Despite Success Obama Would Still Oppose Surge

[red states rule]

This tells us alot about the piss poor judgement of the messiah, known as Obama

Despite the huge undeniable success of the surge, Obama would still oppose it, and allow the US to lose in Iraq




Pathetic! Obama Says He Would Still Oppose the Surge... Credits Sunni Awakening Members For the Success!

But, Please Don't Question His Support For the US Military.

After meeting with General David Petraeus today, Barack Obama gave credit to the Sunni Awakening members and the Shia militia members for the success of the surge.
Nice.


Finally, Barack Obama admits the surge was a success and gives credit to where it is due... To the Sunnis.

Barack Obama credited the Sunni Awakening Members and Shia fighters with the success of the surge today in an interview with ABC.
Marc Ambinder reported:


Sen. Barack Obama said it was "fair" to notice that he did not anticipate that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq would be coincident with the so-called Sunni Awakening and the decisions of Shia militias to reduce their footprints, the combination of which led to measurable declines in violence.

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/pathetic-obama-says-he-would-still.html

[Yurt]

yet he is advocating a surge in afganistan

he didn't anticipate....well....that surely shores up his judgment regarding international relations...this guy will never admit to being wrong

[avatar4321]

yet he is advocating a surge in afganistan

he didn't anticipate....well....that surely shores up his judgment regarding international relations...this guy will never admit to being wrong

And what's amusing is that Obama is acting as if his surge in Afghanistan is somehow a unique and original idea from him.

Wasn't it John McCain who was calling for more troops in Afghanistan back in 2002?

[red states rule]

and the liberal media is providing cover for the messiah

According the DNCTV, people do not care if the surge worked

Shuster: 'Americans Don't Care' If Surge Worked
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:26:16 AM by governsleastgovernsbest

The things people will do for love. Take David Shuster. Please. So eager is the Obama inamorato to cover for his man, he's willing to sacrifice all semblance of reason. Faced with the implacable fact that Obama was wrong in opposing the surge, Shuster has been reduced to claiming that Americans don't care about the surge's success. Shuster made his descent into abject sycophancy on today's Morning Joe. The jumping off point was a clip from an interview of Obama by ABC's Terry Moran

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049271/posts

[Yurt]

And what's amusing is that Obama is acting as if his surge in Afghanistan is somehow a unique and original idea from him.

Wasn't it John McCain who was calling for more troops in Afghanistan back in 2002?

i believe so and i also believe it was mccain who wanted the surge in iraq first or at least the politician most responsible for getting bush to finally order the surge.

[red states rule]

Like Reid and Pelosi - the messiah gives little or no credit to the US military for the success of the surge

They are having a very difficult time dealing with the truth in Iraq

[Kathianne]

I was lolly gagging this morning and caught a bit of the Obama press conference in Jordan. It was annoying that the reporters' questions were not audible, but what struck me was that the 'great orator' was listless and stuttered, a lot.

[red states rule]

I was lolly gagging this morning and caught a bit of the Obama press conference in Jordan. It was annoying that the reporters' questions were not audible, but what struck me was that the 'great orator' was listless and stuttered, a lot.

The messiah is being propped up by the hacks in the liberal media. These so called reporters are treating Obama liks he already is President

and Obama probably thinks he is President as well

[Hobbit]

Saw this on Boortz's web site. The guy is useless without a teleprompter.

[red states rule]

Saw this on Boortz's web site. The guy is useless without a teleprompter.

He has to stay on script. Like a pro wrestler, he stinks when he tries to ad lib

[theHawk]

So if he really believes the surge is a bad idea and would do more harm than good, why does he want to have a surge in Afghanistan? Does he want us to fail there?

[red states rule]

So if he really believes the surge is a bad idea and would do more harm than good, why does he want to have a surge in Afghanistan? Does he want us to fail there?

You are not allowed to question the messaih. You must accept what he says without question - much like his adoring flock following him on this trip

I want to see how the voters react to this line of thinking. The sirge is good on one war front - but not on another

[Yurt]

I was lolly gagging this morning and caught a bit of the Obama press conference in Jordan. It was annoying that the reporters' questions were not audible, but what struck me was that the 'great orator' was listless and stuttered, a lot.

maybe he was getting a feeling up his leg, you know, thinking of chris matthews

[retiredman]

Like Reid and Pelosi - the messiah gives little or no credit to the US military for the success of the surge

They are having a very difficult time dealing with the truth in Iraq

he gave a great deal of credit to the US military. He merely pointed out that we would not have made the strides we have with surge forces alone without the sunni awakening and the shiite ceasefire... internal political events in Iraq that were not contingent upon the surge.

[stephanie]

the wonder boy is one clueless pos..

[red states rule]

The messiah did not expect the surge to work. Like most Dems he thought the war was lost

Obama Told ABC’s Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: “‘[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.’ If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?” Obama: “No, because — keep in mind that -” Moran: “You wouldn’t?” Obama: “Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.” Moran: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge.”

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/knowing-what-he-knows-now-obama-would-still-not-support-surge/


Like other Dems, the messiah did not give the US troops the huge amount of credit they deserve. Seems the messiah is having a very hard time digesting his crow

[Gaffer]

He gives credit to the sunni's and shia militia and claims their enlightenment happened at the same time as the surge. Their enlightenment came because of the surge, it would not have happened without the surge. If it wasn't so serious this would be really hilarious. A regular comedy skit.

[red states rule]

He gives credit to the sunni's and shia militia and claims their enlightenment happened at the same time as the surge. Their enlightenment came because of the surge, it would not have happened without the surge. If it wasn't so serious this would be really hilarious. A regular comedy skit.

It must really gall the Dems to see how they blew it on this one.

[retiredman]

He gives credit to the sunni's and shia militia and claims their enlightenment happened at the same time as the surge. Their enlightenment came because of the surge, it would not have happened without the surge. If it wasn't so serious this would be really hilarious. A regular comedy skit.


prove the causation.

[red states rule]

prove the causation.

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

[Yurt]

prove the causation.

why don't you prove the surge didn't cause the change of heart as you suggest.

[red states rule]

why don't you prove the surge didn't cause the change of heart as you suggest.

Obama and his supoorters cant admit they were wrong about the surge and how successful it would be

They were playing politics plain and simple. For years Dems screamed how more troops were needed in Iraq, and how the war was being mishandled

But the split second pres Bush finally gave in and said he was sending more troops - Dems were all of a sudden opposed

Some like Harry Reid said the war was lost before the surge even began

[retiredman]

why don't you prove the surge didn't cause the change of heart as you suggest.

He made the claim...let HIM prove it.

[Gaffer]

prove the causation.

I don't have too.

[red states rule]

I don't have too.

Post 20 covers it rather well.

[retiredman]

I don't have too.

you can't.

[retiredman]

Post 20 covers it rather well.


no it doesn't. post 20 shows NO causation. try again.

[red states rule]

no it doesn't. post 20 shows NO causation. try again.

It shows the messiah believes the troops had little effect and the surge was not the reason for the success

Like most Dems, he refuses to credit the troops for their fine work. As Gaffer said, to the messiah the enlightenment came because of the surge, it would not have happened without the surge

[retiredman]

It shows the messiah believes the troops had little effect and the surge was not the reason for the success

Like most Dems, he refuses to credit the troops for their fine work. As Gaffer said, to the messiah the enlightenment came because of the surge, it would not have happened without the surge

if you stand with gaffer's assertion, then prove the causation. I see no reason why the sunni enlightenment AND the shiite ceasefire could not have been independent events unrelated to the surge. your saying there is causation means little to me.... just another of your opinions

[red states rule]

if you stand with gaffer's assertion, then prove the causation. I see no reason why the sunni enlightenment AND the shiite ceasefire could not have been independent events unrelated to the surge. your saying there is causation means little to me.... just another of your opinions

Like most of the messiah's followers, truth is a menace - and facts are an enemy

His own words show how he feels - you choose to ignore them like a good little liberal

[retiredman]

Like most of the messiah's followers, truth is a menace - and facts are an enemy

His own words show how he feels - you choose to ignore them like a good little liberal

you have no facts. three things occured: sunnis rose up against AQ in Anbar... shiites agreed to a ceasefire.... Americans increased troop levels. you have NO facts that show those three are related in any way, let alone that the latter caused the former two to happen.

now be a big boy and prove your assertions or admit that they are nothing but your opinions....

the opinions of a man who still thinks that AQ and Iran are working together and have a plan to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.

your opinions are notoriously goofy.

[red states rule]

you have no facts. three things occured: sunnis rose up against AQ in Anbar... shiites agreed to a ceasefire.... Americans increased troop levels. you have NO facts that show those three are related in any way, let alone that the latter caused the former two to happen.

now be a big boy and prove your assertions or admit that they are nothing but your opinions....

the opinions of a man who still thinks that AQ and Iran are working together and have a plan to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.

your opinions are notoriously goofy.

Here is one example. Us forces and Iraqi forces working together to wipe out AQ pigs

This never would have happened if you and the messiah would have had their way


Operation Lion's Roar nets more than 1,000 suspects
By Bill RoggioMay 16, 2008 9:47 PM

With the Mahdi Army subdued in Basrah and a cease-fire under way with the Sadrist movement in Sadr City in Baghdad, the focus of the Iraqi government has shifted to the northern city of Mosul, where al Qaeda maintains its last urban stronghold. On May 10, the Iraqi security forces launched Operation Lion's Roar in an effort to roll back al Qaeda and allied Sunni insurgent groups.

Al Qaeda in Iraq's last major ratline into Syria spans westward from Mosul into Tal Afar and the crossing point at Sinjar. The terror group is waging a brutal campaign to prevent the Iraqi Army and US forces from securing the province and to keep their supply lines to Syria open.

The Iraqi security forces started the operation by declaring a curfew in the province and conducting operations to round up wanted terrorists. In the six days since the operation began, Iraqi forces detained 1,068 suspects, according to General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, the commander of the Ninewa Operational Command.

Of those captured, "just under 200" Tier 1 and Tier 2 al Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq operatives have been detained, said Major General Mark Hertling, the commander of Multinational Division North said during a briefing on May 15.

"There have been some very big fishes caught," Hertling said. Tier 1 operatives are operational leaders. Tier 2 operatives are foreign fighters or weapons facilitators, bomb makers, and cell leaders.

US and Iraqi forces have killed or captured several key al Qaeda leaders in Mosul over the past several months. Fourteen of the top 30 al Qaeda operatives who have been killed or captured in the past three months were al Qaeda leaders in Mosul, including three al Qaeda leaders from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/05/operation_lions_roar.php

[retiredman]

Here is one example. Us forces and Iraqi forces working together to wipe out AQ pigs

This never would have happened if you and the messiah would have had their way


Operation Lion's Roar nets more than 1,000 suspects
By Bill RoggioMay 16, 2008 9:47 PM

With the Mahdi Army subdued in Basrah and a cease-fire under way with the Sadrist movement in Sadr City in Baghdad, the focus of the Iraqi government has shifted to the northern city of Mosul, where al Qaeda maintains its last urban stronghold. On May 10, the Iraqi security forces launched Operation Lion's Roar in an effort to roll back al Qaeda and allied Sunni insurgent groups.

