Re: This will be known as the year macho politics failed - mainly because it was macho politics by marshmallow men.
CB
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8Hh5h.10083$TX....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Drapes of Wrath
>
> By MAUREEN DOWD
> Published: November 11, 2006
> Washington
>
>
> Maureen Dowd.
> The new Democratic sweep conjures up an ancient image: Furies swooping
> down to punish bullies.
For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
And the enemy advances
>
> Angry winged goddesses with dog heads, serpent hair and blood eyes,
> unmoved by tears, prayer, sacrifice or nasty campaign ads, avenging
> offenses by insolent transgressors.
>
> This will be known as the year macho politics failed - mainly because it
> was macho politics by marshmallow men. Voters were sick of phony
> swaggering, blustering and bellicosity, absent competency and
> accountability. They were ready to trade in the deadbeat Daddy party for
> the sheltering Mommy party.
>
> All the conservative sneering about a fem-lib from San Francisco who was
> measuring the drapes for the speaker's office didn't work. Americans
> wanted new drapes, and an Armani granny with a whip in charge.
>
> A recent study found that the testosterone of American men has been
> dropping for 20 years, but in Republican Washington, it was running amok,
> and not in a good way. Men who had refused to go to an untenable war
> themselves were now refusing to find an end to another untenable war that
> they had recklessly started.
>
> Republicans were oddly oblivious to the fact that they had turned into a
> Thomas Nast cartoon: an unappetizing tableau of bloated, corrupt,
> dissembling, feckless white hacks who were leaving kids unprotected. Tom
> DeLay and Bob Ney sneaking out of Congress with dollar bills flying out of
> their pockets. Denny Hastert playing Cardinal Bernard Law, shielding Mark
> Foley. Rummy, cocky and obtuse as he presided over an imploding Iraq,
> while failing to give young men and women in the military the armor,
> support and strategy they needed to come home safely. Dick Cheney, vowing
> bullheadedly to move "full speed ahead" on Iraq no matter what the voters
> decided. W. frantically yelling about how Democrats would let the
> terrorists win, when his lame-brained policies had spawned more
> terrorists.
>
> After 9/11, Americans had responded to bellicosity, drawn to the image, as
> old as the Western frontier myth, of the strong father protecting the home
> from invaders. But this time, many voters, especially women, rejected the
> rough Rovian scare and divide tactics.
>
> The macho poses and tough talk of the cowboy president were undercut when
> he seemed flaccid in the face of the vicious Katrina and the vicious Iraq
> insurgency.
>
> Even former members of the administration conceded they were tired of the
> muscle-bound style, longing for a more maternal approach to the globe. "We
> were exporting our anger and our fear, hatred for what had happened,"
> Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, said in a speech
> in Australia, referring to the 9/11 attacks. He said America needed "to
> turn another face to the world and get back to more traditional things,
> such as the export of hope and opportunity and inspiration."
>
> Talking about hope and opportunity and inspiration has propelled Barack
> Obama into the presidential arena. His approach seems downright feminine
> when compared with the Bushies, or even Hillary Clinton. He languidly
> poses in fashion magazines, shares feelings with Oprah and dishes with the
> ladies on "The View." After six years of chest-puffing, Senator Obama
> seems very soothing.
>
> Because of the power of female consumers, some marketing experts predict
> we will end up a matriarchy. This year, women also flexed their muscle at
> the polls, transformed into electoral Furies by the administration's
> stubborn course in Iraq.
>
> On Tuesday, 51 percent of the voters were women, and 55 percent of women
> voted for the Democratic candidate. It was a revival of the style of Bill
> Clinton, dubbed our first female president, who knitted together a winning
> coalition of independents, moderates and suburbanites.
>
> According to The Times's exit polls, women were more likely than men to
> want some or all of the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq now, and 64
> percent of women said that the war in Iraq has not improved U.S. security.
>
> The Senate has a new high of 16 women and the House has a new high of at
> least 70, with a few races outstanding. Hillary's big win will strengthen
> her presidential tentacles.
>
> Nancy Pelosi, who will be the first female speaker, softened her voice and
> look as she cracked the whip on her undisciplined party, taking care not
> to sound shrill. When she needs to, though, she says she can use her
> "mother-of-five voice."
>
> At least for the moment, W. isn't blustering and Cheney has lost his tubby
> swagger. The president is trying to ride the Mommy vibe. He even offered
> Madame Speaker help with those new drapes.
>
>
>
jailhouserock
entertaining novelty to watch the first time, then quickly deteriorates
into being just silly and stupid afterwards....because the creatures
that are "attacking" always ends up defeated...
Callisto
Sweetheart. "Retreat" is not the same as "surrender".
In 1940 the French Governemnet **surrendered**
In 1940 the British "retreated" at Dunkirk
The difference? Retreating from an untenable position to a more
rational one paves the way to victory. Any military manual will tell
you that. It makes no sense to go on killing your own soldiers if you
are not accomplishing your goals.
Refusing to retreat leads to such bloody blunders as The Charge of the
Light Brigade or those World War I generals that sent troops regularly
on assaults of the enemy trenches to be massacred, only to send another
assault days afterawards, and another, and another.
Yes, retreat can mean defeat, but retreat is what makes a difference,
as De Gaulle put it, between losing a battle and losing a war.
Irak was the wrong battle, and we do not need to go on Charges of the
Light Brigade. We value solider's lives too highly to have the
slaughtered in order to save the pride of those who made a mistake.
Bob uecker
"Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:1163258940.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
This is just more Sour Grapes ....sore loser pissing and moaning,
CB
"jailhouserock" <backthet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163255825....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
To bad this is real. So real some elect to retreat at the sight of blood
CB
>
> In 1940 the French Governemnet **surrendered**
>
> In 1940 the British "retreated" at Dunkirk
>
> The difference? Retreating from an untenable position to a more
> rational one paves the way to victory. Any military manual will tell
> you that. It makes no sense to go on killing your own soldiers if you
> are not accomplishing your goals.
>
> Refusing to retreat leads to such bloody blunders as The Charge of the
> Light Brigade or those World War I generals that sent troops regularly
> on assaults of the enemy trenches to be massacred, only to send another
> assault days afterawards, and another, and another.
>
> Yes, retreat can mean defeat, but retreat is what makes a difference,
> as De Gaulle put it, between losing a battle and losing a war.
>
> Irak was the wrong battle, and we do not need to go on Charges of the
> Light Brigade. We value solider's lives too highly to have the
> slaughtered in order to save the pride of those who made a mistake.
Do you really think Dims will find the courage to fight with their leader
has San Fanthithco values?
Callisto
Honey, if the soldiers are in the wrong place, strategically or
tactically, name-calling people away from the front lines will not
improve their situation.
Unfortunately in wars too many soldiers die because some of their
commanders are too damn stubborn to recognize they made a mistae and
keep repeating it, in the hope that it will eventually turn out right.
Callisto
Sorry Bob, I was not discussin gthe Republican well-deserved rout, but
Irak. I was trying to be gracious to the losers, even though some of
them do not deserve it.
Yuri Nassol
>
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8Hh5h.10083$TX....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Drapes of Wrath
>>
>> By MAUREEN DOWD
>> Published: November 11, 2006
>> Washington
>>
>>
>> Maureen Dowd.
>> The new Democratic sweep conjures up an ancient image: Furies
>> swooping down to punish bullies.
>
> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
>
> And the enemy advances
Hey Chickenhawk...why don't you go fight them over there so we don't have
to fight them here?
CB
>
> Honey, if the soldiers are in the wrong place, strategically or
> tactically, name-calling people away from the front lines will not
> improve their situation.
"Honey"? Is that some kinda homo name-calling?
>
> Unfortunately in wars too many soldiers die because some of their
> commanders are too damn stubborn to recognize they made a mistae and
> keep repeating it, in the hope that it will eventually turn out right.
The only mistake was to allow the borders to as wide open as our own and to
fight door to door rather than what Clinton did from 20,000 feet in Kosovo.
America, in her Mr. Niceguy way, fighting slowly, door to door was in effect
doomed. The media instead of focusing on our Humanitarian efforts to save
lives, highlighted them for propaganda. All in an effort to turn the public
against it's own protection from Islamo-fascists.
