 trillion Iraqi dinars, roughly $50 billion, of which more
than two-thirds would go toward salaries and labor expenses.
Even factions that did not agree with some of the measures said they did not
want to vote against the package as a whole.
“The Iraqiya list did not want to create a political crisis in a time when
the country has suffered a lot, “ said Aliya Nesayef, a member of the
Iraqiya Party, which agreed with the amnesty law but was uncomfortable with
some provisions of the budget and the provincial powers law.
The decision to vote on the three measures together broke the logjam that
had held up the legislation for months, despite pressure from the Bush
administration and some senior Iraqi officials. Every group was able to
boast that it had won, to some degree. After the legislation is approved by
the Presidency Council, in this case a pro forma step since all of the
political blocs agreed to their passage, it will be published. The
particulars of the laws remained unclear in part because many changes were
made in the last frantic days.
The most serious controversy on Wednesday was over the inclusion of a date
for holding provincial elections, which President Bush has pushed for in the
short term. Such elections would mean that two political parties, one Shiite
and one Sunni, would stand to lose control of one or more provincial
councils, so those groups have tried to defer the vote. But the majority of
Parliament supported setting a date, and Mr. Mashhadani, the speaker, forced
the inclusion of a deadline, Oct. 1, at the last minute.
The top American officials in Iraq, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen.
David H. Petraeus, issued a statement after the passage, congratulating
Parliament and describing the provincial powers law, in particular, as a
“landmark law” in which “Iraqi legislators have reached an historic
compromise.”
But they sought to cover themselves in the event that poison pills were
buried in the details of the legislation. That was the case in January, with
the passage of a law that was promoted as a way to bring more Sunni Arabs
into government jobs but that later appeared to have provisions that would
actually force out at least as many as it brought in.
“There is also still more to learn about how this legislation will be
implemented,” said the statement on Wednesday by Mr. Crocker and General
Petraeus.
One example is growing concern over the commission that has been set up to
organize provincial elections. There are allegations that the political
parties have divided up the seats on the commission by party, but that not
all parties ended up with a place at the table, raising questions about
whether a vote will be viewed as fair or will merely deepen divisions.
And, still left out of the political bargain are the newly formed Awakening
Councils, which are predominantly Sunni and in many cases represent powerful
tribes. They have taken the lead in fighting extremist Sunni groups, and now
their leaders are clamoring for a place at the table. They are outraged that
the Iraqi Islamic Party, which is Sunni but has limited grass-roots support,
dominates the provincial council in Anbar Province.
“In Anbar Province we want the provincial council disbanded and another one
formed, we want elections to be held in March or April and we want the Iraqi
Islamic Party to leave the province in 30 days,” said Sheik Ali Hatem, one
of the leaders of the Anbar Awakening, who survived a suicide bomb attack
this week.
On the amnesty law, much will hinge on the formation of a “competent
committee” which will be charged with reviewing cases that had languished
without review or charges. But detainees accused of any one of a long list
of crimes would be excluded from the amnesty.
How the committee chooses to interpret the word “accused” — whether in the
formal sense of charges being filed or the informal sense of people
suspected of connection to such crimes — could alter considerably how many
people remain in jail. Human rights experts said that at least on its face,
the law appeared to have been written to free a large number of people.
Several legislators emphasized after the voting on Wednesday that achieving
true sectarian reconciliation was far more complex than simply passing a
law.
“Reconciliation will hang on more than a law, it needs political will,” said
Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni legislator. “I believe there is no political will
to achieve reconciliation. The law of amnesty is good, but not enough.”
Abeer Mohammed contributed reporting.
La N.
> >
> how many more Americans should die to put a shiite fundamentalist
> government in power in Iraq?
>
Vince, you know you're just trollin' for the usual suspects to post
stats demonstrating that more Americans die in bicycle accidents or
some such per year than have died in Iraq ... ;)
- nilita
Vince
But we send patriotic Americans to die in Iraq. Makes a difference
Vince
Ray O'Hara
> As Senator Joe Lieberman has noted, the Democrats are invested in a
> narrative of defeat...
>
> And Gans is mired hip-deep in that narrative -- with his feet locked in
> concrete.
if mindless belief in victory was enough hitler would have won.
Colin Campbell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
>dinosaur.
It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
Do you know the difference?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
a.spencer3
Surreyman
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:xo2tj.487$9l1....@eagle.america.net...
a.spencer3
Surreyman
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:b_4tj.496$9l1....@eagle.america.net...
a.spencer3
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
> >dinosaur.
>
> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>
> Do you know the difference?
>
Do please show me the difference.
Surreyman
D. Spencer Hines
or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies.
"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined
by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined
Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very
principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our
best and strongest," Lieberman continued.
Lieberman — who has run for the top spot in the Oval Office as well as the
No. 2 — is unique in the Senate, having won re-election last year following
a Democratic primary election defeat tinged with anti-war sentiment. He ran
a rare successful independent campaign by stumping largely on his foreign
policy stance in support of the Iraq war and against terrorism. Lieberman
has maintained his Democratic affiliation, caucusing in the Senate with
Democrats.
On Thursday, Lieberman waxed nostalgic over foreign policy giants Democrats
like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy, but said that after
Vietnam, it took until the Clinton administration to regain an
internationalist, interventionist attitude among Democrats.
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Yale College '64
Yale Law School '67
J A
> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
> President Bush in particular,"
The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
D. Spencer Hines
partisanship."
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the
progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to
begin drawing down our troops there."
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut -- Real American
Colin Campbell
Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
are not.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
Vince
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
>> message news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
>>>> dinosaur.
>>> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>>>
>>> Do you know the difference?
>>>
>> Do please show me the difference.
>
> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
> are not.
nonsense
philosophers have spent millenia on the issue of fact and opinion.
Quantification doesn't even enter into it
cogito ergo sum
Vince
J A
underscore)> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
> >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
> >> President Bush in particular,"
>
> >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
> >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
> >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
That's a reply that shows your usual cluelessness. Have you ever
heard of Shinseki, for a start?
From: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86309/michael-c-desch/bush-and-the-generals.html
" The Bush administration arrived in Washington resolved to reassert
civilian control over the military -- a desire that became even more
pronounced after September 11. Rumsfeld vowed to "transform" the
military and to use it to wage the global war on terrorism. When they
thought military leaders were too timid in planning for the Iraq
campaign, Bush administration officials did not hesitate to overrule
them on the number of troops to be sent and the timing of their
deployment. And when the situation in Iraq deteriorated after the fall
of Baghdad, tensions flared again.