Al Qaeda in Iraq's last major ratline into Syria spans westward from Mosul into Tal Afar and the crossing point at Sinjar. The terror group is waging a brutal campaign to prevent the Iraqi Army and US forces from securing the province and to keep their supply lines to Syria open.

The Iraqi security forces started the operation by declaring a curfew in the province and conducting operations to round up wanted terrorists. In the six days since the operation began, Iraqi forces detained 1,068 suspects, according to General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, the commander of the Ninewa Operational Command.

Of those captured, "just under 200" Tier 1 and Tier 2 al Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq operatives have been detained, said Major General Mark Hertling, the commander of Multinational Division North said during a briefing on May 15.

"There have been some very big fishes caught," Hertling said. Tier 1 operatives are operational leaders. Tier 2 operatives are foreign fighters or weapons facilitators, bomb makers, and cell leaders.

US and Iraqi forces have killed or captured several key al Qaeda leaders in Mosul over the past several months. Fourteen of the top 30 al Qaeda operatives who have been killed or captured in the past three months were al Qaeda leaders in Mosul, including three al Qaeda leaders from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/05/operation_lions_roar.php

that was not a result of the SURGE.

Please show the causation that you claim: show that the sunni enlightenment and the shiite ceasefire would NOT have happened if we had not SURGED more troops into Iraq.

[red states rule]

that was not a result of the SURGE.

Please show the causation that you claim: show that the sunni enlightenment and the shiite ceasefire would NOT have happened if we had not SURGED more troops into Iraq.

Yes, you have stood with your party that has called them losers. To you, the surge was worthless, and the efforts of the troops were meaningless

If your messiah says the surge was not responsible for all the successes then it must be true

[retiredman]

Yes, you have stood with your party that has called them losers. To you, the surge was worthless, and the efforts of the troops were meaningless

If your messiah says the surge was not responsible for all the successes then it must be true


quit deflecting the conversation with insults. I have NEVER said our troops were losers. I think the surge was a waste of resources that would have been better utilized in Afghanistan. Our troops efforts are never meaningless. the US military ALWAYS goes and puts themselves in harm's way to carry out the foreign policy decisions of the suits in DC... sometimes those decisions are good ones, sometimes they are not. Whether the policy is a good policy or not does not change the honor and the sacrifice of service.

Now...if you can prove the causation you claim, please do so. if not, just admit it's your opinion.

[red states rule]

quit deflecting the conversation with insults. I have NEVER said our troops were losers. I think the surge was a waste of resources that would have been better utilized in Afghanistan. Our troops efforts are never meaningless. the US military ALWAYS goes and puts themselves in harm's way to carry out the foreign policy decisions of the suits in DC... sometimes those decisions are good ones, sometimes they are not. Whether the policy is a good policy or not does not change the honor and the sacrifice of service.

Now...if you can prove the causation you claim, please do so. if not, just admit it's your opinion.

Well considering you now refer to the troops as infidels, I am sure they would have a response to that insult and how YOU feel their efforts to crush AQ was a waste of time and resources

Again, thank you for your continued "support" of the troops

[retiredman]

Well considering you now refer to the troops as infidels, I am sure they would have a response to that insult and how YOU feel their efforts to crush AQ was a waste of time and resources

Again, thnak you for your continued "support" of the troops

If I were walking down the street in Baghdad, I would be an infidel. You are one too. It is not an insult to admit non-muslim status.

[red states rule]

If I were walking down the street in Baghdad, I would be an infidel. You are one too. It is not an insult to admit non-muslim status.

No you once again showed how you really feel about the troops. Much like Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and most of the people in your party

Every once in awhile libs let the truth slip out - you did that that insulting post

[Gaffer]

you have no facts. three things occured: sunnis rose up against AQ in Anbar... shiites agreed to a ceasefire.... Americans increased troop levels. you have NO facts that show those three are related in any way, let alone that the latter caused the former two to happen.

now be a big boy and prove your assertions or admit that they are nothing but your opinions....

the opinions of a man who still thinks that AQ and Iran are working together and have a plan to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.

your opinions are notoriously goofy.

The facts are that US troops went into the AQ controlled areas and fought them. The sunni's, having lived under their rule saw that by allying with the US they could kick out AQ. So they did. AQ was defeated by the combined efforts of the US troops and the sunni's. Because of the surge.

The shea militia were continuing to fight and attack from sadr city and had control of basra. The iraqi army took them on in basra, having been trained by us. US troops went into sadr city with iraqi troops and routed the shea militia. Because the surge troops were there and they were able to hold what they took.

All of this allowed the iraqi government to further consolidate it's power and meet most of the benchmark goals set by our congress. It was all a result of the surge.

Our side is winning in iraq, your side is losing.

[red states rule]

The facts are that US troops went into the AQ controlled areas and fought them. The sunni's, having lived under their rule saw that by allying with the US they could kick out AQ. So they did. AQ was defeated by the combined efforts of the US troops and the sunni's. Because of the surge.

The shea militia were continuing to fight and attack from sadr city and had control of basra. The iraqi army took them on in basra, having been trained by us. US troops went into sadr city with iraqi troops and routed the shea militia. Because the surge troops were there and they were able to hold what they took.

All of this allowed the iraqi government to further consolidate it's power and meet most of the benchmark goals set by our congress. It was all a result of the surge.

Our side is winning in iraq, your side is losing.


You can see how pissed he is over losing - he now calls the troops infidels

[Yurt]

that was not a result of the SURGE.

Please show the causation that you claim: show that the sunni enlightenment and the shiite ceasefire would NOT have happened if we had not SURGED more troops into Iraq.

that is not the evidence for causation needed. fact: surge. fact: after surge terrorism goes down, shias sunni come together and finally seek peace in order to rid iraq of terrorists.

that is ample evidence that the surge "caused" that. you have no clue what you are talking about.


If I were walking down the street in Baghdad, I would be an infidel. You are one too. It is not an insult to admit non-muslim status.

unbelievable, you call yourself a christian pastor and concede islamic authority that our soldiers are infidels, how patriotic

[Yurt]

[UOTE=manfrommaine;274769] I think the surge was a waste of resources that would have been better utilized in Afghanistan.

what more is there to say to this guy? he thinks the surge, which saved lives and is widely credited, even by obama, as working to secure the peace, was a waste of resources.


Our troops efforts are never meaningless.

you just said the efforts were a waste of resources :poke:

[retiredman]

that is not the evidence for causation needed. fact: surge. fact: after surge terrorism goes down, shias sunni come together and finally seek peace in order to rid iraq of terrorists.

that is ample evidence that the surge "caused" that. you have no clue what you are talking about.



unbelievable, you call yourself a christian pastor and concede islamic authority that our soldiers are infidels, how patriotic


please provide a link to the "ample evidence" of the causation.

the last three times I wanted to play golf, it rained. My wanting to play golf did not CAUSE the rain to fall. Show this causation or quit claiming it.

Our soldiers, by and large, do not practice the muslim faith. In an arab islamic nation, that makes them infidels. Again... the word does not have a pejorative connotation.... strictly a religious one.

[red states rule]

please provide a link to the "ample evidence" of the causation.

the last three times I wanted to play golf, it rained. My wanting to play golf did not CAUSE the rain to fall. Show this causation or quit claiming it.

Our soldiers, by and large, do not practice the muslim faith. In an arab islamic nation, that makes them infidels. Again... the word does not have a pejorative connotation.... strictly a religious one.

I always knew you sold your soul to your party, but to insult and slime the troops like that - you are pathetic

[Yurt]

please provide a link to the "ample evidence" of the causation.

the last three times I wanted to play golf, it rained. My wanting to play golf did not CAUSE the rain to fall. Show this causation or quit claiming it.

Our soldiers, by and large, do not practice the muslim faith. In an arab islamic nation, that makes them infidels. Again... the word does not have a pejorative connotation.... strictly a religious one.

bull, i have talked with many muslims who use the term as an insult and other muslims continually try to get them to stop, fact is, infidel is used and a slur to non muslims, but you should know that given you "personal experience."

regardless, maybe if we were in a satan nation and satanist called christians "godless pukes", you would agree that we are godless pukes...who cares what they say

why did obama take away his criticism of the surge from his website....hmmmmm

[retiredman]

what more is there to say to this guy? he thinks the surge, which saved lives and is widely credited, even by obama, as working to secure the peace, was a waste of resources.



you just said the efforts were a waste of resources :poke:

the troops efforts were not meaningless. As I have said, uniforms go and put it on the line to support the foreign policy decisions of the suits in DC.... that is always an honorable calling. It always has meaning. It is what we do and what military men have always done.... from thermopylae, to balaclava, to little round top, to suribachi to hamburger hill. Their efforts might have been a waste of resources, but that was not their doing...they always fight well and hard and with great honor.

I can understand how you would have a hard time understanding that concept.

[red states rule]

the troops efforts were not meaningless. As I have said, uniforms go and put it on the line to support the foreign policy decisions of the suits in DC.... that is always an honorable calling. It always has meaning. It is what we do and what military men have always done.... from thermopylae, to balaclava, to little round top, to suribachi to hamburger hill. Their efforts might have been a waste of resources, but that was not their doing...they always fight well and hard and with great honor.

I can understand how you would have a hard time understanding that concept.

Again, your own words prove you to be a liar

You have proven where your loyality lies. Not with the troops or with your country

It lies with your party, and your party alone

[retiredman]

Again, your own words prove you to be a liar

You have proven where your loyality lies. Not with the troops or with your country

It lies with your party, and your party alone

that's not true, RSR. It really isn't. My loyalty lies with my country. I pray for the troops every single day. I take steps with my congregation to provide them comfort every single week. I love my country. Please stop denigrating my patriotism.

[red states rule]

that's not true, RSR. It really isn't. My loyalty lies with my country. I pray for the troops every single day. I take steps with my congregation to provide them comfort every single week. I love my country. Please stop denigrating my patriotism.

You called our troops infidels - that sums up your feelings about them, your country and your "patriotism"

[Gaffer]

please provide a link to the "ample evidence" of the causation.

the last three times I wanted to play golf, it rained. My wanting to play golf did not CAUSE the rain to fall. Show this causation or quit claiming it.

Our soldiers, by and large, do not practice the muslim faith. In an arab islamic nation, that makes them infidels. Again... the word does not have a pejorative connotation.... strictly a religious one.

Bad analogy.

Why do you always ask for links when you won't read or believe them?

Making up shit that the success in iraq was just a coincidence of events is really stooping low, even for you.

[red states rule]

Bad analogy.

Why do you always ask for links when you won't read or believe them?

Making up shit that the success in iraq was just a coincidence of events is really stooping low, even for you.

MFM is like most liberals

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2693613971_416f98ed75.jpg?v=0

[retiredman]

Bad analogy.

Why do you always ask for links when you won't read or believe them?