Tomorrow they advance if Dims get their way and retreat.
CB
"Yuri Nassol" <RightWing...@TheWhiteHouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9878B6DFB...@207.115.17.102...
Hey chicken, who'll protect YOU when they get here?
>
Callisto
> >
> > Honey, if the soldiers are in the wrong place, strategically or
> > tactically, name-calling people away from the front lines will not
> > improve their situation.
>
> "Honey"? Is that some kinda homo name-calling?
Nope, It is strictly heterosexual, provided you are of the male gender
as you appear to be.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately in wars too many soldiers die because some of their
> > commanders are too damn stubborn to recognize they made a mistae and
> > keep repeating it, in the hope that it will eventually turn out right.
>
> The only mistake was to allow the borders to as wide open as our own and to
> fight door to door rather than what Clinton did from 20,000 feet in Kosovo.
>
> America, in her Mr. Niceguy way, fighting slowly, door to door was in effect
> doomed. The media instead of focusing on our Humanitarian efforts to save
> lives, highlighted them for propaganda. All in an effort to turn the public
> against it's own protection from Islamo-fascists.
>
> Tomorrow they advance if Dims get their way and retreat.
>
Honey, the one who chose to fight it this way was that genius of the
shrub. He was the one who said that we were going to bring democracy to
Irak, like that other fool, Woodrow Wilson, who tried to make the world
safe for democracy and instead made it ready for World War II.
Sid9
Dumbass, they're not coming.
Just some plain old bhus,jr lies.
Joseph Welch
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:
URGING WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7516](Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in the Record the six points that
then-Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger said should be followed before
American men and women are committed in combat or near a combat area. That
speech was November 28, 1984. The words ring as valid as they did then.
I want to put into the Record the House Republican Policy Committee
statement that was drafted yesterday. It is excellent. Also, I want to
repeat my own words in this well 8 days ago when we were discussing that
weak Somalia resolution. Listen to my words in this well a week ago Tuesday:
`Here is something very sad, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Chairman. Two Pakistani men
are MIA. Can you imagine, if these were American boys, how upset Members of
this Chamber and the U.S. Senate should be? Missing in action. Does that
mean men in some dirty little garage off a Mogadishu alley are being
tortured to death, or does it mean they are already dead, and their bodies
have been dumped down a well, or are rotting behind some blown-up building
in Mogadishu?'
Four days later, that nightmare comes true. One of our American Black Hawk
helicopter men had a handcuff on one wrist. Nobody puts handcuffs on a dead
body. They were tortured to death. Now, get 5,000 men in there and get these
Americans back and then get out.
Mr. Speaker, specifically, I believe the six tests for committing combat
forces, as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in a
November 28, 1984 speech, must be our guide. Secretary Weinberger said that
the following tests should be used to determine whether or not U.S. troops
should be sent into combat:
First. Is the situation vital to U.S. or allied national interests?
Second. Have all other options already been considered or used?
Third. Is there a clear commitment, including allocated resources, to
achieving victory?
Fourth. Are there clearly defined political and military objectives?
Fifth. Will our commitment of forces change if our objectives change?
Sixth. Will the American people and Congress support the action?
Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted
April 1, 1993
U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by
President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our
troops home.
The United States has a proud tradition of providing international
humanitarian assistance to those truly in need. Somalia is a case in point.
In the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990s, the American people and
the U.S. Government responded to famine in Somalia by bringing in massive
quantities of food and medical assistance.
In the last several months, as anarchy gripped that country and famine again
loomed on the horizon, President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to
restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to
withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation
to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has
been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton
has no intention of bringing them home. Instead, U.N. bureaucrats who want
to keep the United States in Somalia will decide their fate.
Republicans commend our Armed Forces for restoring order to Somalia and for
helping to alleviate human suffering in that country. However, we have
several deep concerns. Without appropriate congressional consultation,
President Clinton has committed thousands of U.S. military personnel to a
U.N. peacekeeping operation commanded by a foreign national for an
indefinite period of time. Our men and women in uniform will provide both
the fighting teeth and the logistical tail for this open-ended operation.
Republicans believe U.S. Armed Forces should always remain under U.S.
command. They should not be loaned to international organizations to conduct
operations with ambiguously defined objectives.
Furthermore, costs to the U.S. taxpayer continue to mount. In addition to
the $800 million in costs already incurred by the U.S., President Clinton
has just committed the taxpayers to another half billion dollars.
The United States is the world's only superpower, but this does not mean we
are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe
that President Bush's commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be
fulfilled.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:14:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
PRESIDENT URGED TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7459](Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to withdraw American forces
from Somalia.
I could not be more outraged at the atrocities committed against American
troops. We went to Somalia to relieve suffering--to feed a starving people.
They needed our help,--and we gave it to them.
The original mission has been accomplished. Yet, American troops are still
there. I would like to know why and so would the people in my district.
How many more times must we witness the bodies of our own soldiers being
dragged through Somalia's streets and being the center of barbaric
celebrations and cheering? How many more American soldiers have to die
before the mission is defined.
The people in my district want answers, they want to know what the mission
is, and why this is such a pressing national security concern. And most of
all, they want to know when their sons and daughters are coming home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to answer these questions.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:3:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
INVESTIGATION REQUIRED IN ADMINISTRATION ROLE IN SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7458](Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I attended a briefing yesterday on Somalia of House
and Senate Members led by Secretaries Aspin and Christopher, and I was
furious when I left. Never have I heard a more confused, disjointed, vague
defense of American foreign policy in my professional career.
Today we see the specter of the President and his team huddling at the White
House to determine what is our policy and what is our mission.
We accomplished our mission, to get relief to the people of Somalia. It is
now time to leave.
Now there are reports that our military leaders on the ground in Somalia
asked for tanks and APC's over a month ago. Secretary Aspin denied that
request. Those tanks would have saved that American ranger company on
Sunday.
Mr. Speaker, if these reports prove true, Secretary Aspin should tender his
resignation.
[Page: H7459]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7459](Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, Somalia is a unique opportunity for the Clinton
administration to express its U.S. foreign policy/military engagement rules
in a Third World conflict. We should not be isolationist. I supported our
role in Desert Storm. I supported the humanitarian mission in Somalia, but
that mission has been completed.
When we are going to put our troops on any foreign soil, we should, in fact,
follow three military principles.
First, we should have a clear mission statement, and we should have an end
point in which we will disengage our military. This has not happened in
Somalia, as yesterday's briefing by the Secretary proved.
Second, we should have an overwhelming military force to guarantee success
with minimum casualties. That has not happened in Somalia. In fact, we are
incrementally trying to increase our forces.
Third, we must have a force which is commanded by a U.S. military commander.
The United Nations force in Somalia in fact tried somehow to improve on what
had been a United States success story, having military commanders control
military forces. We must have that.
I believe that it was Claude Wist, a military theorist, who said, never
reinforce failure.
Today we need a disengagement plan that safely guarantees our troops out of
Somalia.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:22:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
MORE ON SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7459](Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
[Page: H7460]Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's policy in Somalia
is certainly not the Bush policy in Somalia. The Bush administration went in
there for humanitarian purposes. The Clinton administration policy, as
closely as we can figure out, is for nation building.
Every one of us, the President, Members of Congress, must indeed be held
accountable for our actions. We have a duty to get out of Somalia and to get
out of there quickly, in my judgment. I spoke out against going in there in
the first place. I voted against going in there in the first place, because
we have no vital interest in Somalia.
Now what do we find? Our troops are in combat. I call upon the President to
invoke the War Powers Act. It is the law of the land.
If the President does not invoke the War Powers Act, I call upon the
Congress to see to it that we can take action. It is the law of the land,
and it is an impeachable offense for any President to violate the law.
Get out of Somalia now.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:26:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
UNITED STATES TROOPS IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
[Page: H7460](Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, December 4, 1992, President Bush sent troops to
Somalia to secure food lines and feed the hungry and end the violence there.
In January, January 15, the warring factions of Somalia signed a pact to
disarm. In April, April 26, the United States Marines handed Somalia over to
the UN peacekeeping forces and declared, to some degree, mission
accomplished. The folks were fed.
Three times since then, President Clinton has escalated by sending more
American troops to Somalia. As recently as Monday, 200 soldiers from Fort
Stewart, GA, in my district that I represent, learned they would be going to
Somalia.