Retired generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation; there is
reportedly such deep concern among the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
about the Bush administration's plans to use nuclear weapons in a
preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure that some of
them have threatened to resign in protest; and the Bush
administration's "surge" now has tens of thousands of more troops
going to Iraq against the advice of much of the military. "
J A
> "Lieberman said Democrats aren't being guided by principle, but
> partisanship."
>
> "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency
> strategy is succeeding,
I know what Israel is getting out of the US being mired in Iraq.
I know what the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites are getting out of the US
being mired in Iraq.
What is the US getting out of the US being mired in Iraq?
Let's be clear, we're paying the Sunni tribes to lay off of us and go
after AQ. That's fine with me, but don't pretend its the Normandy
breakout.
>Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a
> narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the
> progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to
> begin drawing down our troops there."
>
> Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut -- Real American
I think it's clear that he's invested in the US serving Israeli
interests, even at the expense of US interests.
J A
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
> >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
> >> President Bush in particular,"
>
> >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
> >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
> >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86309-p20/michael-c-desch/bush-and-the-generals.html
" The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the early stages of the
global war on terrorism in Afghanistan imposed a temporary truce
between Rumsfeld and senior military leaders. But as the Bush
administration made clear that it considered Iraq the next front -- a
view most military professionals did not share -- this truce broke
down. In the face of what they saw as military intransigence, Rumsfeld
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz showed little
compunction about meddling in such issues as the number of troops
required and the phasing of their deployments for Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The clearest display of civilian willingness to override the
professional military on tactical and operational matters was
Wolfowitz's cavalier dismissal of troop-requirement estimates by
General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff. In congressional
testimony in February 2003, Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's assessment
that the United States would need in excess of "several hundred
thousand troops" for postwar stability operations as "wildly off the
mark." Wolfowitz got his way.
When those "postwar" operations ran into trouble, finger-pointing and
mutual recriminations between recently retired generals and civilian
leaders in the Bush administration brought the persistent fault lines
in U.S. civil-military relations to the fore. Lieutenant General
Gregory Newbold, former JCS director of operations, wrote, in a
searing piece in Time, that it was his "sincere view ... that the
commitment of [U.S.] forces to this fight was done with a casualness
and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had
to execute these missions -- or bury the results." Newbold joined a
raft of other recently retired generals -- including General Anthony
Zinni (former head of Central Command), Major General Paul Eaton
(former head of the Iraqi training mission), Major General John Riggs
(former head of the army's transformation task force), and Major
Generals Charles Swannack and John Batiste (former division commanders
in Iraq) -- in calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. According to a
Military Times poll, 42 percent of U.S. troops disapprove of President
Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. "
J A
underscore)> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Colin Campbell" <activated_...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >messagenews:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
> >> >dinosaur.
>
> >> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>
> >> Do you know the difference?
>
> >Do please show me the difference.
>
> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
> are not.
Can you tell us from where you came up with that?
Billzz
news:9ae6a957-5c05-4a2b...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 7:29 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
underscore)> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't
> >> pacifism
> >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general,
> >> and
> >> President Bush in particular,"
>
> >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
> >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
> >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86309-p20/michael-c-desch/bush-and-the-generals.html
I may be missing something, but this is what I read, before reading the
article....
Michael C. Desch holds the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and
National Security Decision-Making at Texas A&M's George H. W. Bush School of
Government and Public Service.
...so maybe there is a little "truth-in-lending" missing here. Gates is now
the SECDEF and the writer's whole position in life is dependant upon the
Bush family. So why would I read this without a huge wonderment as to a
conflict of interest???
Here is Gate's bio. You might wonder exactly what is in his background that
qualifies him to run a ground war. The answer is nothing, except that he is
loyal.
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=115
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> "J A" <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9ae6a957-5c05-4a2b...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 7:29 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
>
>
>
> underscore)> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't
> > >> pacifism
> > >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general,
> > >> and
> > >> President Bush in particular,"
>
> > >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
> > >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
> > >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> > The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> > cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
>
Spencer of Surrey not Hines,
I am not going to go back into the micromanagement of the Iraq
occupation. I want to state the general premise that the war has been
waged with borrowed money. When the dollar falls far enough and the
economy is in the tar pit of recession, we will not find substantial
lenders
but will have to rely on inflationary paper value to finance the wars.
Allen Greenspan knew the housing market was a house of cards but he
was under political pressure to downplay all the rotten mortgage
loans.
The current FRB chairman can come under the same kind of pressure
either by this administration or the next. The economically sound
thing
to do is to start cutting back now. The longer we wait to adjust to
the
dollar's decline, the greater the damage to our economy.
The majority of Muslims in the world want detente with the West. Our
exit from the sectarian impasse in the Middle East is not a retreat
from
the retributive justice we require for Al Qaeda's crimes against
Muslims
as well as humanity in general. Bush will end his term with two
inconclusive
wars in progress.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a.spencer3
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >message news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
> >> >dinosaur.
> >>
> >> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
> >>
> >> Do you know the difference?
> >>
> >
> >Do please show me the difference.
>
> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
> are not.
>
You don't think there's a quantifiable mess in Iraq?
Surreyman
John Briggs
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jante...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't
>>> pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans
>>> in general, and President Bush in particular,"
>>
>> The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of
>> most nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
>> honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
Would you really consider 'cashiered' an accurate term?
--
John Briggs
La N
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:3da8b$47b68351$9440b19b$90...@STARBAND.NET...
> > . According to a
> Military Times poll, 42 percent of U.S. troops disapprove of President
> Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. "
>
Yup, I had read that too in the Military Times. This brought home the point
to me that by criticizing GWB, one is *not* demoralizing the troops, as some
would have us believe at one time ...
- nilita
J A
> "J A" <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9ae6a957-5c05-4a2b...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 7:29 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
>
>
>
>
>
> underscore)> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't
> > >> pacifism
> > >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general,
> > >> and
> > >> President Bush in particular,"
>
> > >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
> > >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
> > >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>
> > The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
> > cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
>
>
> I may be missing something, but this is what I read, before reading the
> article....
>
> Michael C. Desch holds the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and
> National Security Decision-Making at Texas A&M's George H. W. Bush School of
> Government and Public Service.
>
> ...so maybe there is a little "truth-in-lending" missing here.
That's a little strange. Do you think the writer was lying when he
wrote about the conflicts between the Bush regime and the senior
generals? That was the point being addressed.
He was writing in one of the most prestigious publications around. Do
you think he was endearing himself and Gates, to Bush, by rolling out
crticisms of the Bush regime?,
> Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. "- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
J A
> The Democrats As Defeatists.