Making up shit that the success in iraq was just a coincidence of events is really stooping low, even for you.


accurate analogy. correlation does not create causation. fact.

making up shit that the addition of 20K US troops all of a sudden caused the sunni warlords to decide that they had had enough of AQ is stooping low. making up shit that those same 20K troops all of a sudden caused al Sadr to decide to keep his powder dry is stooping low.

now...do you have any proof, or will you stand by your statement that you don't NEED to prove such causation and we are all supposed to just BELIEVE you because you are an old fart who fought in Nam?

[red states rule]

accurate analogy. correlation does not create causation. fact.

making up shit that the addition of 20K US troops all of a sudden caused the sunni warlords to decide that they had had enough of AQ is stooping low. making up shit that those same 20K troops all of a sudden caused al Sadr to decide to keep his powder dry is stooping low.

now...do you have any proof, or will you stand by your statement that you don't NEED to prove such causation and we are all supposed to just BELIEVE you because you are an old fart who fought in Nam?

Why do you care? You called the troops infidels, so they can nothing right in your book - except surrender

[retiredman]

Why do you care? You called the troops infidels, so they can nothing right in your book - except surrender

why do you refuse to acknowledge that the word "infidel" is not a pejorative term in any way. Our troops do nothing wrong in my book. They carry out the lawful orders of their superiors with daring and with courage and with honor. Please quit insulting my patriotism...please?

[red states rule]

why do you refuse to acknowledge that the word "infidel" is not a pejorative term in any way. Our troops do nothing wrong in my book. They carry out the lawful orders of their superiors with daring and with courage and with honor. Please quit insulting my patriotism...please?

You can't wiggle off the hook this time. You called them infidels, and you said the surge was a waste of resources

Like your party, you wanted the US to surrender and have the troops come home as losers

I am happy to say you are the loser on this issue

[retiredman]

You can't wiggle off the hook this time. You called them infidels, and you said the surge was a waste of resources

Like your party, you wanted the US to surrender and have the troops come home as losers

I am happy to say you are the loser on this issue


We are infidels to the citizens of Iraq. and that is a fact...it is not an insult.

Whenever our troops come home, they will be winners in my book.

and just because YOU do not know what the meaning of the word "infidel" is, don't be a moron and neg rep me for YOUR stupidity!

[red states rule]

We are infidels to the citizens of Iraq. and that is a fact...it is not an insult.

Whenever our troops come home, they will be winners in my book.

Whatever - liar

[retiredman]

Whatever - liar

I am not lying RSR. you need an english lesson at some level beyond 5th grade.

[red states rule]

I am not lying RSR. you need an english lesson at some level beyond 5th grade.

You are a shameless hack who has no problem smearing the troops. You pushed for surrender for years, and have shown your true colors tonight

You have sold out the troops for political reasons

[Yurt]

We are infidels to the citizens of Iraq. and that is a fact...it is not an insult.
Whenever our troops come home, they will be winners in my book.

and just because YOU do not know what the meaning of the word "infidel" is, don't be a moron and neg rep me for YOUR stupidity!

you're wrong again, do you even know what infidel means? :poke:

they consider us kuffar or kafir, LOL, your ignorance knows no bounds....but i won't stoop to your level and call you a liar because you got something wrong

[retiredman]

you're wrong again, do you even know what infidel means? :poke:

they consider us kuffar or kafir, LOL, your ignorance knows no bounds....but i won't stoop to your level and call you a liar because you got something wrong


and you know this? how? have you spoken to many arabs from the middle east as to their opinions of Americans?

your arrogance is getting annoying. like a gnat.

[red states rule]

and you know this? how? have you spoken to many arabs from the middle east as to their opinions of Americans?

your arrogance is getting annoying. like a gnat.

Another lib shows his support for the troops


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/charlie-rangel-insults-troops.JPG

[Yurt]

and you know this? how? have you spoken to many arabs from the middle east as to their opinions of Americans?

your arrogance is getting annoying. like a gnat.

you're the one who had to use the net to define infidel

and my arrogance? what you think you know everything and ol' yurt can't know anything because you were there....LOL....your arrogance is limitless and foolish....read em and weep:

Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-dəl, -fə-ˌdel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at fidelity
Date: 15th century
1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b: one who acknowledges no religious belief


Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad

[red states rule]

Liberal hacks like MFM and Chris Matthews are on the same page. Shocking isn't it?


Matthews Finally Sees Victory in Iraq but Calls Obama the 'Beneficiary'
By Geoffrey Dickens (Bio | Archive)
July 22, 2008 - 20:22 ET

For years Chris Matthews has been proclaiming defeat in Iraq, on an almost nightly basis, on "Hardball" but on Tuesday night he finally admitted the success of the surge that John McCain supported. However, the MSNBC host claimed it would be Barack Obama that would get to enjoy the spoils.

After Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggested, "We're not losing," and pointed out the surge success would make it easier for a troop pullout, Matthews admitted the following:

MATTHEWS: Senator McCain wanted the surge to work, it worked politically and Barack Obama is the beneficiary. Not exactly the right development, politically, for him.

Matthews began the segment by playing a clip of McCain criticizing Obama on the war but then wondered if the Republican presidential nominee, "should take it back?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/07/22/matthews-finally-sees-victory-iraq-calls-obama-beneficiary

[retiredman]

you're the one who had to use the net to define infidel

and my arrogance? what you think you know everything and ol' yurt can't know anything because you were there....LOL....your arrogance is limitless and foolish....read em and weep:

Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-dəl, -fə-ˌdel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at fidelity
Date: 15th century
1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b: one who acknowledges no religious belief


Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad

read this:

in·fi·del [in-fi-dl, -del] –noun
1. Religion. a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, esp. Christianity.
b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, esp. a Muslim.
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.

I don't think I know EVERYTHING. I do believe that, when I have had actual conversations with multitudinous muslims about this very topic that my knowledge might be a bit more relevant than your entries from an online dictionary.

I would suggest that it is arrogant for you to try to claim superior knowledge of the middle east when I have lived there and you have not...when my JOB was to get to know and understand the various armed factions and religious sects that were operating in my area and your experience in the area is ZIPPO.

[red states rule]

read this:

in·fi·del [in-fi-dl, -del] –noun
1. Religion. a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, esp. Christianity.
b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, esp. a Muslim.
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.

I don't think I know EVERYTHING. I do believe that, when I have had actual conversations with multitudinous muslims about this very topic that my knowledge might be a bit more relevant than your entries from an online dictionary.

I would suggest that it is arrogant for you to try to claim superior knowledge of the middle east when I have lived there and you have not...when my JOB was to get to know and understand the various armed factions and religious sects that were operating in my area and your experience in the area is ZIPPO.


Is it your job to smear and insult the troops? Or did you assume the duties all on your own?

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper

[Yurt]

LOL, my online dictionary, what about yours, hardcopy....oooooh, i guess you consider webster online to be bogus :poke:

i spent a great amount of time on islamic forums trying very hard to understand islam. one was a scholar (if you question it, then you question all the muslims who verified it because i asked) and the deal is, infidel is for those who are not christian, kuffar is used for christians or jews who do believe in allah. your own link verifies that, underlined kaffir. that is the general usuage. you should stop relying on your very, very small (alleged) personal experience with a very, very small percentage of the muslim world decades ago. i suppose you think ford makes pinto's still.

i would never, ever call our troops infidels and to do so is acceptance of islamic power and legitimacy. congrats, you are well on your way to dhimimitude.

[retiredman]

LOL, my online dictionary, what about yours, hardcopy....oooooh, i guess you consider webster online to be bogus :poke:

i spent a great amount of time on islamic forums trying very hard to understand islam. one was a scholar (if you question it, then you question all the muslims who verified it because i asked) and the deal is, infidel is for those who are not christian, kuffar is used for christians or jews who do believe in allah. your own link verifies that, underlined kaffir. that is the general usuage. you should stop relying on your very, very small (alleged) personal experience with a very, very small percentage of the muslim world decades ago. i suppose you think ford makes pinto's still.

i would never, ever call our troops infidels and to do so is acceptance of islamic power and legitimacy. congrats, you are well on your way to dhimimitude.


ou spent time on a forum. I lived in the middle east in a job that required that I earn the trust of muslims.

Six of one? if you say so!:laugh2:

[retiredman]

LOL, my online dictionary, what about yours, hardcopy....oooooh, i guess you consider webster online to be bogus :poke:

i spent a great amount of time on islamic forums trying very hard to understand islam. one was a scholar (if you question it, then you question all the muslims who verified it because i asked) and the deal is, infidel is for those who are not christian, kuffar is used for christians or jews who do believe in allah. your own link verifies that, underlined kaffir. that is the general usuage. you should stop relying on your very, very small (alleged) personal experience with a very, very small percentage of the muslim world decades ago. i suppose you think ford makes pinto's still.

i would never, ever call our troops infidels and to do so is acceptance of islamic power and legitimacy. congrats, you are well on your way to dhimimitude.

by the way, the underlining was mine...showing the synonymous relationship.

and your very very small (alleged) personal experience with a very very VERY small percentage of the muslim world in an ONLINE forum is not really impressing me very much, although it is clear that it impresses the hell out of YOU, counselor... eh?:lol:

[Sitarro]

the last three times I wanted to play golf, it rained. My wanting to play golf did not CAUSE the rain to fall. Show this causation or quit claiming it.



How do you know that GOD didn't make it rain on purpose when he knew you wanted to play golf. Maybe God is sitting up there watching your sermons and is just shaking his head in disbelief at how wrong you are at your interpretation of his words and decided to teach you a not too serious lesson.:lmao::lmao::lmao:

[Yurt]

i don't care what, if anything impresses you....what you think is of no concern to me....i merely show, in the course of discussions, that i have in fact talked with muslims and apparently much more recently than you and engaged them in deep religious and sectarian discussion.

if you think your decades old experience in fraction of the muslim world makes you right, who cares, i merely point out that you are not right and that not all muslims share the view of the alleged muslims you met. imagine that, a group of people not agreeing. even webster sees that infidel means non christians, hmmmm, wonder where webster got that, probably more recent info than ford making pintos...

[retiredman]

i don't care what, if anything impresses you....what you think is of no concern to me....i merely show, in the course of discussions, that i have in fact talked with muslims and apparently much more recently than you and engaged them in deep religious and sectarian discussion.

if you think your decades old experience in fraction of the muslim world makes you right, who cares, i merely point out that you are not right and that not all muslims share the view of the alleged muslims you met. imagine that, a group of people not agreeing. even webster sees that infidel means non christians, hmmmm, wonder where webster got that, probably more recent info than ford making pintos...


I never said I was RIGHT...it is YOU who have said that I was WRONG. I showed you that infidel means different things in different religious cultures... and rather than just accept that, you need to make it out to be some horrible INSULT by me of our troops when it was never intended to be one and, in fact, is not one.

Your faux outrage is growing thin.