I can promise my colleagues that the soldiers from the 24th Infrantry will
do well. They are trained; they are capable. They have a great devotion to
duty. I hope that they kick Aideed's read end, and I hope they do it soon.
But aside from that, I am sure they are asking the same question my
colleagues and I are right now, as they look at the picture of Chief Warrant
Officer Durant in the paper and see his haggard and worried look.
They are saying, why are we there? How long will it last? What is at peril?
Mr. President, we owe the American people the answers to these questions.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:28:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
[Page: H7460](Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme concern for what
I see as an escalation of United States involvement in Somalia. In the wake
of mounting United States casualties, President Clinton has called for an
increased military presence in Somalia without clearly defining the purpose
of continued United States involvement.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that the mission of the United States in Somalia has
evolved into something that was never intended when the peacekeeping force
arrived 10 months ago. Somewhere along the way, the Clinton administration
changed the intent of operations in Somalia from a humanitarian hunger
relief program to an offensive mission aimed at capturing or disabling
Somali warlords to establishing a government of our liking. Consequently,
American troops are constantly at risk and, most unfortunately, some have
indeed made the ultimate sacrifice.
It is inconceivable to me how we can continue military operations in a
foreign country without a specific goal, without clear cut rules of
engagement, and without plans for eventually ceasing operations.
Mr. Speaker, the original goals have been met. Those who have served have
served nobly. But, now it is time to get American military personnel out of
Somalia.
[Page: H7461]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:32:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7461](Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the gentleman
just said. Twenty-three young Americans have been killed, 70 wounded, 8 are
missing. We have talked about this since April, bring our troops home,
before any of them were killed. Nothing has been done.
Yesterday, we had a meeting with Secretary of Defense Aspin and Secretary of
State Warren Christopher. All I can tell the Members is that there were
about 350 Members of the House and Senate that were there. I believe
everybody in that meeting felt like we were watching jello being made. They
had no plan. They had no coherent policy.
They were asking Members of Congress what we thought they should do. Imagine
that, the executive branch of Government in a situation like that, asking
330 Members of Congress in a meeting like that what they should do.
The fact of the matter is, young men and women of this country should not be
put in harm's way when we have no coherent policy. As the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] just said, send massive forces in, get our troops
out of there, the ones that are being held captive, level part of that
country, and bring our troops home.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:42:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
SOMALIA: WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
[Page: H7454](Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, day after day the Clinton administration tries to
convince the American people that troop withdrawal from Somalia is close at
hand. However, events of the last few days indicate something different.
American soldiers are fighting and dying under U.N. command on a unclear and
ill-defined mission.
During his campaign, Mr. Clinton assured the public that he would be
decisive on foreign affairs decisions that could possibly lead to United
States military involvement in situations such as Somalia.
The current White House policy has waffled, though, on the important issues,
and we have no idea where it is leading us, on such important issues as
withdrawal, and when, on the commitment of new troops, how many, building
nations or not building nations. Again, much like the other campaign
promises, the reality has not corresponded with the rhetoric.
Our mission in Somalia was very clear; we were there on a humanitarian aid
mission.
Mr. Speaker, the famine has been conquered, why are we still there? Mr.
Speaker, I ask the President to be decisive and bring our troops home safely
and immediately.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:44:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
ANOTHER VIETNAM? (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7454](Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Washington Post today, the
attack on American troops in Somalia reminds many experts of Vietnam. It's
an apt comparison.
In fact, the American Ranger company caught in the Somali crossfire suffered
70 percent casualties, a figure that officers compared to the Ia Drang
Valley battle in Vietnam.
There is another similarity. We have no clearly defined plan of action in
Somalia. American troops are simply targets for discontented Somalis.
President Clinton wants to send more troops to Somalia, but I have to ask
this question: If we do not have a plan, why do we want to send more troops
to this faraway country?
What national interest is served by having Americans boys killed in Somalia?
Mr. Speaker, the President is old enough to know how the Nation reacted to
the Vietnam war. He should know that, without a clearly defined mission, the
American people do not want to put our soldiers in danger's way. I urge the
President to develop a plan to get our troops out of Somalia, and to do it
now.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:48:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
CLINTON DOCTRINE IN SOMALIA MUDDLED AT BEST (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7455](Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's laser beam on the
economy has blown a hole in our Nation's foreign policy. The Clinton
doctrine in Somalia is muddled at best.
Our mission has expanded, but our force has contracted. As we downsize our
military, the administration embroils us in more conflict. Our military is
now expected to chase down a Somali warlord, build a nation, and establish a
brand new democracy in that strife-torn land, when what we intended to do
initially was no more than feed the starving. Well, the feeding stations
have been closed since August and our troops are still there.
In April, Republicans passed a resolution recommending the immediate
withdraw of our troops from this operation. Instead, the President chose to
stay, with no clearly defined mission.
We must urge the President to exhibit leadership, to come up with a plan to
get our troops out of Somalia. If we had acted timely, these American
families would not be grieving for their loved ones today.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:52:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
WE HAVE ACHIEVED OUR GOALS--BRING THE TROOPS HOME (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7455](Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, American lives are being lost in Somalia
because of indecision and a lack of United States policy.
The President needs to decide and decide today to bring U.S. troops back.
Our men and women there have achieved the goals of the humanitarian aid.
They met the mission set out by then President Bush with the full
consultation of then President-elect Clinton.
Do not let them languish now, engaged in a mission of nation building in a
nation which does not seem to want a central government.
Suppose Aideed is removed. In that vacuum, another warlord would only take
his place.
What is the achievable goal? Right now it should be to get out of Somalia
with all our soldiers, including the ones that have been taken prisoners,
without further American lives lost for the lack of a clear policy.
Out fighting men and women should not be the victims of an administration
whose foreign policy is watch and wait.
[Page: H7456]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:53:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
OUT NATIONAL PRIDE IS AT STAKE IN SOMALIA AND WE NEED ANSWERS (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7456](Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, our policy in Somalia is indeed troubling and
confusing to Members of Congress and to the American people. There is a
growing gap between what the United Nations wants to do and what the United
States wants to do between our military objectives and our political
objectives. We have much at stake here in our national pride and in our
foreign policy.
When Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, says
that the United Nations, quote, wants political reconciliation of that
long-suffering country, in part through the establishment of basic civic
institutions such as a functioning judiciary and police, unquote, that is
not why we sent troops over there.
However, Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is asking the right questions. In
his speech to the United Nations he said we must answer these questions:
Is there a real threat to international peace?
Does the proposed mission have clear objectives?
Can an end point be identified?
How much will this cost?
The Congress and the American people need these answers.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:54:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7456](Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Congress was stunned, and so were the
American people, to find that the administration did not have the vaguest
idea of what to do in Somalia. The briefing yesterday was, in one word,
`appalling.' This is the administration who, without any congressional
approval, put 300 American soldiers into Macedonia, next to that bloodbath
in Bosnia. The American people have the right to know with our troops in
Macedonia: First, what is their mission; second, is there a good chance for
success; third, when will we disengage; and fourth, does this mission have
the support of the American people?
To quote a liberal tabloid, Mr. Speaker, `Inquiring minds want to know.' If
the administration cannot answer these questions satisfactorily and now,
then let us remove our troops from Macedonia today, before they suffer
casualties, and then we are told by the administration we cannot extricate
ourselves without losing prestige. This is serious business.
Mr. Speaker, before the body bags start coming home from that part of the
world, we want to know what the adventurists in this administration are up
to.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:90:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
WHITE HOUSE MUST GET ITS ACT TOGETHER ON SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7458](Mr. GRAMS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is time to start pulling our troops out of
Somalia, and start putting some sense back into the White House.
After listening to Secretary's Christopher and Aspin yesterday, it is clear
the administration has no real goal or no real plan, for our continued
presence in Somalia.
Well, it is not worth having American soldiers give their lives just to save
face, for the Clinton administration.
We were right in getting into Somalia for humanitarian reasons, but that
mission has been accomplished, and it is now time to get out.
Mr. Speaker, if the Clinton administration cannot figure out what to do in
Somalia--it terrifies me to think of how they would handle a real
crisis--such as a possible bloody civil war in Russia.