From a long article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-the-us-really-bringing-stability-to-baghdad-782425.html
"""" The problem in Iraq is that the agenda is driven not by what is
really happening, but by the perception in America of what is
happening," Ahmad Chalabi, veteran of the opposition to Saddam and one
of the most astute observers of the Iraqi scene, told me. A problem is
that US politicians and commentators assume far greater American
control of events in Iraq than is the case. The US is the most
powerful player there, but it is by no means the only one.
The dramatic change of sides of Sunni guerrilla organisations such as
the "1920 Revolution Brigades" and the "Islamic Army" came about for
many reasons. In Anbar province west of Baghdad (perhaps one-third of
Iraq by area), the Sunni tribes had become enraged by al-Qa'ida's
attempt to establish total dominance, and to replace or murder
traditional leaders and set up a Taliban-type state. But the Sunni
community could also see that, although its guerrilla war was
effective against the US, it was being defeated by the Shia who
controlled the Iraqi government and armed forces after the elections
of 2005.
The only source of money in Iraq is oil revenues, and the only jobs -
four million, if those on a pension are included - are with the
government. The Shia, in alliance with the Kurds, controlled both.
"The Sunni people found that the only way to be protected from the
Shia was to be allied to the Americans," said Kassim Ahmed Salman, a
well-educated Sunni from west Baghdad. "Otherwise we were in a
hopeless situation. For the last two years it has been possible for
Sunni to be killed legally [by death squads covertly supported by the
government] in Baghdad."
The "surge" - the 30,000 extra US troops implementing a new security
plan in Baghdad - has helped to make Baghdad safer. In effect, they
have frozen into place the Shia victory of 2006. The city is broken up
into enclaves sealed off by concrete walls with only one entrance and
exit.
Areas that were once mixed are not being reoccupied by whichever
community was driven out. Bassim can no more reclaim, or even visit,
his house in the Jihad district of Baghdad than he could a year ago.
He can still work as a taxi driver only in Sunni areas. The US
military and the Iraqi government are wary of even trying to reverse
sectarian cleansing because this might break the present fragile
truce.
"People say things are better than they were," says Zanab Jafar, a
well-educated Shia woman living in al-Hamraa, west Baghdad, "but what
they mean is that they are better than [during] the bloodbath of 2006.
The situation is still terrible."
Baghdad still feels and looks like a city at war. There are
checkpoints everywhere. "You seldom see young girls walking in the
streets, or in restaurants," adds Zanab Jafar, "because their families
are terrified they will be kidnapped, so they send private cars to
pick them up directly from school." New shops open, but they are
always in the heart of districts controlled by a single community
because nobody wants to venture far from their home to shop.
For all the talk of Baghdad being safer, it remains an extraordinarily
dangerous place. One Western security company is still asking $3,000
to pick a man up at the airport and drive him six miles to his hotel
in central Baghdad. The number of dead bodies being picked up by the
police every morning in the capital is down to three or four when once
it was 50 or 60. """
Fred J. McCall
:
:Allen Greenspan knew the housing market was a house of cards but he
:was under political pressure to downplay all the rotten mortgage
:loans.
Please explain just what kind of 'political pressure' can be applied
to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
:
:The current FRB chairman can come under the same kind of pressure
:either by this administration or the next.
:
Again, please explain just what kind of 'political pressure' can be
applied to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
:
:The economically sound thing to do is to start cutting back now.
:
Uh, cutting back on WHAT, precisely? Just what do you think can be
'cut back' that fixes the mortgage mess?
:
:The longer we wait to adjust to the
:dollar's decline, the greater the damage to our economy.
:
Totally different issue requiring totally different policy
prescriptions. It has nothing to do with the mortgage mess or the
Federal Reserve Board.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
J A
> On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> > The Democrats As Defeatists.
>
Another extract from the above article.. John McCain was right when
he said we could there for another 100 years (or until we run out of
money).
"" In his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke of the
80,000 Awakening Council members - also labelled "concerned local
citizens", as if they were respectable householders who have taken up
arms against "terrorists".
The picture Bush evoked is similar to that often seen in Hollywood
Westerns when outraged townsfolk and farmers, driven beyond endurance
by the crimes of a corrupt sheriff or saloon owner and their bandit
followers, rise in revolt. In reality, in Iraq the exact opposite has
happened. The Awakening Council members of today are the "terrorists"
of yesterday.
Even the police chief of Fallujah, Colonel Feisal, the brother of Abu
Marouf, cheerfully explained that until he was promoted to his present
post in December 2006 he was "fighting the Americans". Abu Marouf is
threatening to go back to war or let al-Qa'ida return unless his
13,000 men receive long-term jobs in the Iraqi security services. The
Iraqi government has no intention of allowing this because to do so
would be to allow the Sunni and partisans of Saddam Hussein's regime
to once again hold real power in the state.
Bizarrely, the US is still holding hundreds of men suspected of
contacts with al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, while in Iraq
many of the Awakening members are past and, in many cases, probably
current members of al-Qa'ida being paid by the US Army.
"I knew a young man, aged 17 or 18," says Kassim Ahmed Salman, "who
was a friend of my brother and used to carry a PKC [a Russian light
machine-gun] and fight for al-Qa'ida. I was astonished to see him a
few days ago in al-Khadra where he is a lieutenant in al-Sahwa,
standing together with Iraqi army officers."
The present state of Iraq is highly unstable, but nobody quite wants
to go to war again. It reminds me of lulls in the Lebanese civil war
during the 1970s and 1980s, when everybody in Beirut rightly predicted
that nothing was solved and the fighting would start again. In Iraq
the fighting has never stopped, but the present equilibrium might go
on for some time. """
Fred J. McCall
:
:Yup, I had read that too in the Military Times. This brought home the point
:would have us believe at one time ...
I'd be interested in you pointing out anyone sane making such a claim.
But you won't...
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Colin Campbell
I notice that you completely failed to provide how you distinguish
between a fact and an opinion.
More hot air from you?
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>On Feb 15, 7:27 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
Simply the rule of thumb I use.
How do you distinguish between what you consider to be a fact and what
you consider to be an opinion?
Colin Campbell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message news:2ficr3th14atbulgp...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
>> >message news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
>> >> >dinosaur.
>> >>
>> >> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know the difference?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do please show me the difference.
>>
>> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
>> are not.
>>
>
>You don't think there's a quantifiable mess in Iraq?
Well, why don't you provide the measurable things that you feel would
be relevant and see what we can come up with.
Areas with an active AQ presence?
Number of AQ attacks a month?
Number of Iraqi police on duty?