[red states rule]

How do you know that GOD didn't make it rain on purpose when he knew you wanted to play golf. Maybe God is sitting up there watching your sermons and is just shaking his head in disbelief at how wrong you are at your interpretation of his words and decided to teach you a not too serious lesson.:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Given how our resident preacher treats others and calls our troops infidels - God probably did wash out his golf game

He should be thankful he was not struck with a lightning bolt

[retiredman]

How do you know that GOD didn't make it rain on purpose when he knew you wanted to play golf. Maybe God is sitting up there watching your sermons and is just shaking his head in disbelief at how wrong you are at your interpretation of his words and decided to teach you a not too serious lesson.:lmao::lmao::lmao:


maybe so. But you can't prove that causation anymore than you can prove your previous one about the surge.

[retiredman]

Given how our resident preacher treats others and calls our troops infidels - God probably did wash out his golf game

He should be thankful he was not struck with a lightning bolt

why do you continue to insult me RSR? will you ever just debate issues without this fluff?

[red states rule]

why do you continue to insult me RSR? will you ever just debate issues without this fluff?

Last night was the last straw. When you called our tropps infidels, that was the straw that broke the camels back

You whine and cry how I insult your patriotism, smear your service, and question your loyality

Well you just proved everything I said about you was 100% true. You care nothing about the troops, except using them as political props. You use your service a crutch and a shield

You are the lowest kind of political hack,a nd all you have earned here is pure contempt

[retiredman]

Last night was the last straw. When you called our tropps infidels, that was the straw that broke the camels back

You whine and cry how I insult your patriotism, smear your service, and question your loyality

Well you just proved everything I said about you was 100% true. You care nothing about the troops, except using them as political props. You use your service a crutch and a shield

You are the lowest kind of political hack,a nd all you have earned here is pure contempt

you do understand, do you not, that infidel is not a pejorative term? It is not an insult. To the citizens of Iraq, we ARE an occupying army of infidels. that is fact.

I fully support our troops. I do understand however, how they are viewed by the muslim inhabitants of the land they are occupying. That is certainly a major reason why Iraqis want us out. I daresay that if America were a predominantly muslim nation, and we had invaded Iraq and had deposed their evil dictator and had helped them to form a democratic government, the Iraqis would NOT be in so much of a hurry to have us leave.

Again... I meant ZERO disrespect of our troops by that statement. You misread it and continue to willfully presume that disrespect when none was intended or given, and you are now using it as yet another excuse to continue with insults and continue to avoid discussing issues.

[red states rule]

you do understand, do you not, that infidel is not a pejorative term? It is not an insult. To the citizens of Iraq, we ARE an occupying army of infidels. that is fact.

I fully support our troops. I do understand however, how they are viewed by the muslim inhabitants of the land they are occupying. That is certainly a major reason why Iraqis want us out. I daresay that if America were a predominantly muslim nation, and we had invaded Iraq and had deposed their evil dictator and had helped them to form a democratic government, the Iraqis would NOT be in so much of a hurry to have us leave.

Again... I meant ZERO disrespect of our troops by that statement. You misread it and continue to willfully presume that disrespect when none was intended or given, and you are now using it as yet another excuse to continue with insults and continue to avoid discussing issues.

Bullshit

You once again showed your real side preacher. You insulted the troops, and dismissed the surge as a waste of resources

You have defended and lied for Dems who have called them Nazi's, uneducated, terrorists, accused them of killing in cold blood, and how they torture people

You wanted the US to surrender in Iraq for years now

You are a sanctimonious bastard who finally proved I was right about you after years of lying and trying to cover your tracks by holding up your service record as a shield

[retiredman]

you are incorrect, but you already know that.

if you wish to debate issues, and not rely solely on gratuitous insults, be sure and let me know.

[red states rule]

you are incorrect, but you already know that.

if you wish to debate issues, and not rely solely on gratuitous insults, be sure and let me know.

You opened your blowhole, and now you are offering lame excuses to try and cover your ass

Live it preacher. You revealed how you really feel about the troops, and you fit just fine in the Dem party

[retiredman]

You opened your blowhole, and now you are offering lame excuses to try and cover your ass

Live it preacher. You revealed how you really feel about the troops, and you fit just fine in the Dem party

Like I said...when you are ready to debate issues and stop with the gratuitous insults, please let me know.

[red states rule]

Like I said...when you are ready to debate issues and stop with the gratuitous insults, please let me know.

You are the one who insulted the troops - not me. Now you are playing your usual role as the offended and picked on liberal

You tossed out the insult calling the troops infidels, now be man enough to take the backlash

And I use the term "man" very very loosely when it comes to you

[retiredman]

You are the one who insulted the troops - not me. Now you are playing your usual role as the offended and picked on liberal

You tossed out the insult calling the troops infidels, now be man enough to take the backlash

And I use the term "man" very very loosely when it comes to you

I didn't insult the troops. I did not use the word infidel as an insult.

[red states rule]

I didn't insult the troops. I did not use the word infidel as an insult.

and the lies continue to pour forth from your gutter mouth. Some preacher you are, Now wonder you belong to the same outfit as your racist messiah

[retiredman]

and the lies continue to pour forth from your gutter mouth. Some preacher you are, Now wonder you belong to the same outfit as your racist messiah


it is not a lie, RSR. I meant no insult by that word at ALL. It was merely a statement of fact... the people of the country our army is occupying consider them to be an army of infidels.

[red states rule]

it is not a lie, RSR. I meant no insult by that word at ALL. It was merely a statement of fact... the people of the country our army is occupying consider them to be an army of infidels.

You are lying. Like so many in your party, Code Pink, and the city of Berkeley, CA - you showed all of us the contempt you have for the troops

They screwed up your dreams of surrender and appeasemnt by winning the fight in Iraq

That is an unforgivable sin to hacks like you

[retiredman]

You are lying. Like so many in your party, Code Pink, and the city of Berkeley, CA - you showed all of us the contempt you have for the troops

They screwed up your dreams of surrender and appeasemnt by winning the fight in Iraq

That is an unforgivable sin to hacks like you

you are wrong. I am not lying

[Yurt]

iraqis consider us kafir or kuffar, not infidels. the soldiers seem to consider somewhat perjorative and make fun of the term kafir.


"Kafir" has been used historically to identify the followers of non-denominational religions or local traditions.[2]

...

Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is seen as a derogatory term[1] used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, apostate from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever."

its clear that without translation and to be true to the correct term, muslims will use kafir instead of infidel for christians or believers rather than unbelievers. it is also clear that in cultural terms it is seen as "a deragatory term."

what do the soldiers in iraq call themselves and why do they call themselves this....:


The term has taken a new significance since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It has become vogue for recently-returned U.S. military personnel to wear T-shirts displaying the word “kafir” written in Arabic; often in the form of a black T-shirt with large white script. Usually, a translation of the term is printed in smaller letters below the Arabic script. In some cases the T-shirts state that the wearer is a "Proud Kafir." The T-shirts, along with other similarly labeled items, are commonly sold via politically conservative or military-related websites or at gun shows. The primary purpose for these items appears to be an attempt to co-opt the negative meaning of the term and serve as an act of political defiance.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

that is the reality of the situation and it is clear that the soliders also consider it a negative term.

[retiredman]

nonetheless, my use of infidel was appropriate. and it was not meant as an insult of our troops... as I have repeatedly stated.

[red states rule]

nonetheless, my use of infidel was appropriate. and it was not meant as an insult of our troops... as I have repeatedly stated.

You are a piss poor liar

A "man" with no honor. No integrity. No credibiliy.

[retiredman]

You are a piss poor liar

A "man" with no honor. No integrity. No credibiliy.

why would you think that was a LIE? Please explain why I would LIE about something that I wrote..and something that I have thoroughly explained as to my meaning?

[red states rule]

why would you think that was a LIE? Please explain why I would LIE about something that I wrote..and something that I have thoroughly explained as to my meaning?

It is a habit with you. It is a fact you are a serial liar

Like Bill Clinton you play these little word games - with the same results. Everyone knows what a lying sack of shit you are

[retiredman]

It is a habit with you. It is a fact you are a serial liar

Like Bill Clinton you play these little word games - with the same results. Everyone knows what a lying sack of shit you are


I am not lying in the least. I did not intend pointing out that our troops were infidels to the Iraqi people as an insult in the least. It is a factual statement, and it was not meant to be derrogatory. Why would I LIE about that? If I really DID hate the troops and hate our country, why would I not just come out and say that? I don't come out and say that, because I don't feel that way. I fully support our troops every single day in prayer and every single week in substantive ways though my congregation. I LOVED my country and served her long and well. For you to continue to insult my patriotism and my integrity and my service is getting quite annoying and numbingly repetitive.

[red states rule]

I am not lying in the least. I did not intend pointing out that our troops were infidels to the Iraqi people as an insult in the least. It is a factual statement, and it was not meant to be derrogatory. Why would I LIE about that? If I really DID hate the troops and hate our country, why would I not just come out and say that? I don't come out and say that, because I don't feel that way. I fully support our troops every single day in prayer and every single week in substantive ways though my congregation. I LOVED my country and served her long and well. For you to continue to insult my patriotism and my integrity and my service is getting quite annoying and numbingly repetitive.

Must be a relative of yours MFM

http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/fuck_the_army.jpg

[actsnoblemartin]

Please tone it down :poke:



Bullshit

You once again showed your real side preacher.


Please stop it, him being a preacher has nothing to do with this

You insulted the troops,

He clarified his statement

and dismissed the surge as a waste of resources

thats his opinion, he is entitled to it

You have defended and lied for Dems who have called them Nazi's, uneducated, terrorists, accused them of killing in cold blood, and how they torture people

Thats his opinion, and he entitled to it

You wanted the US to surrender in Iraq for years now

again, one doesnt have to blindly support any war

You are a sanctimonious bastard

no need for that

who finally proved I was right about you after years of lying and trying to cover your tracks by holding up your service record as a shield

[April15]

This tells us alot about the piss poor judgement of the messiah, known as Obama

Despite the huge undeniable success of the surge, Obama would still oppose it, and allow the US to lose in Iraq




Pathetic! Obama Says He Would Still Oppose the Surge... Credits Sunni Awakening Members For the Success!

But, Please Don't Question His Support For the US Military.

After meeting with General David Petraeus today, Barack Obama gave credit to the Sunni Awakening members and the Shia militia members for the success of the surge.
Nice.


Finally, Barack Obama admits the surge was a success and gives credit to where it is due... To the Sunnis.

Barack Obama credited the Sunni Awakening Members and Shia fighters with the success of the surge today in an interview with ABC.
Marc Ambinder reported:


Sen. Barack Obama said it was "fair" to notice that he did not anticipate that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq would be coincident with the so-called Sunni Awakening and the decisions of Shia militias to reduce their footprints, the combination of which led to measurable declines in violence.

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/pathetic-obama-says-he-would-still.html

The troop reinforcements would not have been needed if Chimp boy had stayed in Afghanistan and then entered Iraq. The so called surge, Fancy name for reinforcements, was only required because of ineptitude in the whitehouse!!!!

[red states rule]

The troop reinforcements would not have been needed if Chimp boy had stayed in Afghanistan and then entered Iraq. The so called surge, Fancy name for reinforcements, was only required because of ineptitude in the whitehouse!!!!