Never before in history has there been a full scale civil war in the midst
of nuclear power.
If that ever happened in Russia, this Nation would face the most critical
foreign policy challenge in human history.
From what I have seen from the Clinton administration's handling of Somalia,
I have real fears about their readiness to handle such a crisis.
It is time to get out of Somalia. It is also time for the White House to get
its act together. Produce a plan that should have been detailed months ago.
The world today is too dangerous, and the stakes are too high.
--
The New Face of the Republican Party: http://tinyurl.com/o8ou9
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
CB
"Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
>
> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
> the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
> and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
The exit strategy would be, victory
Joseph Welch
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>> Hey Chickenhawk...why don't you go fight them over there so we don't have
>> to fight them here?
>
> Hey chicken, who'll protect YOU when they get here?
LOL. And how will they get here?
Sid9
> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
>>
>> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>> news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as
>>> defeat.
>>
>> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
>> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also
>> important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long
>> they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
>> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
>
> The exit strategy would be, victory
CB's wet dream continues.
Will he ever face reality?
bush,jr lost this war the day he started it.
Stop living in bush,jr's bubble....only 31% of you types left.
CB
Thank you Walter Kronkite...or 'is' it, Dan Rather?
CB
>
> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> news:dAn5h.15677$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>> Hey Chickenhawk...why don't you go fight them over there so we don't
>>> have
>>> to fight them here?
>>
>> Hey chicken, who'll protect YOU when they get here?
>
> LOL. And how will they get here?
Ever hear of a Mexican mule?
marika
CB wrote:
>
> The exit strategy would be, victory
I have yet to see it
It's a budget and resource issue, to get to the point to accomplish
victory.
How are you going to save money, in order to get to victory -- by
buying a man eating puppy. I am really confused
If you become prey and are eaten what good is an exit strategy at that
point?
mk5000
"women use what's called a pelvic tilt. When standing, the bend their
knee so it tilts their pelvis. Men can't do this because we're not
built the same way, but the tilt highlights the ratio between her hips
and her waist. A woman who has a waist 70 percent the size of her hips
gets the most looks from men"--Sean Cunningham
Joseph Welch
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> To bad this is real. So real some elect to retreat at the sight of blood
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:14:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:3:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
[Page: H7459]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:22:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:28:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
[Page: H7461]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:42:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
[Page: H7456]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:90:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
Morton Davis
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Voting Age Population. So they're now officially the 21 percenters.
Joseph Welch
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:N6w5h.142254$aJ.29358@attbi_s21...
> BTW: The Democrats got 21% of the
> Voting Age Population.
What the fuck are you talking about you radical right-wing loon?
Rich Travsky
Says the chickenhawk coward.
RT
Rich Travsky
When WHO gets here, coward?
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
> >
> > "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> > news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
> >
> > "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> > explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
> > the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
> > and when they will be withdrawn."
> > -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
>
> The exit strategy would be, victory
Rich Travsky
And they beat the republicons. So, the republicons are what? The 10 percenters?
HAHAHHAHAHA
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4556C8FF...@hotmMOVEail.com...
That's ok, we know you're still in denial. Good thing America 'is' still a
Constitutional (representitive) Republic...still
>
> RT
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
One would think so according to Walter and Dan
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> CB wrote:
>>
>> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
>> >
>> > "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >
>> >> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
>> >
>> > "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
>> > explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important
>> > for
>> > the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be
>> > involved
>> > and when they will be withdrawn."
>> > -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
>>
>> The exit strategy would be, victory
>
> Then define victory.
It sure ain't attained from conducting a PC war door to door.
--
CB
America needs Michael Savage to be her Media General
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
Fred Fazemeier
The greatest newscaster of our time is now a "lying sack of shit", according
to a speck of fly shit.
Morton Davis. Worst Person In The World.
Sid9
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Now we know what "victory" is not.
Now define victory.
Yuri Nassol
...despite your best efforts to have it otherwise, eh?
CB
"Yuri Nassol" <RightWing...@TheWhiteHouse.gov> wrote in message
No, despite Dims best effort to undermine the President just so he'll cut
and run like Spain, President Bush knows how Islamo-fascists work on the
weak minded Left and will not play to impressionism.
The impression 'is', Libs cut and run when things go wrong. Does the public
really want the 'image' of America to be seen as weak? God I prey not.
CB
What 'is' it then?
'Is' it what Spain and France define as concessionary diplomacy in the face
of war?
>
> Now define victory.
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Turns out France was right about Iraq.
Would that Bush had been so wise.
>
>>
>> Now define victory.
>
>
>
Sid9
Try again:
Define victory in Iraq:.
CB
I've defined it but yet you don't seem to catch on. Why? Because you haven't
any moral authority on Humanitarian issues nor of your own survival. That
'is', if you're an American.
You're willing to abandon America's commitment to the Iraqi people and that
of a stable government.
You'd like to see Iraq fall into the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his
Islamo-fascist well.
>
>
CB
"Lefty" <som...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JCI5h.1081$yE6...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
What about Saddamn? What about the Food for Oil Program? What about the
"Blood Money" Saddamn got in surcomventing the 'containment'?
> Would that Bush had been so wise.
As to take threats seriously? Your damn straight!
--
CB
"I am determined to succeed. And we will implement a plan to achieve
victory, which is necessary, and that they need to tell the troops that no
matter how tough it looks here in the nation's capital, that I know we're
doing the right thing, and I know we will win"
--President George W. Bush Meets with Supporters of
U.S. Military in Iraq and Afghanistan
Joseph Welch
> Now we know what "victory" is not.
>
> Now define victory.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
--
Joseph Welch
> Define victory in Iraq:.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
--
Joseph Welch
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> The impression 'is', Libs cut and run when things go wrong.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:
URGING WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7516](Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:14:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
PRESIDENT URGED TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7459](Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to withdraw American forces
from Somalia.
I could not be more outraged at the atrocities committed against American
troops. We went to Somalia to relieve suffering--to feed a starving people.
They needed our help,--and we gave it to them.
The original mission has been accomplished. Yet, American troops are still
there. I would like to know why and so would the people in my district.
How many more times must we witness the bodies of our own soldiers being
dragged through Somalia's streets and being the center of barbaric
celebrations and cheering? How many more American soldiers have to die
before the mission is defined.
The people in my district want answers, they want to know what the mission
is, and why this is such a pressing national security concern. And most of
all, they want to know when their sons and daughters are coming home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to answer these questions.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:3:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
INVESTIGATION REQUIRED IN ADMINISTRATION ROLE IN SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7458](Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I attended a briefing yesterday on Somalia of House
and Senate Members led by Secretaries Aspin and Christopher, and I was
furious when I left. Never have I heard a more confused, disjointed, vague
defense of American foreign policy in my professional career.
Today we see the specter of the President and his team huddling at the White
House to determine what is our policy and what is our mission.
We accomplished our mission, to get relief to the people of Somalia. It is
now time to leave.
Now there are reports that our military leaders on the ground in Somalia
asked for tanks and APC's over a month ago. Secretary Aspin denied that
request. Those tanks would have saved that American ranger company on
Sunday.
Mr. Speaker, if these reports prove true, Secretary Aspin should tender his
resignation.
[Page: H7459]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:22:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:26:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
UNITED STATES TROOPS IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
[Page: H7460](Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, December 4, 1992, President Bush sent troops to
Somalia to secure food lines and feed the hungry and end the violence there.
In January, January 15, the warring factions of Somalia signed a pact to
disarm. In April, April 26, the United States Marines handed Somalia over to
the UN peacekeeping forces and declared, to some degree, mission
accomplished. The folks were fed.
Three times since then, President Clinton has escalated by sending more
American troops to Somalia. As recently as Monday, 200 soldiers from Fort
Stewart, GA, in my district that I represent, learned they would be going to
Somalia.
I can promise my colleagues that the soldiers from the 24th Infrantry will
do well. They are trained; they are capable. They have a great devotion to
duty. I hope that they kick Aideed's read end, and I hope they do it soon.
But aside from that, I am sure they are asking the same question my
colleagues and I are right now, as they look at the picture of Chief Warrant
Officer Durant in the paper and see his haggard and worried look.
They are saying, why are we there? How long will it last? What is at peril?