Number of bills passed by the Iraqi parliament?
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>On Feb 15, 7:29 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
>underscore)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:30 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism
>> >> or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and
>> >> President Bush in particular,"
>>
>> >The same could be said for senior American generals, diplomats of most
>> >nations, climatology scientists, people who value competence and
>> >honesty, people who dislike hypocrisy, and so on.
>>
>> The only 'senior general' who seems to think this is the one who was
>> cashiered for incompetence during the Clinton era (Wesley Clark).
>
>That's a reply that shows your usual cluelessness. Have you ever
>heard of Shinseki, for a start?
Yes I heard of Shenseki (I even met him when he was a one-star). Him
and Rumsfeld did not get along.
I will say that I feel that the biggest mistake that President Bush
made was not firing Rumsfeld back in 2003.
La N
Well, I hate to say it, Vince et al, but Colin has a point here.
When you say things are a "mess", you are using an emotionally laden word
and, as such, these kinds of words/thoughts/emotions/statements, not backed
up by data, suggest a lack of critical thinking and are thus ... ta da ....
*opinions*.
Now, give it a go, and provide some substantive data that backs up your
feelings that Iraq is a "mess".
- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
Brannigan needs to back up his OPINIONS with METRICS.
Campbell is correct.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B9Ftj.27227$w57.15138@edtnps90...
John Briggs
Bigger than appointing him in the first place?
--
John Briggs
Vince
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:13:18 -0500, Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>>>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be
>>>>>> some sort of dinosaur.
>>>>> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know the difference?
>>>>>
>>>> Do please show me the difference.
>>> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions
>>> generally are not.
>> nonsense
>>
>> philosophers have spent millenia on the issue of fact and opinion.
>> Quantification doesn't even enter into it cogito ergo sum
>
> I notice that you completely failed to provide how you distinguish
> between a fact and an opinion.
>
> More hot air from you?
I suggest a course in epistemolgy aka Erkenntnistheorie
What you are calling a fact they call a "belief"
I teach evidence , which is a partial analysis of the fact/opinion
dichotomy
In my analysis you cannot normally distinguish fact from opinion except
within a specific given context.
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
Were they all having vigorous disagreements with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
regarding Strategy, Operational Deployments and Tactics IN 2003?
Pace didn't seem to think so.
DSH
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:ie7er31j6f8cjq1lc...@4ax.com...
Vince
I didn't make that claim
I only responded on the issue of fact and opinion.
It's an area I teach
Vince
J A
underscore)> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:03:14 -0800 (PST), J A <jantero...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 7:27 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@gmail.com (remove
> >underscore)> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>
> >> <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Colin Campbell" <activated_...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >> >messagenews:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> >> <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort of
> >> >> >dinosaur.
>
> >> >> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
>
> >> >> Do you know the difference?
>
> >> >Do please show me the difference.
>
> >> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
> >> are not.
>
> >Can you tell us from where you came up with that?
>
> Simply the rule of thumb I use.
>
> How do you distinguish between what you consider to be a fact and what
> you consider to be an opinion?
A fact is something for which there is a lot of evidence. Sometimes
numbers are involved, sometimes not.
2+2=4 is a fact.
Corporate accounting is always presented in numbers, but the results
are only approximations of reality and often are in the realm of
"opinions".
There are advanced concepts in mathematics that are also expressed in
numbers, but that are unproven to be true, and are not considered to
be "facts".
It's a fact that flu viruses mutate and that's why people get flu
shots yearly. No numbers are involved.
Similarly, that evolution exists is a fact. It can be demonstrated in
the geologic record with non-numerical evidence.
The word "fact" is probably used in law more than any other area, but
usually it's in a qualitative context.
Some people think ghosts, angels and other supernatural beings are a
fact, but since there's no evidence, it's just an opinion.
La N
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:U46dnSL5wPo9uyra...@comcast.com...
Ah! Okay. Obviously I haven't been reading the whole thread
Then, it was surreyman making an "opinion", as opposed to a "fact" and he,
who needs to back up his opinions with facts of his own.
- nilita
Vince
> D'accord.
>
> Brannigan needs to back up his OPINIONS with METRICS.
>
> Campbell is correct.
>
> DSH
>
this is silly
I was merely posting on the fact opinion dichotomy
as an example look at this cite
http://www.anvil-art.co.uk/media_pics/anvil5a.jpg
If I ask "what is it/" is your response a statement of fact or opinion
Exactly what "metric" is in your answer?
Vince
J A
> D'accord.
>
> Brannigan needs to back up his OPINIONS with METRICS.
"METRICS" - hilarrrrrrrrrious - obvious Rummy-speak.
Hines wants Rumsfailed back - probably as POTUS!!!
J A
> Horsefeathers.
>
> Contrary to fact.
>
> Defeatist...
>
> Culled from boilerplate Democrat talking points.
Vince
Actually metrics is a perfectly good word, it's simply wrong.
Vince
J A
With the objective of stopping Islamic terrorism from hitting the US,
how do you want to pursue that objective?
It's obvious that the best ways involve not creating new terrorist
recruits and not spending horrendous economy damaging amounts of
money, in the process.
So what do you reccomend?
No serious person thinks what we have been doing is optimal.
Billzz
news:b2434e8f-aedc-4670...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
----------
There does not seem to be any left magin carets above, so note that the
words above are from "JA" and the words below are from "Billzz."
----------
Yes, that's right, it is strange. He's not addressing the Bush management,
he's addressing the former SECDEF and his assistant (both "fired") as though
the buck stopped below the White House.
My truth-in-lending is that I was the US Army's project manager to develop
their first computer-graphics based, three sided, interactive wargame to
assess contingency plans. One of a number of force-structuring models that
the army runs to determine the force structure for any given contingency.
It would have been the Chief of Staff of the army, Gen. Shinseki, who would
have proposed the ground force structure. It probably said (but I don't
actually know because I retired in 1985) that the ground forces (including
combat, combat support, combat service support, and civil affairs) was maybe
(I don't know) about 500,000 troops.
That number (especially the support structure) was cut, trying to do it on
the cheap, and the result was the dragging out of the operation, exactly
like Vietnam, although the armed forces said, after Vietnam that they did
not want to do that again, and came up with a policy of overwhelming force
structure, operating fast, within the enemy decision cycle, and getting it
over quickly. BUT, instead of the knockout punch, in the first round, they
are now slugging it out for fifteen rounds, just like Vietnam. No one seems
to have noticed that both Cheney and Rumsfeld returned to do again, what
they had done with Vietnam.