Instead of your normal Bush bashing, why not answer the question? Why is the messiah so afraid to admit the surge was indeed a huge success?

[red states rule]

and this newsflash folks........


Reporters Flee Iraq As Casualties Plummet
By Craig Bannister (Bio | Archive)
July 23, 2008 - 16:52 ET

The number of embedded reporters in Iraq has plummeted 74 percent over the past nine months, from 219 in September 2007 to a low of 58 in June, as U.S. troop casualties have plunged, according to Department Of Defense data analysis by CNSNews.com Staff Writer Kevin Mooney. U.S. casualties were down 84 percent in May and 75 percent in June from year-ago numbers, for example.

The number of embedded reporters peaked in September 2007, the month Gen. David Petraeus testified in Congress that the surge strategy was working and that violence was decreasing in the country. Immediately following Gen. Petraeus' testimony came the largest single-month drop off in embedded reporters in October -- from 219 to 78.

At the time, Petraeus's testimony was met with derision by some prominent Democratic members of Congress. "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y), then a presidential candidate told him. "In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside."

"I ask you to take off your rosy glasses," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Petraeus. "We are sending our troops where they're not wanted, where there's no end in sight."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/craig-bannister/2008/07/23/reporters-flee-iraq-casualties-plummet

[April15]

Instead of your normal Bush bashing, why not answer the question? Why is the messiah so afraid to admit the surge was indeed a huge success?I am not bashing Bush but referring to a constructive critisism of his failed war effort. I am not sure who you refer to as messiah so I will have to fall back on my religious memories. As Jesus the Christ child doesn't talk to me I can't answer your question.

[Yurt]

I am not bashing Bush but referring to a constructive critisism of his failed war effort. I am not sure who you refer to as messiah so I will have to fall back on my religious memories. As Jesus the Christ child doesn't talk to me I can't answer your question.

failed? according to even the most ardent anti war people, those who call our troops infidels, believe we won and were not defeated.

[April15]

failed? according to even the most ardent anti war people, those who call our troops infidels, believe we won and were not defeated.YES HIS plans failed. It was when he started to listen to his generals that the illegal invasion was turned around.

[avatar4321]

YES HIS plans failed. It was when he started to listen to his generals that the illegal invasion was turned around.

so you think that the generals werent in control the entire time?

Also, the legal requirements for the United States to go to war aren't complicated. Congress authorized it. It was legal.

[Yurt]

YES HIS plans failed. It was when he started to listen to his generals that the illegal invasion was turned around.

the plans worked, as stated. do you have a case that declared the war illegal? a code, statute or otherwise? any authority? didn't think so.

[red states rule]

the plans worked, as stated. do you have a case that declared the war illegal? a code, statute or otherwise? any authority? didn't think so.

As McCain said last night, any rational person returning to Iraq would see the surge worked

That would leave April out of the equation, and egg on the face of most Dems

[bullypulpit]

This tells us alot about the piss poor judgement of the messiah, known as Obama

Despite the huge undeniable success of the surge, Obama would still oppose it, and allow the US to lose in Iraq




Pathetic! Obama Says He Would Still Oppose the Surge... Credits Sunni Awakening Members For the Success!

But, Please Don't Question His Support For the US Military.

After meeting with General David Petraeus today, Barack Obama gave credit to the Sunni Awakening members and the Shia militia members for the success of the surge.
Nice.


Finally, Barack Obama admits the surge was a success and gives credit to where it is due... To the Sunnis.

Barack Obama credited the Sunni Awakening Members and Shia fighters with the success of the surge today in an interview with ABC.
Marc Ambinder reported:


Sen. Barack Obama said it was "fair" to notice that he did not anticipate that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq would be coincident with the so-called Sunni Awakening and the decisions of Shia militias to reduce their footprints, the combination of which led to measurable declines in violence.

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/pathetic-obama-says-he-would-still.html

Never mind that the "Awakening" coincided with a US plan to <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/iraq.alqaida>pay Sunni militiamen</a> $10 a day to fight Al Qaeda.

The work our troops have done in the face of a civil war and the Bush administration's stupidity is nothing short of remarkable. But be sure to include ALL the facts in the dumb-ass attacks which are your posts. And BTW, given how well our troops have done, despite the Bush administration's stupidity and being caught in the middle of a civil war, why aren't they getting paid the same as Blackwater mercenaries?

[red states rule]

Never mind that the "Awakening" coincided with a US plan to <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/iraq.alqaida>pay Sunni militiamen</a> $10 a day to fight Al Qaeda.

The work our troops have done in the face of a civil war and the Bush administration's stupidity is nothing short of remarkable. But be sure to include ALL the facts in the dumb-ass attacks which are your posts. And BTW, given how well our troops have done, despite the Bush administration's stupidity and being caught in the middle of a civil war, why aren't they getting paid the same as Blackwater mercenaries?

At least you give the troops credit. The messiah removed his comments on how the surge was a failure from his web site, and issued a policy statement BEFORE his "Save the World" tour

For some reason, libs like the messiah seems to have a problem saying the surge was a failure before it even started. Yet, Dems demanded for years Pres Bush admit his mistakes

If libs like the messiah and others had their way, there never would have been a surge and the US would have lost in Iraq

Which is what most Dems wanted in the first place

[red states rule]

Some in the liberal media are now asking what Obama's problem is. Even though they still think the war was wrong (shrug)




Our view on Iraq: Why can't Obama admit the obvious?

The surge worked
Obama was right about war, wrong about surge; McCain vice versa.

In January 2007, America's adventure in Iraq seemed like a chaotic failure. The country was riven with sectarian violence, and al-Qaeda in Iraq had gained a foothold in western Anbar province. Attacks on U.S. troops were running well over 1,000 a week, and Iraqi civilians were dying at a rate of more than 3,000 a month.

In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he planned to "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many critics, including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure.

A year and a half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed out of reach.

The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by Shiite militias and the switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by Gen. David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In doing so, it also contributed to the other developments.

Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/our-view-on-ira.html

[red states rule]

Is it pride or liberal arrogance that prevents the messiah, known as Obama, from admitting he was wrong?



Pride Clouds Obama's Vision
By Kathleen Parker

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama concedes that America's troops have contributed to improvements on the ground in Iraq, but he still stands by his vote against the surge.

Why not just admit that he was wrong?

Come on, senator, this is a lot easier than changing churches. Say: "As a proud American, I'm delighted that the surge has worked so we can move forward with my timetable for withdrawal. Look, if I'd known how successful it was going to be, I would have voted for it. At the time it didn't seem like a good bet, but prognosticators go broke in wartime."

See, that wasn't so bad.

Instead, Obama says that even knowing what he now knows, he still would have voted against the surge. Really? Even knowing that without the surge, he couldn't have safely visited Iraq?

Obama insists that, hypothetically, his own plan might have worked better than the surge: "We don't know what would have happened if I, if the plan that I put forward in January 2007, to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation, to begin a phased withdrawal, what would have happened had we pursued that strategy."

But we do know. Or at least we can wager with some confidence that had we withdrawn within 14 months, as Obama was proposing at the time -- before Sunni Arabs, once the insurgency's backbone, felt sufficiently secure to turn against the jihadists -- Iraq today would be in bloody chaos, al-Qaeda victorious, and the U.S. further diminished in the Arab world.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/pride_clouds_obamas_vision.html

[Yurt]

Some in the liberal media are now asking what Obama's problem is. Even though they still think the war was wrong (shrug)




Our view on Iraq: Why can't Obama admit the obvious?

The surge worked
Obama was right about war, wrong about surge; McCain vice versa.

In January 2007, America's adventure in Iraq seemed like a chaotic failure. The country was riven with sectarian violence, and al-Qaeda in Iraq had gained a foothold in western Anbar province. Attacks on U.S. troops were running well over 1,000 a week, and Iraqi civilians were dying at a rate of more than 3,000 a month.

In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he planned to "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many critics, including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure.

A year and a half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed out of reach.

The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by Shiite militias and the switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by Gen. David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In doing so, it also contributed to the other developments.

Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/our-view-on-ira.html

:salute:

[red states rule]

:salute:

Facts are such a pain in the ass to libs

[retiredman]

:salute:

I agree with the bolded sentences in your post 100%

those tactical developments on the part of sunnis fighting insurgents instead of us or shiites and the shiites agreeing to a ceasefire are just that: tactical...and decidely temporary and tenuous. I continue to believe that there is little to nothing that can be done in the space of one or two lifetimes that will cause the millenium old enmity between the sunnis and shiites - which was powerfully enflamed by nearly a half a century of sunni-ba'athist rule - to soften to the point where they will be willing or able to live together in a peaceful democracy. I also continue to believe that Iraq, with its strong shiite majority and the leadership of those shiites having strong individual ties to Iran, will form an alliance with Iran as soon as we are gone. And THAT will be the lasting legacy of this president.

[red states rule]

I agree with the bolded sentences in your post 100%

those tactical developments on the part of sunnis fighting insurgents instead of us or shiites and the shiites agreeing to a ceasefire are just that: tactical...and decidely temporary and tenuous. I continue to believe that there is little to nothing that can be done in the space of one or two lifetimes that will cause the millenium old enmity between the sunnis and shiites - which was powerfully enflamed by nearly a half a century of sunni-ba'athist rule - to soften to the point where they will be willing or able to live together in a peaceful democracy. I also continue to believe that Iraq, with its strong shiite majority and the leadership of those shiites having strong individual ties to Iran, will form an alliance with Iran as soon as we are gone. And THAT will be the lasting legacy of this president.


Yea, it is not like the infidel (as you call them) US troops had anything to do with it

No wonder you are in love with the messiah. You both have so much in common. Liberal arrogance is never having to admit a mistake

[Yurt]

Yea, it is not like the infidel (as you call them) US troops had anything to do with it

No wonder you are in love with the messiah. You both have so much in common. Liberal arrogance is never having to admit a mistake

what is funny is that i bolded the shia/sunni part to show him that shias did in fact play a part in the surge's success. but it doesn't really matter to him, he already said the surge was a waste of resources. imagine the soldiers who lost fellow soldiers or families of soldiers who lost loved ones hearing that the surge, though successful, was a waste of resources.

disgusting.

[retiredman]

what is funny is that i bolded the shia/sunni part to show him that shias did in fact play a part in the surge's success. but it doesn't really matter to him, he already said the surge was a waste of resources. imagine the soldiers who lost fellow soldiers or families of soldiers who lost loved ones hearing that the surge, though successful, was a waste of resources.

disgusting.


and I said I agreed with your bolded sentences. The sunnis and shiites played a role in the successes that happened concurrently with our surge. Again, our surge was designed to provide Iraqi politicians with the safe breathing room to solve the problems confronting the formation of a multi-sectarian democracy. The surge provided the breathing room...the politicians did not solve their problems... and I still believe that the surge was a use of resources that could have better been utilized in Afghanistan...but that was not, and is not, Bush's priority. THAT is what is disgusting.