Mr. President, we owe the American people the answers to these questions.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:28:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
[Page: H7461]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:42:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
SOMALIA: WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:48:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
CLINTON DOCTRINE IN SOMALIA MUDDLED AT BEST (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7455](Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's laser beam on the
economy has blown a hole in our Nation's foreign policy. The Clinton
doctrine in Somalia is muddled at best.
Our mission has expanded, but our force has contracted. As we downsize our
military, the administration embroils us in more conflict. Our military is
now expected to chase down a Somali warlord, build a nation, and establish a
brand new democracy in that strife-torn land, when what we intended to do
initially was no more than feed the starving. Well, the feeding stations
have been closed since August and our troops are still there.
In April, Republicans passed a resolution recommending the immediate
withdraw of our troops from this operation. Instead, the President chose to
stay, with no clearly defined mission.
We must urge the President to exhibit leadership, to come up with a plan to
get our troops out of Somalia. If we had acted timely, these American
families would not be grieving for their loved ones today.
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:52:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
WE HAVE ACHIEVED OUR GOALS--BRING THE TROOPS HOME (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7455](Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, American lives are being lost in Somalia
because of indecision and a lack of United States policy.
The President needs to decide and decide today to bring U.S. troops back.
Our men and women there have achieved the goals of the humanitarian aid.
They met the mission set out by then President Bush with the full
consultation of then President-elect Clinton.
Do not let them languish now, engaged in a mission of nation building in a
nation which does not seem to want a central government.
Suppose Aideed is removed. In that vacuum, another warlord would only take
his place.
What is the achievable goal? Right now it should be to get out of Somalia
with all our soldiers, including the ones that have been taken prisoners,
without further American lives lost for the lack of a clear policy.
Out fighting men and women should not be the victims of an administration
whose foreign policy is watch and wait.
[Page: H7456]
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:53:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
OUT NATIONAL PRIDE IS AT STAKE IN SOMALIA AND WE NEED ANSWERS (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:90:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
WHITE HOUSE MUST GET ITS ACT TOGETHER ON SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)
[Page: H7458](Mr. GRAMS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is time to start pulling our troops out of
Somalia, and start putting some sense back into the White House.
After listening to Secretary's Christopher and Aspin yesterday, it is clear
the administration has no real goal or no real plan, for our continued
presence in Somalia.
Well, it is not worth having American soldiers give their lives just to save
face, for the Clinton administration.
We were right in getting into Somalia for humanitarian reasons, but that
mission has been accomplished, and it is now time to get out.
Mr. Speaker, if the Clinton administration cannot figure out what to do in
Somalia--it terrifies me to think of how they would handle a real
crisis--such as a possible bloody civil war in Russia.
Never before in history has there been a full scale civil war in the midst
of nuclear power.
If that ever happened in Russia, this Nation would face the most critical
foreign policy challenge in human history.
From what I have seen from the Clinton administration's handling of Somalia,
I have real fears about their readiness to handle such a crisis.
It is time to get out of Somalia. It is also time for the White House to get
its act together. Produce a plan that should have been detailed months ago.
The world today is too dangerous, and the stakes are too high.
Sid9
Just as Americans have chosen their
destiny with ballots last Tuesday, I
would let Iraqis choose their destiny
with the weapons of their choice.
Get Americans out of the crossfire...*NOW*
Sid9
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:I3J5h.21688$lY5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Define victory in Iraq:.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important
> for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be
> involved and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
Funniest quote!.
Exposes the liar again.
Sid9
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:iGE5h.18608$GE1....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Now we know what "victory" is not.
>>
>> Now define victory.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important
> for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be
> involved and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
We know you can define it.
We're waiting for CB to define it.
He can't.
He like Limbaugh carries water for nush,jr and the Republicans
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
>>>>
>>>> Now define victory.
>>
>>
>> Try again:
>>
>> Define victory in Iraq:.
>
> I've defined it but yet you don't seem to catch on. Why? Because you haven't
> any moral authority on Humanitarian issues nor of your own survival. That
> 'is', if you're an American.
>
> You're willing to abandon America's commitment to the Iraqi people and that
> of a stable government.
And you're willing to PAY for your part of the Iraq debacle? I doubt it.
AWOL Bush wants another $170billion for his quagmire. I don't ever read about
you advocating a tax increase to pay for the war. How come?
America consumes 146 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Putting an $1.16 tax
on each gallon of gas would pay Bush's Iraq bill. Since you support the Iraq
war, do you support paying for it?
I sure as hell don't on either count.
>
> You'd like to see Iraq fall into the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his
> Islamo-fascist well.
>
>>
>>
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
What of Hussein? He was no worse than dictators in a couple of dozen
other countries I could name. He did have the virtue of keeping al
Qa'ida out of Iraq, and he was weak as a kitten.
>
>> Would that Bush had been so wise.
>
> As to take threats seriously? Your damn straight!
There was absolutely no threat of any kind from Iraq.
It was in all the newspapers.
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
All very vague.
>
> You're willing to abandon America's commitment to the Iraqi people
> and that of a stable government.
>
> You'd like to see Iraq fall into the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
> and his Islamo-fascist well.
First, there is no such thing as an "Islamo-fascist."
Second, Ahmadinejad is Shi'a, no friend of al Qa'ida.
Third, if it is to be democracy in Iraq, then Shi'a will dominate,
meaning Iran will be their natural ally.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Rich Travsky
Can't answer the question, I see. You must still be in denial over the election...
RT
Rich Travsky
You according to the election results.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:4556C944...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > CB wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%7l5h.15014$q45....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> >> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
> >> >
> >> > "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> >> > explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important
> >> > for
> >> > the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be
> >> > involved
> >> > and when they will be withdrawn."
> >> > -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
> >>
> >> The exit strategy would be, victory
> >
> > Then define victory.
>
> It sure ain't attained from conducting a PC war door to door.
Still waiting...
RT
Rich Travsky
HAHHAHA - meanwhile, Chimpoleon fired Dumsfeld and Poppy's guys have come in
fix the mess! HAHAHAHAHA
Rich Travsky
Still waiting...
RT
Rich Travsky
Food/oil program? You mean the one Chickenhawk Cheney's Halliburton was
involved in? HAHAHHAHAHA
> "Blood Money" Saddamn got in surcomventing the 'containment'?
What about it? Grounds for invading? Nope.
> > Would that Bush had been so wise.
>
> As to take threats seriously? Your damn straight!
AH, then why hasn't Chimpoleon invaded North Korea, which really does have a
WMD program????
RT
Rich Travsky
No, you haven't. You've whined about Spain and diplomacy, but that's it.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:iGE5h.18608$GE1....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> > Now we know what "victory" is not.
> >
> > Now define victory.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
> the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
> and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear
mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
No, 'Oil for Bribes"
...
And if it proved easy to smuggle oil out, it became just as easy to smuggle
goods in. The United States and Britain undertook a range of intensive
efforts to press Iraq's neighbors to adhere to the sanctions regime, with
mixed results. From time to time, Iran and Syria were convinced to stem the
flow. UN monitors were put on the Jordanian-Iraqi border; maritime
inspections were conducted on shipping in the Persian Gulf; Lloyds of London
maintained inspections at Jordan's Aqaba port. But these fingers in the dyke
did little to stop the trade. Turkey would not agree to bring the oil
smuggling under UN control. Repeated efforts were made to find alternative
sources of subsidized oil for Jordan from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that would
enable it to shut down the border trade. To no avail. Direct appeals by
Secretary Powell to the Syrians fell on deaf ears.
Despite the fact that the sanctions were repeatedly loosened to allow
UN-controlled export of Iraqi oil and import of humanitarian goods under the
"oil-for-food" resolutions, the smuggling only increased. Efforts by
Secretary of State Powell to introduce new means to control the smuggling as
part of his "smart sanctions" regime also failed. By this year, independent
estimates indicated that Saddam Hussein was securing between $2 and $3
billion in uncontrolled revenues that he could use to fund his
well-developed procurement machine. This combination of huge amounts of
uncontrolled revenues and porous borders means that Saddam has the means at
his disposal to pay for and import whatever WMD capabilities his agents can
lay their hands on.