So the fact that there is not enough force structure, on the ground
(confirmed by the inadequate "surge" - read escalation) is to be laid at the
feet of the departed SECDEF - and saying but we're doing all right now
(shades of Vietnam.) We are to believe that the criticism is only at the
dearly departed, and not at the currently present, who have not reversed
much of the departed's policy, which incidentally, since the SECDEF is only
the principal advisor, means that the new SECDEF is keeping to the old
SECDEFs force structuring decisions.
Anyway, I think the whole article is strange. Why it was written, I do not
know. Incidentally, Texas A&M has a mixed reputation as a hotbed of
intellectual activity. When I was a battalion commander, my division
artillery commander noted that of his four battalions, mine had the highest
number of texas Aggies - five. Then he paused and added, "I suppose I
should give you some kind of handicap."
----------------
J A
Well, I posted the piece backing up an assertion that senior US
generals didn't/don't think much of Bush and his regime.
You seem to treating the article as limiting criticism to Rumsfeld, as
Defense Secretary.
Rumsfeld, in theory, was President Bush's subordinate. In practice,
Bush is of such a low and small caliber that he was being "handled" by
Cheney, Rumsfeld etc., and could not exercise overview and command
over them.
Credible reporting has it that Bremer's firing of the Iraqi military/
security forces was news to Bush, and that he and Condi were unaware
of the lack of unity of command in Iraq regarding State and Defense.
In any case, no President can be considered immune from the failures
of his appointees, especially long lived and systematic failures.
You seem to think that since the generals wanted Rumsfeld to resign,
but weren't calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment, that they
think he's just fine.
They were being "politic".
"" The Bush administration arrived in Washington resolved to reassert
civilian control over the military -- a desire that became even more
pronounced after September 11. Rumsfeld vowed to "transform" the
military and to use it to wage the global war on terrorism. When they
thought military leaders were too timid in planning for the Iraq
campaign, Bush administration officials did not hesitate to overrule
them on the number of troops to be sent and the timing of their
deployment. And when the situation in Iraq deteriorated after the fall
of Baghdad, tensions flared again. Retired generals called for
Rumsfeld's resignation; there is reportedly such deep concern among
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) about the Bush administration's plans
to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear
infrastructure that some of them have threatened to resign in protest;
and the Bush administration's "surge" now has tens of thousands of
more troops going to Iraq against the advice of much of the
military. """
J A
>
> Yes, that's right, it is strange. He's not addressing the Bush management,
> he's addressing the former SECDEF and his assistant (both "fired") as though
> the buck stopped below the White House.
The Sec of Def IS Bush management.
Also, there has been a great deal of direct criticsm of Bush by senior
US generals, which is the point that I was backing up with the Foreign
Affairs article.
It's strange to have to be proving this point with all the exposure
this subject has had in recent years.
The Generals Speak
Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq
PAUL ALEXANDERPosted Nov 03, 2004 12:00 AM
The nineteen months since the war in Iraq began, some of the most
outspoken critics of President Bush's plan of attack have come from a
group that should have been the most supportive: retired senior
military leaders. We spoke with a group of generals and admirals that
included a former supreme Allied commander and a former chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, and they all agreed on one thing: Bush screwed up.
Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the
situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we
need. As a consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum.
We are losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day;
wounded, about four or five times that, and perhaps half of these
wounds are very serious. And we are also sustaining gunshot wounds,
when, before, we'd mostly been seeing massive trauma from remotely
detonated charges. This means the other side is standing and fighting
in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of the conflict.
The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a
fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and
vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with
oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind
him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary
Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included;
certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real
experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart,
and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them
doubly dangerous.
The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam have been overblown, because we
were in Vietnam for a decade and it cost us 58,000 troops. We've been
in Iraq for nineteen months and we're still under 1,200 killed. But
there is one sense in which the parallel with Vietnam is valid. The
American people were told that to win the Cold War we had to win
Vietnam. But we now know that Vietnam was not only a diversion from
winning the Cold War but probably delayed our winning it and made it
cost more to win. Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror in exactly
the same way Vietnam was a diversion to the Cold War.
Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director,
1977-81
I think we are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on
Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the
International Zone without being heavily armored. I think we are in
trouble because we were so slow in terms of reconstruction and
reconstituting the military and police forces. We have lost the
support of the Iraqi people who were glad to see Saddam go. But they
are not glad to see an outside force come in and replace him without
demonstrating we are going to provide them with security and rebuild
their economy. I am very frustrated. Having a convincing rationale for
going in gives our troops a sense of purpose. Whatever you call it,
this is now an insurgency using the techniques of terrorism. With the
borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in all, Iraq is a
failure of monumental proportions.
Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner
we leave, the less the damage. In the months since the invasion, the
U.S. forces have become involved in trying to repress a number of
insurgency movements. This is the way we were fighting in Vietnam, and
if we keep on fighting this way, this one is going to go on a long
time too. The idea of creating a constitutional state in a short
amount of time is a joke. It will take ten to fifteen years, and that
is if we want to kill ten percent of the population.
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major
combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to
methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great
humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the
aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses
and flowers.
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of
Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with
350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat
the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew
that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely
uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the
situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the
borders to keep terrorists from coming in.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-
component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had
participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened
between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't
know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though
General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original
number.
Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of
the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything,
Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment
was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of
mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket
rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies
and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N.
authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was
being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not
taking him out.
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
From the beginning, i was asked which side I took, Shinseki's or
Rumsfeld's. And I said Shinseki. I mean, Rumsfeld proudly announced
that he had told General Franks to fight this war with different
tactics in which they would bypass enemy strongholds and enemy
resistance and keep on moving. But it was shocking to me that the
secretary of defense would tell the Army how to fight. He doesn't know
how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within
civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major
objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed
military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that
Rumsfeld would presume to tell four-star generals, in the Army thirty-
five years, how to do their jobs.
Now here's another thing that Rumsfeld did. As he was being briefed on
the war plan, he was cherry-picking the units to go. In other words,
he didn't just approve the deployment list, he went down the list and
skipped certain units that were at a higher degree of readiness to go
and picked units that were lower on the list -- for reasons we don't
know. But here's the impact: Recently, at an event, a mother told me
how her son had been recruited and trained as a cook. Three weeks
before he deployed to Iraq, he was told he was now a gunner. And they
gave him training for three weeks, and then off he went.
Rumsfeld was profoundly in the dark. I think he really didn't
understand what he was doing. He miscalculated the kind of war it was
and he miscalculated the interpretation of U.S. behavior by the Iraqi
people. They felt they had been invaded. They did not see this as a
liberation.