[retiredman]

Yea, it is not like the infidel (as you call them) US troops had anything to do with it

No wonder you are in love with the messiah. You both have so much in common. Liberal arrogance is never having to admit a mistake
see the previous post

[Yurt]

and I said I agreed with your bolded sentences. The sunnis and shiites played a role in the successes that happened concurrently with our surge. Again, our surge was designed to provide Iraqi politicians with the safe breathing room to solve the problems confronting the formation of a multi-sectarian democracy. The surge provided the breathing room...the politicians did not solve their problems... and I still believe that the surge was a use of resources that could have better been utilized in Afghanistan...but that was not, and is not, Bush's priority. THAT is what is disgusting.

but for the breathing room.....

causation watson, causation

[retiredman]

but for the breathing room.....

causation watson, causation

the point is: the Iraqi politicians have not done what they were supposed to have done with that breathing room.

[red states rule]

the point is: the Iraqi politicians have not done what they were supposed to have done with that breathing room.

As usual, you do not have a clue as to what you are ranting about


New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 1, 5:37 PM ET



WASHINGTON - No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_progress

[red states rule]

and just as Britt Hume at Fox News predicted, only Fox News reported that story


As Predicted, Only FNC Reports Progress in Iraq
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
July 2, 2008 - 01:33 ET

After leading Tuesday's Special Report with how “last year the administration reported satisfactory progress on only about eight of 18 benchmarks” while this year, in a report disclosed Tuesday, the administration determined “there has been satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18,” FNC's Brit Hume doubted “word of this progress is going to get through” to the public as he predicted:

I suspect that this broadcast tonight -- and maybe some others on this channel -- are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere.

Indeed, neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News mentioned Iraq while on ABC's World News anchor Charles Gibson read a short update about “increasing dangers for U.S. troops in Afghanistan” since “in the month of June there were 28 American fatalities in Afghanistan, just one less than died in Iraq last month.” CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 was also silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks.

Hume observed that “when it first hit the wires, the wire story lead about it was all about how much trouble the next President is going to have with the slow pace of the Iraqi government. Only down in the story did one find out that this new report on the benchmarks has come out reporting a dramatic change from a year ago.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/07/02/hume-correctly-predicts-only-fnc-would-report-progress-iraq

[red states rule]

see the previous post

http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/files/pictures/picture-12064.jpg

[Yurt]

the point is: the Iraqi politicians have not done what they were supposed to have done with that breathing room.

the point was causation, you claimed the surge did not cause the peace, i showed you it did (again), and this is how you weasel out of it :laugh2:

strange, earlier you claimed it was the iraqis who caused the peace, not the surge...:poke:

[actsnoblemartin]

The surge, along with cooperating from iraqis = the success we're having.

But, i dont see any evidence that the politicians of iraq have really dont anything, but im always open to being proven wrong.

I agree with maineman though, the muslims have been slitting each other's throats for 1500 years, i dont have high hopes they will stop now, once we leave. But, i hope im wrong

what is the point, you are arguing with maineman exactly?


the point was causation, you claimed the surge did not cause the peace, i showed you it did (again), and this is how you weasel out of it :laugh2:

strange, earlier you claimed it was the iraqis who caused the peace, not the surge...:poke:

[Yurt]

The surge, along with cooperating from iraqis = the success we're having.

But, i dont see any evidence that the politicians of iraq have really dont anything, but im always open to being proven wrong.

I agree with maineman though, the muslims have been slitting each other's throats for 1500 years, i dont have high hopes they will stop now, once we leave. But, i hope im wrong

what is the point, you are arguing with maineman exactly?

causation, he said the surge was a waste and did not cause the peace, he laid the accomplishment at the feet of the iraqis, not the surge or american troops...then his post said the surge provided the necessary breathing room for the iraqis to cooperate together....ergo, but for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause) the surge, the peace would not have happened.

while the muslims have been at emnity for 1500 years, it is false to say that the muslims in iraq or the area of iraq have been slitting each other throats for 1500 years. there have been times of peace, read history. as i said before, the hope of peace is "slim", however, to say we have lost before it has begun is futile and serves no purpose. it is defeatist.

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent post


causation, he said the surge was a waste and did not cause the peace, he laid the accomplishment at the feet of the iraqis, not the surge or american troops...then his post said the surge provided the necessary breathing room for the iraqis to cooperate together....ergo, but for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause) the surge, the peace would not have happened.


Well, I find the surge along with the iraqi peoples cooperation made the surge successful, am i wrong?

while the muslims have been at emnity for 1500 years, it is false to say that the muslims in iraq or the area of iraq have been slitting each other throats for 1500 years.

Yes, that is correct.

there have been times of peace, read history.


can you give me a link, tracking anything in google is a crap shoot, but yes generally speaking, i know iraq has not always been bad.

as i said before, the hope of peace is "slim", however, to say we have lost before it has begun is futile and serves no purpose. it is defeatist.

I agree with you, and do not think we should give up, or leave pre-maturely

[retiredman]

the point was causation, you claimed the surge did not cause the peace, i showed you it did (again), and this is how you weasel out of it :laugh2:

strange, earlier you claimed it was the iraqis who caused the peace, not the surge...:poke:

you have not proven that the surge cause the peace. you have proven that the surge happened at the same time that the sunnis decided to go after AQ and the shiites decided to call a cease fire. Those two events may be related to the surge, in time, but nowhere is there any substantive proof that they were CAUSED by the surge.

[retiredman]

causation, he said the surge was a waste and did not cause the peace, he laid the accomplishment at the feet of the iraqis, not the surge or american troops...then his post said the surge provided the necessary breathing room for the iraqis to cooperate together....ergo, but for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause) the surge, the peace would not have happened.

while the muslims have been at emnity for 1500 years, it is false to say that the muslims in iraq or the area of iraq have been slitting each other throats for 1500 years. there have been times of peace, read history. as i said before, the hope of peace is "slim", however, to say we have lost before it has begun is futile and serves no purpose. it is defeatist.


the surge did provide the breathing room that Iraqis were supposed to have used to work TOGETHER to form a democratic multisectarian government. The two separate events: sunnis in Anbar deciding to go after AQ and score some american payroll dollars at the same time. and Sadr's mahdi army deciding to abide by a cease fire, were NOT examples of Iraqi politicians working TOGETHER to do anything.

and getting them to work together is nothing that we ought to put on our priority list anywhere NEAR as high as defeating islamic extremism and dismantling Al Qaeda.

[Yurt]

martin,

you see, causation is a funny issue, it is argued daily in courts and personal lives as to who or what caused something. "but for" cause or proximate cause is a great method for determining the "greater" cause or the what factor substantially caused something to occur when many events coincide making it somewhat difficult, not impossible, to determine teh substantive causation factor.

for example, did the bullet from the gun cause the murder or did the act of pulling the trigger cause the murder? both could be considered happening almost simultaneously. but what really caused the death? of course the bullet "actually" caused the death, however, "but for" the act of pulling the trigger, the death would not have occurred. do you understand?

mfm does not want to credit our troops, (they are infidels to him) he insists that though the surge gave the necessary (he said necessary) breathing room for the parties to unite in peace, it was the iraqis who are responsible and not the surge. that is why i argued, that but for the surge giving the necessary breathing space, peace would not have been obtained (most likely).

so what was the factor that substantially enabled the peace?

[retiredman]

mfm does not want to credit our troops, (they are infidels to him) he insists that though the surge gave the necessary (he said necessary) breathing room for the parties to unite in peace, it was the iraqis who are responsible and not the surge. that is why i argued, that but for the surge giving the necessary breathing space, peace would not have been obtained (most likely).

so what was the factor that substantially enabled the peace?

the surge gave breathing room that Iraqi politicians were supposed to use it to solve their political differences and forge the jeffersonian democracy. The Iraqi politicians have made minimal progress in coming together to solve those differences. The actions by the sunnis in the Anbar province and the Mahdi army, while nice developments, no doubt, are not done in concert, were not done together, and were not part of the process of developing that jeffersonian democracy. The sunnis could very well have decided to start attacking AQ instead of Americans (the money was better) and they did, in fact, begin that process before the surge ever began. The shiites could very well have decided to take a break from their fight with the sunnis (and with us) without the surge taking place and there is no evidence to suggest that they did, in fact, agree to a cease fire as a result of our increased troop levels. Now if you had PROOF that the sunnis decided to kick AQ out Anbar BECAUSE of the surge, you would have shown that PROOF long before now. Similarly, if you had PROOF that the shiite decided to adhere to a ceasefire BECAUSE of the surge, you would have shown THAT PROOF long before now. As I said earlier, correlation does not equate to causation.

[red states rule]

New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 1, 5:37 PM ET



WASHINGTON - No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/..._iraq_progress

[retiredman]

tried your "link"

Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

:lame2:

[red states rule]

tried your "link"

Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

:lame2:


What is lame is your continued lie no political progress has been made


and just as Britt Hume at Fox News predicted, only Fox News reported that story


As Predicted, Only FNC Reports Progress in Iraq
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
July 2, 2008 - 01:33 ET

After leading Tuesday's Special Report with how “last year the administration reported satisfactory progress on only about eight of 18 benchmarks” while this year, in a report disclosed Tuesday, the administration determined “there has been satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18,” FNC's Brit Hume doubted “word of this progress is going to get through” to the public as he predicted:

I suspect that this broadcast tonight -- and maybe some others on this channel -- are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere.

Indeed, neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News mentioned Iraq while on ABC's World News anchor Charles Gibson read a short update about “increasing dangers for U.S. troops in Afghanistan” since “in the month of June there were 28 American fatalities in Afghanistan, just one less than died in Iraq last month.” CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 was also silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks.

Hume observed that “when it first hit the wires, the wire story lead about it was all about how much trouble the next President is going to have with the slow pace of the Iraqi government. Only down in the story did one find out that this new report on the benchmarks has come out reporting a dramatic change from a year ago.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/07/02/hume-correctly-predicts-only-fnc-would-report-progress-iraq

[retiredman]

What is lame is your continued lie no political progress has been made


and just as Britt Hume at Fox News predicted, only Fox News reported that story


As Predicted, Only FNC Reports Progress in Iraq
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
July 2, 2008 - 01:33 ET

After leading Tuesday's Special Report with how “last year the administration reported satisfactory progress on only about eight of 18 benchmarks” while this year, in a report disclosed Tuesday, the administration determined “there has been satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18,” FNC's Brit Hume doubted “word of this progress is going to get through” to the public as he predicted:

I suspect that this broadcast tonight -- and maybe some others on this channel -- are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere.

Indeed, neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News mentioned Iraq while on ABC's World News anchor Charles Gibson read a short update about “increasing dangers for U.S. troops in Afghanistan” since “in the month of June there were 28 American fatalities in Afghanistan, just one less than died in Iraq last month.” CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 was also silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks.