...
http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/pagedefs/1a60581407dfff3c7fffe7680a1415cb.xml
>
>> "Blood Money" Saddamn got in surcomventing the 'containment'?
>
> What about it? Grounds for invading? Nope.
Then there's the Baathists who did Saddamns bidding, killing was whole sale.
But you don't care. You probably didn't care when Qusay tortured Iraqi
Olympians because of a lose.
It seems if every post doesn't contain every Evil act Saddamn and his family
of 'butchers' committed, you dismiss it as a mere indiscretion. Maybe you
could call Saddamns Evil acts just 'inappropriate', it seems to work for
Slick. Hell, Hillary even called Kerry's unedumacated insult of the troops
as merely, "inappropriate'.
>
>> > Would that Bush had been so wise.
>>
>> As to take threats seriously? Your damn straight!
>
> AH, then why hasn't Chimpoleon invaded North Korea, which really does have
> a
> WMD program????
Islamo-fascists and their supporters first
--
CB
America needs Michael Savage to be her Media General
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
>
> RT
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
There's no such thing as an "Islamo-fascist," boy. You might as well
say "bogeyman."
Just as the 2006 elections here were, the elections in Spain 2004 were
in part a referendum about the war in Iraq. Your side lost.
It seems most people are smarter than you and George, not to damn with
faint praise.
>
> The impression 'is', Libs cut and run when things go wrong. Does the
> public really want the 'image' of America to be seen as weak? God I
> prey not.
Don't use words you can't spell.
>
>
>
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. If one invades countries
because their leader is corrupt, you'd better sign up, junior.
That was worth tens of thousands of lives, eh?
We killed thousands so that hundreds wouldn't die.
>
> It seems if every post doesn't contain every Evil act Saddamn and
> his family of 'butchers' committed, you dismiss it as a mere
> indiscretion. Maybe you could call Saddamns Evil acts just
> 'inappropriate', it seems to work for Slick. Hell, Hillary even
> called Kerry's unedumacated insult of the troops as merely,
> "inappropriate'.
Just because you didn't understand it. You don't appear capable of
understanding anything.
Lefty
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
CB's enemy is reason. So "victory" will come when everyone has
Alzheimer's, or an IQ matching their inseam. Just like him.
>
> RT
CB
So, just like What Walter Cronkite did for the NVN, Dan Rather and CNN
created the media induced opinion that Iraq 'is' an American defeat.
Islamo-fascism advances on the 'news', Israel begins to think our resolves
is weakening, Chinese subs stalk our carriers and Hillary want to tax us
more to pay for socialized health care.
>>
>> The impression 'is', Libs cut and run when things go wrong. Does the
>> public really want the 'image' of America to be seen as weak? God I prey
>> not.
>
> Don't use words you can't spell.
I know you want America to be seen as weak
--
CB
...
Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from.
On "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would
support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go
"full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."
No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."
...
Democrats won't acknowledge the existence of "an imminent threat" anyplace
in the world until a nuclear missile is 12 minutes from New York. And then
we'll never have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" because we'll
all be dead.
--Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
As you can't define victory, it seems unlikely you know what
constitutes defeat.
>
> Islamo-fascism advances on the 'news', Israel begins to think our
> resolves is weakening, Chinese subs stalk our carriers and Hillary
> want to tax us more to pay for socialized health care.
Try really hard not to be a howling imbecile.
There are no "Islamo-fascists." No Islamist, however insane,
professes anything even remotely like fascism.
Israel lost the moral high ground when they invaded Lebanon with no
regard for innocent civilians. What Israel needs is an election like
the most recent one here.
I suppose you think it's okay if the US pursues its interests by what
seem to be the best means, but any other country doing so is a threat,
particularly since you can't distinguish one political philosophy from
another.
As an affirmation of national unity, some species of universal health
care is a very good idea. There needs to be a robust debate about the
means of making such affordable for ALL working Americans. Raising
taxes on the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of Americans will affect you
not one scintilla.
Rich Travsky
America used to be strong - then Chimpoleon cooked up a bunch of lies to
invade Iraq. Now we're over extended, our military weakened, our credibility
shot, and hundreds of billions of debt added.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1163258940.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sweetheart. "Retreat" is not the same as "surrender".
> >
> > In 1940 the French Governemnet **surrendered**
> >
> > In 1940 the British "retreated" at Dunkirk
> >
> > The difference? Retreating from an untenable position to a more
> > rational one paves the way to victory. Any military manual will tell
> > you that. It makes no sense to go on killing your own soldiers if you
> > are not accomplishing your goals.
> >
> > Refusing to retreat leads to such bloody blunders as The Charge of the
> > Light Brigade or those World War I generals that sent troops regularly
> > on assaults of the enemy trenches to be massacred, only to send another
> > assault days afterawards, and another, and another.
> >
> > Yes, retreat can mean defeat, but retreat is what makes a difference,
> > as De Gaulle put it, between losing a battle and losing a war.
> >
> > Irak was the wrong battle, and we do not need to go on Charges of the
> > Light Brigade. We value solider's lives too highly to have the
> > slaughtered in order to save the pride of those who made a mistake.
>
> Do you really think Dims will find the courage to fight with their leader
> has San Fanthithco values?
When are you enlisting? Where is your courage? Wait, you're a coward, you haven't
any.
> > CB wrote:
> >> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:8Hh5h.10083$TX....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >> > Drapes of Wrath
> >> >
> >> > By MAUREEN DOWD
> >> > Published: November 11, 2006
> >> > Washington
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Maureen Dowd.
> >> > The new Democratic sweep conjures up an ancient image: Furies swooping
> >> > down to punish bullies.
> >>
> >> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
> >>
> >> And the enemy advances
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Angry winged goddesses with dog heads, serpent hair and blood eyes,
> >> > unmoved by tears, prayer, sacrifice or nasty campaign ads, avenging
> >> > offenses by insolent transgressors.
> >> >
> >> > This will be known as the year macho politics failed - mainly because
> >> > it
> >> > was macho politics by marshmallow men. Voters were sick of phony
> >> > swaggering, blustering and bellicosity, absent competency and
> >> > accountability. They were ready to trade in the deadbeat Daddy party
> >> > for
> >> > the sheltering Mommy party.
> >> >
> >> > All the conservative sneering about a fem-lib from San Francisco who
> >> > was
> >> > measuring the drapes for the speaker's office didn't work. Americans
> >> > wanted new drapes, and an Armani granny with a whip in charge.
> >> >
> >> > A recent study found that the testosterone of American men has been
> >> > dropping for 20 years, but in Republican Washington, it was running
> >> > amok,
> >> > and not in a good way. Men who had refused to go to an untenable war
> >> > themselves were now refusing to find an end to another untenable war
> >> > that
> >> > they had recklessly started.
> >> >
> >> > Republicans were oddly oblivious to the fact that they had turned into
> >> > a
> >> > Thomas Nast cartoon: an unappetizing tableau of bloated, corrupt,
> >> > dissembling, feckless white hacks who were leaving kids unprotected.
> >> > Tom
> >> > DeLay and Bob Ney sneaking out of Congress with dollar bills flying out
> >> > of
> >> > their pockets. Denny Hastert playing Cardinal Bernard Law, shielding
> >> > Mark
> >> > Foley. Rummy, cocky and obtuse as he presided over an imploding Iraq,
> >> > while failing to give young men and women in the military the armor,
> >> > support and strategy they needed to come home safely. Dick Cheney,
> >> > vowing
> >> > bullheadedly to move "full speed ahead" on Iraq no matter what the
> >> > voters
> >> > decided. W. frantically yelling about how Democrats would let the
> >> > terrorists win, when his lame-brained policies had spawned more
> >> > terrorists.
> >> >
> >> > After 9/11, Americans had responded to bellicosity, drawn to the image,
> >> > as
> >> > old as the Western frontier myth, of the strong father protecting the
> >> > home
> >> > from invaders. But this time, many voters, especially women, rejected
> >> > the
> >> > rough Rovian scare and divide tactics.
> >> >
> >> > The macho poses and tough talk of the cowboy president were undercut
> >> > when
> >> > he seemed flaccid in the face of the vicious Katrina and the vicious
> >> > Iraq
> >> > insurgency.