As for the recent news about the 380 tons of explosives that
disappeared, it's irrelevant when they disappeared. This was known by
the International Atomic Energy Agency as a site to be watched. Here
is the issue: Bush tried to turn this into a political matter instead
of answering questions about why he didn't follow the warnings of the
IAEA. It was another example of Bush being a cheerleader instead of a
leader. Nothing in Iraq was guarded except for the oil fields, which
tells you why we were there. There are any number of indications that
with a larger troop strength we would have been able to deal with such
sites. Here is my other concern: The IAEA gave us a list of sites to
be watched, so there may have been other dumps that were looted. After
all, you don't just put one item on a list.
So what do we do? I think it would be very irresponsible for us to
simply pull out. It sounds like a very simple solution, but it would
have some complexity and danger attached. Still, Iraq is a blood bath,
and we need to be dealing with this in a much more sophisticated way
than the cowboy named Bush.
Gen. Wesley Clark
NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
Troop strength was not the only problem. We got into this mess because
the Bush administration decided what they really wanted to do was to
invade Iraq, and then the only question was, for what reason? They
developed two or three different reasons. It wasn't until the last
minute that they came up and said, "Hey, by the way, we are going to
create a wave of democracy across the Middle East." That was February
of 2003, and by that time they hadn't planned anything. In October of
2003, Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo asking questions that should have
been asked in 2001: Do we have an overall strategy to win the war on
terror? Do we have the right organization to win the war on terror?
How are we going to know if we are not winning the war on terror? As
it has turned out, the guys on the ground are doing what they are told
to do. But let's ask this question: Have you seen an American
strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I
can't imagine when the last one was. And it's not just about troop
strength. I mean, you will fail if you don't have enough troops, but
simply adding troops won't make you succeed.
Adm. William Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89
We screwed up. we were intent on a quick victory with smaller forces,
and we felt if we had a military victory everything else would fall in
place. We would be viewed not as occupiers but as victors. We would
draw down to 30,000 people within the first sixty days.
All of this was sheer nonsense.They thought that once Iraq fell we'd
have a similar effect throughout the Middle East and terrorism would
evaporate, blah, blah, blah. All of these were terrible assumptions. A
State Department study advising otherwise was sent to Rumsfeld, but he
threw it in the wastebasket. He overrode the military and was just
plain stubborn on numbers. Finally the military said OK, and they
totally underestimated the impact the desert had on our equipment and
the kind of troops we would need for peacekeeping. They ignored
Shinseki. The Marines were advising the same way. But the military can
only go so far. Once the civilian leadership decides otherwise, the
military is obliged.
There is not a very good answer for what to do next. We've pulled out
of several places without achieving our objectives, and every time we
predicted the end of Western civilization, which it was not. We left
Korea after not achieving anything we wanted to do, and it didn't hurt
us very much. We left Vietnam -- took us ten years to come around to
doing it -- but we didn't achieve what we wanted. Everyone said it
would set back our foreign policy in East Asia for ten years. It set
it back about two months. Our allies thought we were crazy to be in
Vietnam.
We could have the same thing happen this time in Iraq. If we walk
away, we are still the number-one superpower in the world. There will
be turmoil in Iraq, and how that will affect our oil supply, I don't
know. But the question to ask is: Is what we are achieving in Iraq
worth what we're paying? Weighing the good against the bad, we have
got to get out.
D. Spencer Hines
What about Meyers, Pace, Franks, Abizaid, Sanchez and Casey?
Were they all having vigorous disagreements with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
regarding Strategy, Operational Deployments and Tactics IN 2003?
Pace didn't seem to think so.
DSH
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:bc196$47b7306b$9440b19b$11...@STARBAND.NET...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
:message news:447er3luqdc5dmuj6...@4ax.com...
:
Be careful what you pick to indicate 'mess', though, or what you'll
actually do is provide evidence that the surge is working.
--
"I've seen things so horrible you can't imagine them. And done things
I wouldn't want you to."
-- Spike, the vampire
D. Spencer Hines
ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THEIR REVOLUTION.
Now, look at just how far we have come with DEMOCRACY.
We shouldn't be so IMPATIENT with IRAQ -- as Brannigan and Gans are being.
Vince
constitution.
So we had some excuse for some of the more savage behaviors.
Iraq has no excuse for establishing a Shiite Theocracy and we should be
ashamed for creating it
Vince
La N
What do you mean "no excuse"? That's what they want obviously. They are
the majority. A helluvalot of of coalition servicemen/women died for it,
and so be it.
- nilita
La N
And, btw, undoing a couple millenia of history and enculturation in ELEVEN
YEARS? Bwwaaaahaaahaaa ... Victoria is LOL at Hines et al!
- nilita
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
:news:7JmdnQpmetDhNira...@comcast.com...
:>
:> Iraq has no excuse for establishing a Shiite Theocracy and we should be
:>
:
:What do you mean "no excuse"? That's what they want obviously. They are
:the majority. A helluvalot of of coalition servicemen/women died for it,
:and so be it.
Vinnie only likes democracy when it returns answers in agreement with
his own ideology. He thinks everyone has the right to live however
they want, just so long as it is HIS way...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Vince
No Americans should have died for a shiite theocracy
it was a bad Bush idea
Vince
Vince
Americans in this disaster
Vince
Vince
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :
> :"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> :news:7JmdnQpmetDhNira...@comcast.com...
> :>
> :> Iraq has no excuse for establishing a Shiite Theocracy and we should be
> :> ashamed for creating it
> :>
> :
> :What do you mean "no excuse"? That's what they want obviously. They are
> :the majority. A helluvalot of of coalition servicemen/women died for it,
> :and so be it.
> :
>
> Vinnie only likes democracy when it returns answers in agreement with
> his own ideology. He thinks everyone has the right to live however
> they want, just so long as it is HIS way...
>
no I just don't think it's
worth 4000 american lives to give Iran a shiite government next door
Vince
La N
I don't think it was the outcome that was hoped for, that's for sure.
- nilita
La N
Added to that, I think that the Bush Administration - and Hines - was hoping
for a Jeffersonian democracy. I most certainly do not see *that* happening
in our lifetime.
- nilita
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Allen Greenspan knew the housing market was a house of cards but he
> :was under political pressure to downplay all the rotten mortgage
> :loans.
> :
>
> Please explain just what kind of 'political pressure' can be applied
> to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
>
> :
> :The current FRB chairman can come under the same kind of pressure
> :either by this administration or the next.
> :
>
> Again, please explain just what kind of 'political pressure' can be
> applied to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
>
> :
> :The economically sound thing to do is to start cutting back now.