Hume observed that “when it first hit the wires, the wire story lead about it was all about how much trouble the next President is going to have with the slow pace of the Iraqi government. Only down in the story did one find out that this new report on the benchmarks has come out reporting a dramatic change from a year ago.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/07/02/hume-correctly-predicts-only-fnc-would-report-progress-iraq


I never have said that NO political progress has been made, just not enough to create that multi-sectarian jeffersonian democracy that Dubya promised us.

[red states rule]

I never have said that NO political progress has been made, just not enough to create that multi-sectarian jeffersonian democracy that Dubya promised us.

Oh, so they have made enough progress to suit you?

Like they are worried about making you happy :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Oh, so they gave made enough progress to suit you?

Like they are worried about making you happy :laugh2:

gave made? what the fuck does that mean?

[Yurt]

I never have said that NO political progress has been made, just not enough to create that multi-sectarian jeffersonian democracy that Dubya promised us.

bullcrap, the president never promised that type of democracy, he has always maintained it would not look exactly like ours....stop lying

[Yurt]

martin,

feel free to still answer the post directed to you. i don't care what mfm says, he will never admit to anything. he will not offer proof to substantiate his claim that it DID NOT cause it, yet expects proof that it DID cause it. that is why i gave you the example of proximate cause. people without rational thinking remain stuck in illogical notions of reality.

[manu1959]

bullcrap, the president never promised that type of democracy, he has always maintained it would not look exactly like ours....stop lying

i look forword to the link to the quote........:laugh2:

[Yurt]

i look forword to the link to the quote........:laugh2:

let's play golf until then :cool:

[retiredman]

what form of government were we trying to install in Iraq?

that would cost us seven years of time better spent fighting islamic extremism and that would have cost us nearly a trillion dollars better spent on our own borders and our own ports or entry, and that would have cost us over 4K American lives?

[Yurt]

what form of government were we trying to install in Iraq?

that would cost us seven years of time better spent fighting islamic extremism and that would have cost us nearly a trillion dollars better spent on our own borders and our own ports or entry, and that would have cost us over 4K American lives?

either link up or admit you're wrong and/or lied...

i won't wait

[retiredman]

either link up or admit you're wrong and/or lied...

i won't wait

link up to what? what have I said that was wrong?

[Yurt]

link up to what? what have I said that was wrong?

do try and follow along preacher


jeffersonian democracy that Dubya promised us

[retiredman]

do try and follow along preacher

are you suggesting that Bush did not promise us that Iraq would embrace democracy just as we had done, or are you, once again, going to split hairs, COUNSELOR?

[Yurt]

are you suggesting that Bush did not promise us that Iraq would embrace democracy just as we had done, or are you, once again, going to split hairs, COUNSELOR?

i am not splitting hairs at all...you said jeffersonian democracy...that is a lie. i already said bush said it would not look like ours, but of course you deflect and put it off on me as if your error is my fault by splitting hairs.


he has always maintained it would not look exactly like ours

do try and follow along...if you simply thought he said that but are mistaken, fine, admit it. but since you are keeping it up, it shows me that you are being dishonest.


In one sense, the idea that the Bush administration ever promised a Jeffersonian democracy is a straw man. For those who cared to listen, the White House always said that its vision for Iraq would have Muslim and Iraqi characteristics

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDg2YzBhOGY5MjQ4ODkyNGVhNTU2MzFlZDQ3ZjkwZTM=

unlike you, i will not call you a liar if you admit you are wrong, for no one is perfect. you ran around the board using the specific term (jeffersonian democracy) and are now vigorously saying it is true when you know it is not, that is dishonest.

[retiredman]

With the exception of the allowed influence of Islam, I would think that Thomas Jefferson would have approved of the sort of government that George Bush and the Iraqi politicians are trying to put together in Baghdad. A democracy does not have to be an exact duplicate of ours to be called Jeffersonian, ya know.:poke:

[Yurt]

in other words, mfm can't admit he is wrong

fact is bush is not a true jeffersonian and would not advocate a jeffersonian democracy, if he did, he is a hypocrite because bush does not follow a jeffersonian style democracy. his plans for iraq as you now admit are not for a democracy like ours. by stating that iraqi democracy would have some islamic principles in it, that alone should have given you a clue that bush never intended a jeffersonian democracy, but you now concede that while stating you are still right...however, bush also wants a strong national government for iraq, that is not jeffersonian...face it, bush never said that and you are wrong.

simple

[retiredman]

in other words, mfm can't admit he is wrong

fact is bush is not a true jeffersonian and would not advocate a jeffersonian democracy, if he did, he is a hypocrite because bush does not follow a jeffersonian style democracy. his plans for iraq as you now admit are not for a democracy like ours. by stating that iraqi democracy would have some islamic principles in it, that alone should have given you a clue that bush never intended a jeffersonian democracy, but you now concede that while stating you are still right...however, bush also wants a strong national government for iraq, that is not jeffersonian...face it, bush never said that and you are wrong.

simple


If I stated that Bush had used the word Jeffersonian, that would be incorrect of me.

that doesnt change the fact that you are nitpicking....making a big deal about the jeffersonian part and ignoring the democracy part... but that is your style

[Yurt]

If I stated that Bush had used the word Jeffersonian, that would be incorrect of me.

that doesnt change the fact that you are nitpicking....making a big deal about the jeffersonian part and ignoring the democracy part... but that is your style

stop deflecting off on me for your mistakes. if you can't honestly discuss things, don't bother posting. you said a specific type of democracy. that is not true and that is not nitpicking. it is entirely relavent to a discussion about exactly what bush promised. if you are not aware, there are different types of democracies, jacksonian, jeffersonian, etc... you wouldn't say that a rolls royce is the same as a pinto, even though both are "cars." and it would not be nitpicking to point out the differences. you said:


just not enough to create that multi-sectarian jeffersonian democracy that Dubya promised us.


I was extraordinarily apprehensive about Bush's plan to bring multicultural jeffersonian democracy to the banks of the euphrates

a simple question for you, and it only requires a simple yes or no.

did bush plan to bring or promise a jeffersonian democracy?

yes or no.

[April15]

stop deflecting off on me for your mistakes. if you can't honestly discuss things, don't bother posting. you said a specific type of democracy. that is not true and that is not nitpicking. it is entirely relavent to a discussion about exactly what bush promised. if you are not aware, there are different types of democracies, jacksonian, jeffersonian, etc... you wouldn't say that a rolls royce is the same as a pinto, even though both are "cars." and it would not be nitpicking to point out the differences. you said:





a simple question for you, and it only requires a simple yes or no.

did bush plan to bring or promise a jeffersonian democracy?

yes or no.

The question you pose is moot as Bush has no Idea who jefferson was or why his policies matter. let alone madison.

[Yurt]

The question you pose is moot as Bush has no Idea who jefferson was or why his policies matter. let alone madison.

you need to direct this post to mfm, he is the one who claimed bush promised us jeffersonian democracy

but nice insults to the prez, way to go buckaroo

[retiredman]

no. he did not specify jeffersonian. Let me restate:

I was extraordinarily apprehensive about Bush's plan to bring multicultural democracy to the banks of the euphrates.

I remain apprehensive and believe that trying to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to participate in a democratic multi-sectarian government is now, has always been and will always be a poor use of our military assets while we have islamic extremists organizations that are sworn to our destruction.

[Yurt]

bravo

[retiredman]

as I predicted, you only wanted to nitpick the "jeffersonian" issue and now have nothing of any substance to add to the line of discussion.

bravo

[Yurt]

you just couldn't resist more insults....:poke:

and it is not nitpicking, such a statement is untrue as i explained above. kindly stop your false insults.

i have nothing to say substantively about bush promising a general democracy that will not look like ours -- because that is what he promised. i've already explained to you the differences in democracies, obviously you still don't think that is the case, so there is no point in further discussion with you on the matter despite your finally admitting you were wrong about bush promising and planning a jeffersonian democracy or a democracy that looks like ours.

[retiredman]

you just couldn't resist more insults....:poke:

and it is not nitpicking, such a statement is untrue as i explained above. kindly stop your false insults.

i have nothing to say substantively about bush promising a general democracy that will not look like ours -- because that is what he promised. i've already explained to you the differences in democracies, obviously you still don't think that is the case, so there is no point in further discussion with you on the matter despite your finally admitting you were wrong about bush promising and planning a jeffersonian democracy or a democracy that looks like ours.
I say again:

I was extraordinarily apprehensive about Bush's plan to bring multicultural democracy (OF ANY VARIETY) to the banks of the euphrates.

I remain apprehensive and believe that trying to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to participate in a democratic multi-sectarian government is now, has always been and will always be a poor use of our military assets while we have islamic extremists organizations that are sworn to our destruction.

now...do you have anything to say to that comment or not? If not...please don't feel compelled to respond... your silence will be a clear enough answer.

[Yurt]

I say again:

I was extraordinarily apprehensive about Bush's plan to bring multicultural democracy (OF ANY VARIETY) to the banks of the euphrates.

I remain apprehensive and believe that trying to get sunnis and shiites in Iraq to participate in a democratic multi-sectarian government is now, has always been and will always be a poor use of our military assets while we have islamic extremists organizations that are sworn to our destruction.

now...do you have anything to say to that comment or not? If not...please don't feel compelled to respond... your silence will be a clear enough answer.

you have now corrected your statements concerning what bush promised and as i said above


i have nothing to say substantively about bush promising a general democracy that will not look like ours -- because that is what he promised

so unless you are saying something different than above, what would i say... great, mfm finally admits mistake and agrees that yurt is right? i don't do victory dances, so not sure what exactly you want me to say....

[retiredman]

you have now corrected your statements concerning what bush promised and as i said above


so unless you are saying something different than above, what would i say... great, mfm finally admits mistake and agrees that yurt is right? i don't do victory dances, so not sure what exactly you want me to say....
I am wondering if you saw the (OF ANY VARIETY) addition above. Appraently not. Are you now suggesting that Bush did not promise democracy of any kind?

[Yurt]

i have nothing to say substantively about bush promising a general democracy that will not look like ours -- because that is what he promised

how more times do you need this repeated?

[retiredman]

how more times do you need this repeated?

and I have stated that Bush did not say it would LOOK LIKE OURS but only that it would be a democracy. Do you have nothing to say about the prospects of democracy of any sort in Iraq?

[red states rule]

and I have stated that Bush did not say it would LOOK LIKE OURS but only that it would be a democracy. Do you have nothing to say about the prospects of democracy of any sort in Iraq?

First you lie about insulting the troops with your infidels slur, now you lie about you saying Bush promising a general democracy

You are a poster child for not only your party, but for birth control as well

[retiredman]

First you lie about insulting the troops with your infidels slur, now you lie about you saying Bush promising a general democracy

You are a poster child for not only your party, but for birth control as well

my suggesting that our troops were infidels in Iraq was not meant as a slur... and I won't all of a sudden change my mind and mean that it was a slur no matter how many times you repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.

and are you NOW saying that Bush did not proclaim that his goal was to establish a democracy is Iraq?