> >> >
> >> > Even former members of the administration conceded they were tired of
> >> > the
> >> > muscle-bound style, longing for a more maternal approach to the globe.
> >> > "We
> >> > were exporting our anger and our fear, hatred for what had happened,"
> >> > Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, said in a
> >> > speech
> >> > in Australia, referring to the 9/11 attacks. He said America needed "to
> >> > turn another face to the world and get back to more traditional things,
> >> > such as the export of hope and opportunity and inspiration."
> >> >
> >> > Talking about hope and opportunity and inspiration has propelled Barack
> >> > Obama into the presidential arena. His approach seems downright
> >> > feminine
> >> > when compared with the Bushies, or even Hillary Clinton. He languidly
> >> > poses in fashion magazines, shares feelings with Oprah and dishes with
> >> > the
> >> > ladies on "The View." After six years of chest-puffing, Senator Obama
> >> > seems very soothing.
> >> >
> >> > Because of the power of female consumers, some marketing experts
> >> > predict
> >> > we will end up a matriarchy. This year, women also flexed their muscle
> >> > at
> >> > the polls, transformed into electoral Furies by the administration's
> >> > stubborn course in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday, 51 percent of the voters were women, and 55 percent of
> >> > women
> >> > voted for the Democratic candidate. It was a revival of the style of
> >> > Bill
> >> > Clinton, dubbed our first female president, who knitted together a
> >> > winning
> >> > coalition of independents, moderates and suburbanites.
> >> >
> >> > According to The Times's exit polls, women were more likely than men to
> >> > want some or all of the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq now, and 64
> >> > percent of women said that the war in Iraq has not improved U.S.
> >> > security.
> >> >
> >> > The Senate has a new high of 16 women and the House has a new high of
> >> > at
> >> > least 70, with a few races outstanding. Hillary's big win will
> >> > strengthen
> >> > her presidential tentacles.
> >> >
> >> > Nancy Pelosi, who will be the first female speaker, softened her voice
> >> > and
> >> > look as she cracked the whip on her undisciplined party, taking care
> >> > not
> >> > to sound shrill. When she needs to, though, she says she can use her
> >> > "mother-of-five voice."
> >> >
> >> > At least for the moment, W. isn't blustering and Cheney has lost his
> >> > tubby
> >> > swagger. The president is trying to ride the Mommy vibe. He even
> >> > offered
> >> > Madame Speaker help with those new drapes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
Rich Travsky
> >
> > Honey, if the soldiers are in the wrong place, strategically or
> > tactically, name-calling people away from the front lines will not
> > improve their situation.
>
> "Honey"? Is that some kinda homo name-calling?
>
> >
> > Unfortunately in wars too many soldiers die because some of their
> > commanders are too damn stubborn to recognize they made a mistae and
> > keep repeating it, in the hope that it will eventually turn out right.
>
> The only mistake was to allow the borders to as wide open as our own and to
> fight door to door rather than what Clinton did from 20,000 feet in Kosovo.
>
> America, in her Mr. Niceguy way, fighting slowly, door to door was in effect
> doomed. The media instead of focusing on our Humanitarian efforts to save
> lives, highlighted them for propaganda. All in an effort to turn the public
> against it's own protection from Islamo-fascists.
>
> Tomorrow they advance if Dims get their way and retreat.
You DO know that they called in the adults to bail out Chimpoleon? Because
he's bungled everything?
> > CB wrote:
> >> "Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:1163258940.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Sweetheart. "Retreat" is not the same as "surrender".
> >> >
> >> > In 1940 the French Governemnet **surrendered**
> >> >
> >> > In 1940 the British "retreated" at Dunkirk
> >> >
> >> > The difference? Retreating from an untenable position to a more
> >> > rational one paves the way to victory. Any military manual will tell
> >> > you that. It makes no sense to go on killing your own soldiers if you
> >> > are not accomplishing your goals.
> >> >
> >> > Refusing to retreat leads to such bloody blunders as The Charge of the
> >> > Light Brigade or those World War I generals that sent troops regularly
> >> > on assaults of the enemy trenches to be massacred, only to send another
> >> > assault days afterawards, and another, and another.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, retreat can mean defeat, but retreat is what makes a difference,
> >> > as De Gaulle put it, between losing a battle and losing a war.
> >> >
> >> > Irak was the wrong battle, and we do not need to go on Charges of the
> >> > Light Brigade. We value solider's lives too highly to have the
> >> > slaughtered in order to save the pride of those who made a mistake.
> >>
> >> Do you really think Dims will find the courage to fight with their leader
> >> has San Fanthithco values?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
Rich Travsky
>
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8Hh5h.10083$TX....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > Drapes of Wrath
> >
> > By MAUREEN DOWD
> > Published: November 11, 2006
> > Washington
> >
> >
> > Maureen Dowd.
> > The new Democratic sweep conjures up an ancient image: Furies swooping
> > down to punish bullies.
>
> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as defeat.
>
> And the enemy advances
Really? Advances where? Can you show us on a map?
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> CB wrote:
>>
>> "Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1163260575....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Honey, if the soldiers are in the wrong place, strategically or
>> > tactically, name-calling people away from the front lines will not
>> > improve their situation.
>>
>> "Honey"? Is that some kinda homo name-calling?
>>
>> >
>> > Unfortunately in wars too many soldiers die because some of their
>> > commanders are too damn stubborn to recognize they made a mistae and
>> > keep repeating it, in the hope that it will eventually turn out right.
>>
>> The only mistake was to allow the borders to as wide open as our own and
>> to
>> fight door to door rather than what Clinton did from 20,000 feet in
>> Kosovo.
>>
>> America, in her Mr. Niceguy way, fighting slowly, door to door was in
>> effect
>> doomed. The media instead of focusing on our Humanitarian efforts to save
>> lives, highlighted them for propaganda. All in an effort to turn the
>> public
>> against it's own protection from Islamo-fascists.
>>
>> Tomorrow they advance if Dims get their way and retreat.
>
> You DO know that they called in the adults to bail out Chimpoleon? Because
> he's bungled everything?
The only thing he's done wrong 'is' follow the Lib philosophy of door to
door, politically correct fighting.
He should have sealed the borders and bombed anything coming in country.
But then you would have screamed "no fair" just as loud.
CB
Think about that the next time you shop Wal-Mart. Higher corporate taxes
trickle-downs into higher prices.
Tom Dasshole learn that lesson during the Xmass of 2000
Sid9
Quick, get the guys in the white coats with the straight jacket for CB.
He thinks bush,jr is a Liberal!
Sid9
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
You are so consistant.
Wrong.
Taxes come out of profit
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Thanks to you and Libs in the media. You turned it into another Vietnam.
I'm sure what will follow is what followed in Vietnam, over 2 million SVN
murdered.
Sid9
bush,jr created another Vietnam...no one else!
CB
Nope, you did by whing "no fair, Saddamn good, Bush bad".
--
CB
"The world is a dangerous place to live-not because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -Albert
Einstein
CB
It's true!
Lamont Cranston
Bush and the neoclowns turned it into another Vietnam. What
has happened there was not only predictable, it was
predicted. Bush and the neoclowns wallow in their ignorance
and wear it as a badge of honor. Iraq will never function
as a democracy of any kind because it has always been an
artificial country created by the Brits. Three disparate
tribes have been forced to live as one and that arrangement
can only be held together by a strongman government that
suppresses all tribal rivalries. Bush is so fucking stupid
that he was unaware of any of Iraq's history. After being
informed that there are two different sects in Islam, Bush
responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!” With
insight like that guiding the country, it's a fucking wonder
that it still exists.
>
> I'm sure what will follow is what followed in Vietnam, over 2 million SVN
> murdered.
>
>
I doubt that any SVN will be killed in Iraq. I have no
doubt that after a full-scale civil war breaks out, there
will be many deaths to add to Bush's scorecard.
ouroboros rex
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
rofl Ever notice CB's every response is literally insane?
Truth B. Told
>
> Do you really think Dims will find the courage to fight with their leader
> has San Fanthithco values?
>
When it comes to countering your Berlin Bunker values, yes.
T.B.
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Now that even a homer like you can scarcely deny Bush is a fuck-up
looking for a place to happen, you say he's Liberal.
Just when I thought you'd hit rock bottom.