> :
>
> Uh, cutting back on WHAT, precisely? Just what do you think can be
> 'cut back' that fixes the mortgage mess?
>
> :
> :The longer we wait to adjust to the
> :dollar's decline, the greater the damage to our economy.
> :
>
> Totally different issue requiring totally different policy
> prescriptions. It has nothing to do with the mortgage mess or the
> Federal Reserve Board.
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> -- Charles Pinckney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the opinion that Greenspan was under "political
pressure" not to advertise the shaky sub-prime mortgage loan
pyramid actually meant that he did not want to jolt Wall
Street or the administration with "bad news" just at the time he
was exiting office. The writer was saying IMHO that Mr.
Greenspan wanted this important bit of bad news to be
"exposed" preferably by his successor.
The point has already been made in the thread that our
entanglement in the Iraq religion war has sidetracked us
from the war on terror (Al Qaeda headquartered in Pakistan.)
Since this Iraqi culture of intolerance cannot be changed
by us, I think we ought to begin the withdrawal now in a
conservative way rather than wait for the Democrats to
withdraw in a radical way. The Dems will no doubt turn Iraq
into another Somalia in the fashion of "Blackhawk Down."
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a.spencer3
Why?
Opinions, by definition, don't necessarily need facts.
Non-quantifiable fact - Paris is the capital of France
Quantifiable opinion - "I feel that the 99% who said 'Yes' in the survey are
probably correct"
And, as I said before, anyone who does not consider Iraq to be a mess has to
be a dinosaur. If you want to quantify it, count the casualties.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
But that's one of the major things wrong with 'pure' democracy.
Surreyman
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Jim Cramer predicted this in May, certainly someone else in the
government saw it too.
We believed Chelabi, one that he knew what he was doing and two that
he had a following in Iraq that could govern it as a democracy.
a.spencer3
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:29:59 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:37:16 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> >> >message news:9n0ar31vh0eqi2416...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:46:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >The above is fact. Anyone who can't accept that must be some sort
of
> >> >> >dinosaur.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was not 'fact.' It was merely your opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you know the difference?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Do please show me the difference.
> >>
> >> Facts are generally quantifiable in some manner. Opinions generally
> >> are not.
> >>
> >
>
> Well, why don't you provide the measurable things that you feel would
> be relevant and see what we can come up with.
>
> Areas with an active AQ presence?
> Number of AQ attacks a month?
> Number of Iraqi police on duty?
> Number of bills passed by the Iraqi parliament?
>
Whatever the maths, any sane opinion (which you yourself stated doesn't need
quantifying) is that it's still a mess.
Is anyone in this newsgroup (apart from you and Hines) willing to say that
Iraq and the Middle East has been improved since pre-invasion?
Let's have a good old quantifiable democratic vote (of opinion, of course).
Surreyman
TMOliver
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote...
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SHFtj.27230$w57.9242@edtnps90...
>>
>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote
>> >>
>> >> your
>> >> feelings that Iraq is a "mess".
>> >>
>> >> - nilita
>> >
>> > I didn't make that claim
>> >
>> > I only responded on the issue of fact and opinion.
>> >
>> > It's an area I teach
>> >
>>
>> Ah! Okay. Obviously I haven't been reading the whole thread
>>
>> Then, it was surreyman making an "opinion", as opposed to a "fact" and
>> he,
>> who needs to back up his opinions with facts of his own.
>>
>
> Why?
>
> Opinions, by definition, don't necessarily need facts.
>
> Non-quantifiable fact - Paris is the capital of France
> Quantifiable opinion - "I feel that the 99% who said 'Yes' in the survey
> are
> probably correct"
>
> And, as I said before, anyone who does not consider Iraq to be a mess has
> to
> be a dinosaur. If you want to quantify it, count the casualties.
>
Unfortunately, Vince has an unfailing tendency to confuse his opinion with
fact. It's a professorial sort of thing, to be expected.
Is Iraq a "Mess"? In fact and in the opinion of most, yes. There's ample
blame for multilateral apportionment.
Is Kosovo a "mess"? In fact, yes. In opinion? Sadly, not enough folks
have enough exposure and adequate knowledge to form and opinion. That's a
shame, because if the Serbs dispatch troops into an area which they consider
part of their country, and the Russians do (as Putin has suggested) provide
not just material and logistics but actual support -even air support or
troops, the US and the UK (and others in NATO) will be hard pressed not to
become involved, unless they chose in the eyes of the world to become
toothless tigers, craven chickenshits, guilty of mutual failure to defend
and maintain the long voiced intentions of the alliance (or at least a hint
or two to the ethnic Albanians that NATO would support their interests.
Whose fault will that be?
I've completed a new analysis of Hillary Clinton. Finally it's clear.
She's the high school teacher that we all had (or luckily avoided),
strident, inflexible, opinionated and convinced of her capacity to order the
current and future lives of her students.
TMO
La N
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ENTtj.1126$yv1...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
However, if you say Iraq is a mess, and Colin says it's just fine, you are
both stating opinions. The critical thinker would like to see what data you
use to back up these opinions. I think Colin has attempted to throw out
statistics about decreasing violence, numbers of people who voted in the
democratic elections, etc. These are *his* standards.
You might talk about the number of casualties, refugees, lack of
electricity, etc.
btw, I agree it's a mess. And, it is my opinion invading Iraq was a bad
idea from the start.
- nilita
Fred J. McCall
:
:I think the opinion that Greenspan was under "political
:pressure" not to advertise the shaky sub-prime mortgage loan
:pyramid actually meant that he did not want to jolt Wall
:Street or the administration with "bad news" just at the time he
:was exiting office. The writer was saying IMHO that Mr.
:Greenspan wanted this important bit of bad news to be
:"exposed" preferably by his successor.
Let's let the original writer tell us what they meant. 'Political
pressure' implies to most people that it is pressure applied by
someone else.
I'd like to know how the original writer thinks that works in this
case.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:
:And, as I said before, anyone who does not consider Iraq to be a mess has to
:be a dinosaur. If you want to quantify it, count the casualties.
So WWII must have been an almighty disaster for us, then, and we
should have just stayed out. Same criterion.
William Black
"TMOliver" <tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47b84332$0$7019$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Is Kosovo a "mess"? In fact, yes. In opinion? Sadly, not enough folks
> have enough exposure and adequate knowledge to form and opinion. That's a
> shame, because if the Serbs dispatch troops into an area which they
> consider part of their country, and the Russians do (as Putin has
> suggested) provide not just material and logistics but actual
> support -even air support or troops, the US and the UK (and others in
> NATO) will be hard pressed not to become involved, unless they chose in
> the eyes of the world to become toothless tigers, craven chickenshits,
> guilty of mutual failure to defend and maintain the long voiced intentions
> of the alliance (or at least a hint or two to the ethnic Albanians that
> NATO would support their interests.