[red states rule]

my suggesting that our troops were infidels in Iraq was not meant as a slur... and I won't all of a sudden change my mind and mean that it was a slur no matter how many times you repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.

and are you NOW saying that Bush did not proclaim that his goal was to establish a democracy is Iraq?

Like most libs and like your messiah, your arrogance prevents you from admitting the truth. It can be your insults you have made to the troops, your desire to surrender over the years, and now you lie over what you said about democracy

You are in lockstep with your party when it comes to inculting and smearing the troops - you fucked up and showed how you REALLY feel about the troops

It is nice to see your messiah now agrees with what Pres Bush said all along - we Iraq can stand alone we will stand down

[retiredman]

Like most libs and like your messiah, your arrogance prevents you from admitting the truth. It can be your insults you have made to the troops, your desire to surrender over the years, and now you lie over what you said about democracy

You are in lockstep with your party when it comes to inculting and smearing the troops - you fucked up and showed how you REALLY feel about the troops

It is nice to see your messiah now agrees with what Pres Bush said all along - we Iraq can stand alone we will stand down

As I said, it was not meant as a slur, nor is it. And again, I earlier posted a challenge to you to either show where I had EVER advocated surrender, or, failing that, show the grace most people expect from adults and quit repeating the slander.

And please tell me what LIE I have said about Iraqi democracy? Do you know what you are talking about?

[red states rule]

As I said, it was not meant as a slur, nor is it. And again, I earlier posted a challenge to you to either show where I had EVER advocated surrender, or, failing that, show the grace most people expect from adults and quit repeating the slander.

And please tell me what LIE I have said about Iraqi democracy? Do you know what you are talking about?

It was a slur - your screwed up and told the truth for once. Bet you will be more careful and watch how yu play your word games more carefully

Same for surrender. You wanted to cut and run beofre the surge accomplished its goal - you wanted defeat in Iraq - like most in your party

[retiredman]

It was a slur - your screwed up and told the truth for once. Bet you will be more careful and watch how yu play your word games more carefully

Same for surrender. You wanted to cut and run beofre the surge accomplished its goal - you wanted defeat in Iraq - like most in your party


it is not a slur. and it was certainly never intended to BE a slur.

I have NEVER wanted defeat anywhere. and you had a chance to get me off of this board forever merely by showing any post where I advocated defeat or surrender. You were unable to do so. For youto continue to repeat such slander is proof of what a sorry excuse for a man you really are.

[red states rule]

it is not a slur. and it was certainly never intended to BE a slur.

I have NEVER wanted defeat anywhere. and you had a chance to get me off of this board forever merely by showing any post where I advocated defeat or surrender. You were unable to do so. For youto continue to repeat such slander is proof of what a sorry excuse for a man you really are.

You, like most in your party, showed how you REALLY feel about the troops. To them they are nothing but pawns to be used in your politcal ganes. You do not give a shit about them, they are stepping stones you used to try and score political points

Now that they screwed up your dreams of surrender, you expressed your true feelings and called them infidels

Your goal of having the troops coming home as losers are now dead in the water, and you and your messiah can't admit you defeatests were wrong

[retiredman]

You, like most in your party, showed how you REALLY feel about the troops. To them they are nothing but pawns to be used in your politcal ganes. You do not give a shit about them, they are stepping stones you used to try and score political points

Now that they screwed up your dreams of surrender, you expressed your true feelings and called them infidels

Your goal of having the troops coming home as losers are now dead in the water, and you and your messiah can't admit you defeatests were wrong

like I said, you couldn't produce the proof that I had ever wanted defeat or surrender, and you don't have the integrity of a grown man to admit your mistake. what a sorry excuse for a human you are. truly pathetic backwash from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[red states rule]

like I said, you couldn't produce the proof that I had ever wanted defeat or surrender, and you don't have the integrity of a grown man to admit your mistake. what a sorry excuse for a human you are. truly pathetic backwash from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Oh I did, and others agree with me

Seems you are the one who is pissed over the success in Iraq. Your wet dreams of a US defeat went up in smoke thank to the folks you call infidels

[retiredman]

Oh I did, and others agree with me

Seems you are the one who is pissed over the success in Iraq. Your wet dreams of a US defeat went up in smoke thank to the folks you call infidels

no. you didn't. If you have ONE post from me that ever advocated DEFEAT or SURRENDER in Iraq, you would have posted it long ago.

[red states rule]

no. you didn't. If you have ONE post from me that ever advocated DEFEAT or SURRENDER in Iraq, you would have posted it long ago.

Once agin, ypu casll for "redeployment" and leaving BEFORE the surge was completed would have been a loss for the US and a win for the terrorists

I know you will never admit it - just like your mnessiah, the truth is a menace and the facts are an enemy

[retiredman]

Once agin, ypu casll for "redeployment" and leaving BEFORE the surge was completed would have been a loss for the US and a win for the terrorists

I know you will never admit it - just like your mnessiah, the truth is a menace and the facts are an enemy


like I said, you have stated that I have called for our defeat and our surrender. I asked you nicely to quit repeating those LIES. I even gave you the opportunity to produce ONE post from me where I EVER called for defeat or surrender and I was willing to depart this site and never return. You failed to find one such post. You are a liar and a dispicable excuse for a man.

[red states rule]

like I said, you have stated that I have called for our defeat and our surrender. I asked you nicely to quit repeating those LIES. I even gave you the opportunity to produce ONE post from me where I EVER called for defeat or surrender and I was willing to depart this site and never return. You failed to find one such post. You are a liar and a dispicable excuse for a man.

Like your messiah, you lie and try in vain to deflect away from your past words and actions from the current debate

Sorry if your lies, slurs, and defeatism is catching up to you and your party

[red states rule]

I thank God you libs were not around during WWII


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/118912.jpg

[retiredman]

Like your messiah, you lie and try in vain to deflect away from your past words and actions from the current debate

Sorry if your lies, slurs, and defeatism is catching up to you and your party

you're the liar. you can't back up your lies. you are scum. really. nothing but sludge from the shallow end of the genepool. you make me sick.

[red states rule]

you're the liar. you can't back up your lies. you are scum. really. nothing but sludge from the shallow end of the genepool. you make me sick.

I see the truth and reality about your "patriotism" and "support" for the troops is starting to get to you

Guilty conscience perhaps?

If you have a conscience that is

[retiredman]

I see the truth and reality about your "patriotism" and "support" for the troops is starting to get to you

Guilty conscience perhaps?

If you have a conscience that is

not at all. I just find you sickening. you are really a quite worthless human being from my perspective. a waster of oxygen.

[red states rule]

not at all. I just find you sickening. you are really a quite worthless human being from my perspective. a waster of oxygen.

Well, earning your respect is a badge of honor :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Well, earning your respect is a badge of honor :laugh2:

I am sure it is... but that still does not make you anything more than a cut and paste hack who is such an intellectual lightweight that he can't formulate his own arguments. It is THAT behavior, much moreso than your politics, which has lost you my respect.

Oh, and I think you meant to say "disrespect", but then, coherent english composition has never been your forte!:poke:

[Hobbit]

I am sure it is... but that still does not make you anything more than a cut and paste hack who is such an intellectual lightweight that he can't formulate his own arguments. It is THAT behavior, much moreso than your politics, which has lost you my respect.

Oh, and I think you meant to say "disrespect", but then, coherent english composition has never been your forte!:poke:

At least he's honest. You like to make up statistics and fabricate evidence to prove your point, and when people call you on your bullcrap, you don't produce anything to back it up, you just lash out at them for calling you a liar.

[retiredman]

At least he's honest. You like to make up statistics and fabricate evidence to prove your point, and when people call you on your bullcrap, you don't produce anything to back it up, you just lash out at them for calling you a liar.

name ONE fabricated statistic I have EVER posted. I'll wait.

[retiredman]

still waiting...

lying sack of shit.

[Yurt]

it must be ok now to call people liar over and over, good to know

[retiredman]

it must be ok now to call people liar over and over, good to know

Hobbit suggested that I like to "make up statistics and fabricate evidence".

Are you suggesting that such a statement is NOT a lie? And if so, do YOU care to provide me with one single solitary statistic or evidence that I have "fabricated"?

I'll wait, "counselor".

[Yurt]

i merely suggest that those who claim outrage, perhaps faux outrage, over being called a liar and exclaim that being called such is the height of insults, have no room to talk when they, themselves, routinely call others liars as if the word liar is a crumb that falls off the everyday cake....

[retiredman]

i merely suggest that those who claim outrage, perhaps faux outrage, over being called a liar and exclaim that being called such is the height of insults, have no room to talk when they, themselves, routinely call others liars as if the word liar is a crumb that falls off the everyday cake....

when people who do not lie are called liars, they have every right to complain.

I ask you again...is hobbit telling the truth when he makes that claim or is he lying? If he is telling the truth, prove it. If he is NOT telling the truth, then he IS a LIAR and I have every right to call him such.

[Yurt]

when people who do not lie are called liars, they have every right to complain.

I ask you again...is hobbit telling the truth when he makes that claim or is he lying? If he is telling the truth, prove it. If he is NOT telling the truth, then he IS a LIAR and I have every right to call him such.

contrary to your claims that i am an advocate for members of this board, i do not speak for hobbit....it is his claim, not mine. oh wait, that would make your claims that i act as the board advocate.....what?

[retiredman]

contrary to your claims that i am an advocate for members of this board, i do not speak for hobbit....it is his claim, not mine. oh wait, that would make your claims that i act as the board advocate.....what?

you jumped on my claim that he is a liar pretty fast. Why would you DO that if you knew or had good reason to believe that I was accurate in my claim? Are you suggesting that someone who hates being FALSELY accused of lying cannot, therefore, ACCURATELY accuse someone of doing so?

Or do you just like to follow me around and nitpick my posts like some gay obsessive little geek for no real reason?

[Yurt]

you jumped on my claim that he is a liar pretty fast. Why would you DO that if you knew or had good reason to believe that I was accurate in my claim? Are you suggesting that someone who hates being FALSELY accused of lying cannot, therefore, ACCURATELY accuse someone of doing so?

Or do you just like to follow me around and nitpick my posts like some gay obsessive little geek for no real reason?

bless your heart, you sound like a lawyer....

you should be proud.

[retiredman]

bless your heart, you sound like a lawyer....

you should be proud.

why thank you!

[Kathianne]

Rather than lock this thread or moving to the Cage; Yurt, MFM, and RSR have been banned from posting on it.

If posters feel compelled to call others liars, question others purpose of existence, etc., feel free to go to the cage or pm insults to one another. The whole 'liar', 'lawyer', 'inability to debate', ie., baiting, needs to stop on threads others find of interest.

Questions or comments in pm's are fine, to myself or other staff members.

[Gaffer]

Rather than lock this thread or moving to the Cage; Yurt, MFM, and RSR have been banned from posting on it.

If posters feel compelled to call others liars, question others purpose of existence, etc., feel free to go to the cage or pm insults to one another. The whole 'liar', 'lawyer', 'inability to debate', ie., baiting, needs to stop on threads others find of interest.

Questions or comments in pm's are fine, to myself or other staff members.

Thank you.