>
>
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
I don't patronize Wal-Mart.
Besides which, the conversation was about income taxes, which do not
affect corporations.
>
> Tom Dasshole learn that lesson during the Xmass of 2000
Daschle was the victim of a stick-at-nothing smear campaign.
Lefty
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:eji1r8$inu$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
And made up from his bizarre fantasy life.
>
>
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Who was the president who ordered the pullout from Vietnam? How long
had he been president when he did that?
>
>
CB
It was the fucking media and whussies like you at Kent State!
War is ugly and riddled with death traps.
Fighting like Mr. Nice guy, hand to hand is old school.
Bush's scew up was to let up.
--
CB
War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.
Georges Clemenceau (1841 - 1929)
Lefty
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Who was the president who ordered the pullout?
>
> War is ugly and riddled with death traps.
Which is why it should always be a last resort.
>
> Fighting like Mr. Nice guy, hand to hand is old school.
Yeah. We should have carpet bombed them.
>
> Bush's scew up was to let up.
Bush's screw up was to start a war we didn't need to fight.
Sid9
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:L027h.59$y92...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Whussies?
The National Guard fired on unarmed students.
Whussies, who had more brains than those that meekly submitted to being
cannon fodder in a lost cause.
bush,jr wouldn't go
Cheney wouldn't go
Hastert wouldn't go
These Whussies were equally smart.
If the Republicans attempted a draft the riots would start anew.
This fiasco has no support in America.
humbubba
Mainly because it was a degenerate super-rich concept of macho. The
Iraq Leather-Boy War. See Also: Abu Ghraib.
Rick Hohensee
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>> CB wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>> news:Akr5h.6199$oH6...@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> > "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> >> For all her words, the fact remains, retreat 'is' the same as
> >> >>>>>> >> defeat.
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> > president
> >> >>>>>> > to
> >> >>>>>> > explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also
> >> >>>>>> > important for
> >> >>>>>> > the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be
> >> >>>>>> > involved
> >> >>>>>> > and when they will be withdrawn."
> >> >>>>>> > -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The exit strategy would be, victory
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Then define victory.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It sure ain't attained from conducting a PC war door to door.
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> CB
> >> >>>> America needs Michael Savage to be her Media General
> >> >>>> http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Now we know what "victory" is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> What 'is' it then?
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Is' it what Spain and France define as concessionary diplomacy in the
> >> >> face of war?
> >> >
> >> > Turns out France was right about Iraq.
> >>
> >> What about Saddamn? What about the Food for Oil Program? What about the
> >
> > Food/oil program? You mean the one Chickenhawk Cheney's Halliburton was
> > involved in? HAHAHHAHAHA
>
> No, 'Oil for Bribes"
No, Halliburton!
CB wrote:
> "Roedy Green" <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3h1fl25d3jn294pnb...@4ax.com...
> > Scott Ritter the US arm inspection chief prior to the Iraq war says
> > that the odds of war with Iran are 100%.
> > He says this because:
> > 1. Democrats share the same rhetoric with the Republicans about regime
> > change in Iraq.
> > 2. Both Democrats and Republicans falsely claim Iran has a nuclear
> > weapons program. There is no evidence of that, only of peaceful use
> > of nuclear power, permitted under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
> > 3. Both Democrats and Republicans falsely claim Iran is responsible
> > for suicide bombers. Fundamentalist Sunnis do the suicide bombing.
> > Shi'ia do not. Wahabi Sunnis are the ones with the hatred of western
> > mores. Iranians are Shi'ia.
> > Ritter points out that to win the war on terror it is not sufficient
> > to just keep killing terrorists. You have to stop the process by
> > which they are created. People are not born terrorists. They have to
> > have a life experience that tells them things are so hopeless their
> > only option is strapping a bomb on their back. To stop terror you
> > must understand that process and interfere with it.
> > My thinking is the essential problem is campaign contributions from
> > the "defence" contractors. Every successful candidate is beholden to
> > them. If he thwarts them, the contractors will spend sufficiently on
> > his rival to defeat him. If the war is Iraq is stopped, they demand
> > something equally lucrative in return.
> > If the USA attacks Iran, they will get a seriously bloody nose. Iran
> > may not have nukes, but it is much better prepared to defend itself
> > than Iraq was. It can cause some serious pain to the USA. See
> > http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html for the details.
> > "Is it possible that a few rich men - a small class of men - have
> > persuaded a million poor men to attack and attempt to destroy another
> > million men as poor as they, so that the rich may be richer still?
> > They told them that this brutal war was the destiny of the race. It
> > was for the glory of the emperor; it was for the honour of the state;
> > it was for their king and country. False - false as hell! They make
> > war to capture markets by murder, raw materials by rape. They find it
> > cheaper to steal than to exchange, easier to butcher than to buy. This
> > is the secret of war. It is the secret of all wars: profit.
> > Business. Profit. Blood money.
> The only "Blood Money" is from the deals the UNSC profited from in its Oil
> for Food Program.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0410/S00132.htm
Cheney's Halliburton Helped Saddam Siphon UN $Bns
Tuesday, 12 October 2004, 11:36 am
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from
UN Oil-for-Food Program
...
The one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in
the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was
Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of
the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney.
Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and
foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude
exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by
skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its
oil fields and pump more oil.
...
U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had
controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at
the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally
pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program.
...
> ...
> And if it proved easy to smuggle oil out, it became just as easy to smuggle
> goods in. The United States and Britain undertook a range of intensive
> efforts to press Iraq's neighbors to adhere to the sanctions regime, with
> mixed results. From time to time, Iran and Syria were convinced to stem the
> flow. UN monitors were put on the Jordanian-Iraqi border; maritime
> inspections were conducted on shipping in the Persian Gulf; Lloyds of London
> maintained inspections at Jordan's Aqaba port. But these fingers in the dyke
> did little to stop the trade. Turkey would not agree to bring the oil
> smuggling under UN control. Repeated efforts were made to find alternative
> sources of subsidized oil for Jordan from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that would
> enable it to shut down the border trade. To no avail. Direct appeals by
> Secretary Powell to the Syrians fell on deaf ears.
> Despite the fact that the sanctions were repeatedly loosened to allow
> UN-controlled export of Iraqi oil and import of humanitarian goods under the
> "oil-for-food" resolutions, the smuggling only increased. Efforts by
> Secretary of State Powell to introduce new means to control the smuggling as
> part of his "smart sanctions" regime also failed. By this year, independent
> estimates indicated that Saddam Hussein was securing between $2 and $3
> billion in uncontrolled revenues that he could use to fund his
> well-developed procurement machine. This combination of huge amounts of
> uncontrolled revenues and porous borders means that Saddam has the means at
> his disposal to pay for and import whatever WMD capabilities his agents can
> lay their hands on.
> ...
> http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/pagedefs/1a60581407dfff3c7fffe7680a1415cb.xml
>
> >
> >> "Blood Money" Saddamn got in surcomventing the 'containment'?
> >
> > What about it? Grounds for invading? Nope.
>
> Then there's the Baathists who did Saddamns bidding, killing was whole sale.
> But you don't care. You probably didn't care when Qusay tortured Iraqi
> Olympians because of a lose.
Grounds for invading? Still no.
> It seems if every post doesn't contain every Evil act Saddamn and his family
> of 'butchers' committed, you dismiss it as a mere indiscretion. Maybe you
> could call Saddamns Evil acts just 'inappropriate', it seems to work for
> Slick. Hell, Hillary even called Kerry's unedumacated insult of the troops
> as merely, "inappropriate'.
North Korea is so bad it made Iraq look like Disneyland.
> >> > Would that Bush had been so wise.
> >>
> >> As to take threats seriously? Your damn straight!
> >
> > AH, then why hasn't Chimpoleon invaded North Korea, which really does have
> > a
> > WMD program????
>
> Islamo-fascists and their supporters first
What does Iraq have to do with that then?
RT
Rich Travsky
It is? HAHHAHAHAH It's the most dangerous!
> He should have sealed the borders and bombed anything coming in country.
>
> But then you would have screamed "no fair" just as loud.
We haven't the means or the ability, you idiot - nor the moral right.
Rich Travsky
Then why was Rummy Dummy fired and Darth Baker brought in? heh heh