The major problem with Kosovo, as was with Chechnya, is that the country
will almost certainly be run by gangsters whose idea of a successful
economic policy is managing to get a full container of heroin, under
diplomatic seal, delivered to an embassy in a country rich enough to buy the
filthy stuff from them.
This will almost certainly be followed by someone attacking them.
I'd like to think that it'll be a wonderful opportunity for the new European
Rapid Reaction Force, but I doubt it.
Of course the rest of the Islamic world knows all this, and so they'll get
all the mutual support from their brothers in religion the Chechens got,
none...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Briggs
> government saw it too.
>
> We believed Chelabi, one that he knew what he was doing and two that
> he had a following in Iraq that could govern it as a democracy.
And who is to say that he was wrong? Presumably not even Dr Chalabi thought
that the Americans would instigate such chaos as to almost completely drive
out Iraq's substantial, educated and secular pro-Western middle class.
--
John Briggs
Jack Linthicum
I think all of his "following" showed up at that statue tipping the
first day into Baghdad.Then went on a looting spree.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,612365,00.html
"Chalabi's fall from grace began the moment he arrived in Iraq. An
exile for almost 46 of his 59 years, Chalabi, a secular Shi'ite, had
no constituency inside the country. When the CIA refused to provide
weapons to his ragtag band of mercenaries, the Pentagon armed them
over the agency's objections. Within days of their arrival, some of
Chalabi's forces claimed houses, buildings, document caches and
vehicles in Baghdad that belonged to the former regime. Eventually the
U.S. disarmed those members of the militia it could still track down.
Among Iraqis, Chalabi, dogged by charges that he mishandled U.S. funds
and convicted in absentia in 1991 of bank fraud in Jordan -- he has
always maintained his innocence -- has failed to shake his image as a
carpetbagger. Polls show that in spite of his efforts to ingratiate
himself with powerful figures like Grand Ayatullah Ali Husaini
Sistani, he remains the most mistrusted political figure in Iraq."
"Mr Chalabi and his movement are failures and are not even qualified
to run a grocery shop".
Qatari newspaper Al-Watan.
a.spencer3
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aiigr31udul66g847...@4ax.com...
> "a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> :
> :And, as I said before, anyone who does not consider Iraq to be a mess has
to
> :be a dinosaur. If you want to quantify it, count the casualties.
> :
>
> So WWII must have been an almighty disaster for us, then, and we
> should have just stayed out. Same criterion.
>
Not at all.
There were sound and provable reasons.
And much of the world was sorted in a similar time in which Iraq has been
made far worse.
Surreyman
Vince
The fantasies of the deluded litter the world landscape
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
news:47b84332$0$7019$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Unfortunately, Vince has an unfailing tendency to confuse his opinion with
> fact. It's a professorial sort of thing, to be expected.
Correct.
> I've completed a new analysis of Hillary Clinton. Finally it's clear.
> She's the high school teacher that we all had (or luckily avoided),
> strident, inflexible, opinionated and convinced of her capacity to order
> the current and future lives of her students.
Yes, but she's even worse.
She thinks she's the Superintendant of Education as well.
Then there are those two years in the Lesbian Dorm at Wellesley.
J A
> She thinks she's the Superintendant of Education as well.
>
> Then there are those two years in the Lesbian Dorm at Wellesley.
What lesbian dorm?
What evidence is there for her muff munching?
James Hogg
Colin Campbell
>> I notice that you completely failed to provide how you distinguish
>> between a fact and an opinion.
>>
>> More hot air from you?
>
>I suggest a course in epistemolgy aka Erkenntnistheorie
>
>What you are calling a fact they call a "belief"
>
>I teach evidence , which is a partial analysis of the fact/opinion
>dichotomy
>
>In my analysis you cannot normally distinguish fact from opinion except
>within a specific given context.
Answer the question.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Colin Campbell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Whatever the maths, any sane opinion (which you yourself stated doesn't need
>quantifying) is that it's still a mess.
Why? Because you say so?
>
>Is anyone in this newsgroup (apart from you and Hines) willing to say that
>Iraq and the Middle East has been improved since pre-invasion?
If enough people say the earth is flat - does this make it true?
Vince
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:55:29 -0500, Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>
>>> I notice that you completely failed to provide how you distinguish
>>> between a fact and an opinion.
>>>
>>> More hot air from you?
>> I suggest a course in epistemolgy aka Erkenntnistheorie
>>
>> What you are calling a fact they call a "belief"
>>
>> I teach evidence , which is a partial analysis of the fact/opinion
>> dichotomy
>>
>> In my analysis you cannot normally distinguish fact from opinion except
>> within a specific given context.
>
> Answer the question.
>
I did
I do realize you cannot understand the answer.
But I said
"In my analysis you cannot normally distinguish fact from opinion
except within a specific given context."
e.g. When an umpire calls a runner "out" at a base , is that a fact or
an opinion?
In the context of the game of baseball it is effectively a "fact"
In medicine, the concurrence of medical opinion creates operative facts.
So if all the pathologists look at a specimen and say its cancer,
medicine treats that as a fact
Similarly Juries find "facts" within the limited context of the legal
system
But neither facts norm opinion exist outside of a context
Got it now?
Vince
a.spencer3
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:19:47 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Whatever the maths, any sane opinion (which you yourself stated doesn't
need
> >quantifying) is that it's still a mess.
>
> Why? Because you say so?
>
>
> >
> >Is anyone in this newsgroup (apart from you and Hines) willing to say
that
> >Iraq and the Middle East has been improved since pre-invasion?
>
> If enough people say the earth is flat - does this make it true?
>
Are you willing to say that Iraq and the Middle East has been improved since
pre-invasion?
Surreyman
La N
I remember Bush saying when he won the presidency for the second time that
he promised to make the world a safer place by the time he retired. If Bush
said it, it must be true!
- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Surreyman is just angry and peeved because he's afraid to travel there
with his wife on holiday -- so he has a very pinched, selfish and parochial
perspective.
We have an excellent ally in Iraq and the situation improves daily.
The Independence of Kosovo helps too -- my CIA friends are VERY happy about
that.
Pogue Surreyman is flaunting his colossal ignorance again.
DSH
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qDbuj.880$ay3...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Are you willing to say that Iraq and the Middle East has been improved
> since
> pre-invasion?
>
> Surreyman