Bush: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable

[Pale Rider]

BUSH: DECISIONS HAVE MADE IRAQ MORE UNSTABLE
Sat Jan 13 2007 13:36:11 ET

The president concedes that his decisions have led to more instability in Iraq. President Bush made the admission in an exclusive interview with Scott Pelley at Camp David yesterday (12), his first interview since addressing the nation about Iraq. It will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 14 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

The president says the current sectarian violence in Iraq, is a destabilizing factor that "could lead to attacks here in America" and must be controlled. He defended his decision to invade Iraq in the same way, saying Saddam was competing with Iran to get a nuclear weapon and making the region unstable. But when pressed by Pelley, Bush concedes that conditions in Iraq are much worse now.

Pelley: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq? Bush: "Our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran... He was a significant source of instability. Pelley: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President. Bush: Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.

"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it," says Bush.

Toppling Saddam was not a mistake, however. "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. But he was a significant source of instability," Bush tells Pelley. "We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqi's express that."

The execution of Saddam was mishandled, says the president, who saw only parts of it on the Internet because he didn't want to watch the dictator fall through the trap door. "I thought it was discouraging... It's important that that chapter of Iraqi history be closed. [But] They could have handled it a lot better."


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

[darin]

Here's a shock - How about this:

MUSLIM TERRORISTS have made Iraq unstable...

[Pale Rider]

Here's a shock - How about this:

MUSLIM TERRORISTS have made Iraq unstable...

You know I think the ole prez has been brow beaten for so many years and so bad by the liberal drive by media, that he caves now when asked certain questions.

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

[jillian]

You know I think the ole prez has been brow beaten for so many years and so bad by the liberal drive by media, that he caves now when asked certain questions.

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

Every president ages horribly in office. I sure wouldn't want the job.

But at least he stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for his bad decisions. Doesn't change anything, but it's something.

[Gunny]

Every president ages horribly in office. I sure wouldn't want the job.

But at least he stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for his bad decisions. Doesn't change anything, but it's something.

He didn't take responsibility for a bad decison. He took responsibility for the results of a decison he stands behind.

[TheSage]

He didn't take responsibility for a bad decison. He took responsibility for the results of a decison he stands behind.

In that case, he just has a learning disability.

[Gunny]

In that case, he just has a learning disability.


Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

[retiredman]

Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

[TheSage]

Yeah, we should have just left Saddam alone to do what he wanted. He still had about four other neighboring countries he hadn't invaded yet.

DId i say that? Don't change the subject.

Bad results of a decision mean the decision was bad. Don't play word games; that's what liberals do.

[Gunny]

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox.

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck.

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

[Gunny]

DId i say that? Don't change the subject.

Bad results of a decision mean the decision was bad. Don't play word games; that's what liberals do.

You can do all the homework you want, and run your little plan through a computer and have every expert in the world weigh in and make an almost flawless decision and STILL have disasterous results. That little 10% known as the "unkown" negates your argument.

[TheSage]

You can do all the homework you want, and run your little plan through a computer and have every expert in the world weigh in and make an almost flawless decision and STILL have disasterous results. That little 10% known as the "unkown" negates your argument.

What's my argument?

I'm just pointing out that failing to learn from observable bad results and still standing behind the decisions that let to them seems either egomaniacal or learning disabled.

[retiredman]

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.name such a country

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox. You are mathematically challenged if you think that our pre-2003 standing forces in the middle east equated to "at least one quarter of our military. That is simply incorrect

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.and once pigs get wings, they can fly. The fact is, he did NOT have any weapons grade nuclear material. He did NOT have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He was NOT a threat to our national interest. Bush's own secretary of state, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that sanctions had worked and that Saddam was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders, let alone around the world

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

There was no justification to invade.

[TheSage]

There was no justification to invade.

The real reason was to consolidate the region into a simple administrative block, probably under Iranian puppet control. Saddams' secularism is actually why he was not compatible for the new world order. A new theocratic dark age is dawning.

[Gunny]

Depends on how you define "our National interest." The US is bouind by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself.name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel,

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight. I sure got tired of my all-expense-paid "vacations" to Kuwait to babysit a sandbox. You are mathematically challenged if you think that our pre-2003 standing forces in the middle east equated to "at least one quarter of our military. That is simply incorrect

Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Regardless the pitiful arguments otherwise, once Saddam got his hands on some weapons-grade nuclear material, he'd have been a much bigger threat, and the consequences of his using such a weapon multiplying his ability to devastate.and once pigs get wings, they can fly. The fact is, he did NOT have any weapons grade nuclear material. He did NOT have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He was NOT a threat to our national interest. Bush's own secretary of state, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that sanctions had worked and that Saddam was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders, let alone around the world

As I said, regardless PITIFUL arguments otherwise .......

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

The fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short.

I don't know what it takes for people like you to understand intent and the course he was most likely to pursue, but obviously logical conclusion has nothing to do with it.

Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

For those reasons, I would not have chosen to invade. That does not negate the justification that DOES exist to invade.

There was no justification to invade.

And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.

[retiredman]

name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel

I do not believe we have mutual defense treaties with any of those countries. Please provide links to the text of such treaties that state that any attack on those countries is tantamount to an attack on the US.

Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Here's a kernel of advice: don't guess and try to pass it off as fact.

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

so now it is about oil?

"he fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short."

all old news. He was doing none of those things in the spring of '03 when this president lied to us and told us that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and scared us with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities. The much clearer and more present danger to America remains fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. and we have put THAT threat on the back burner while we flush life and limb and treasure down the shitter in Iraq



Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

Please explain how keeping Islmaic extremists (our enemies...the ones who attacked us) at bay, keeps the region out of balance... how keeping Iran in check keeps the region out of balance... how keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another keeps the region out of balance


And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.

There is good reason to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one

[Gunny]

name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel

I do not believe we have mutual defense treaties with any of those countries. Please provide links to the text of such treaties that state that any attack on those countries is tantamount to an attack on the US.

No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations. And since you are proving yourself quite the literalist (i.e Saddam having WMDs), I guess that's good enough for you.

This also negates the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I'm sure they exist just to give our troops a cultural experience.

Or that Kissinger signed a memorandum with Foreign Minister Yigal Allon that states: "The United States Government will view with particular gravity threats to Israel's security or sovereignty by a world power."

Just like with Saddam and the WMDs, quit trying to play literalist word games. If you're the 25 year navy vet you claim to be, you know what the deal is so quit trying to blow smoke up my ass.


Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Here's a kernel of advice: don't guess and try to pass it off as fact.

Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far.

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

so now it is about oil?

And now you want to play stupid. We have another reason for giving a shit about a sandbox in the Middle of nowhere besides who controls the commodity that keeps this Nation functioning. GMAFB.

"he fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short."

all old news. He was doing none of those things in the spring of '03 when this president lied to us and told us that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and scared us with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities. The much clearer and more present danger to America remains fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. and we have put THAT threat on the back burner while we flush life and limb and treasure down the shitter in Iraq

I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

I agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger.


Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

Please explain how keeping Islmaic extremists (our enemies...the ones who attacked us) at bay, keeps the region out of balance... how keeping Iran in check keeps the region out of balance... how keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another keeps the region out of balance

Now you want to argue about me agreeing with you?


And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.

There is good reason to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one

How nice.

[retiredman]

YOU said that we had treaties with neighbors of Saddam that stated that "An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US"

And when pressed on the veracity of that claim you then tap danced and back pedaled and said "No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations."

and then you claimed that a quarter of our military budget was taken up in keeping Saddam in check and when challenged about the veracity of THAT claim you say, "I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it. Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far."

Now if the real number were anything approaching 25%, that would in fact be quite relevant and would help you make you case. What if the real number were more like 3%.... now THAT is an "irrelevancy". I am suggesting that you play fast and loose with all sorts of things and then, when confronted with your bullshit, you claim that expecting you to be honest and debate issues with fact instead of smoke blowing bullshit - that the truth is somehow "irrelevant". You, sir are a bullshit artist. Perhaps you were a gunny in the corps... but I find it hard to believe that someone with as little regard for the truth as you exhibit could have advanced that far in the Marine Corps that I served alongside

I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

That has never been my argument. I suggest that after 9/11, the identity of our most dangerous enemy was made clear to us - and it wasn't Saddam and his secular baathist regime in Iraq which, besides being rather prick-like to his OWN people, was accomplishing some VERY real and valuable things for us. If you do in fact [i]"agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger." then you should share my concern that we have focused the greater amount of our men, money and material on something that was not the greater danger.

and when I said, "to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one."


you flippantly replied, "How nice."

Was that some backhanded statement of agreement with me, or are you just a blowhard gadfly without the requisite balls or grace to pull it off?

[Gunny]

YOU said that we had treaties with neighbors of Saddam that stated that "An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US"

And when pressed on the veracity of that claim you then tap danced and back pedaled and said "No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations."

No tap-dancing nor back-pedalling. What I stated is pretty clear. We're allied with the countries I listed, and we have used force to remove an occupier ffrom one, were invited to set up shop in another for the purpose of military defense, and we jumped through hoops to provide Israel with Patriot missiles during the First Gulf War.

You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do.

and then you claimed that a quarter of our military budget was taken up in keeping Saddam in check and when challenged about the veracity of THAT claim you say, "I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it. Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far."

I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read, squid.

Now if the real number were anything approaching 25%, that would in fact be quite relevant and would help you make you case. What if the real number were more like 3%.... now THAT is an "irrelevancy". I am suggesting that you play fast and loose with all sorts of things and then, when confronted with your bullshit, you claim that expecting you to be honest and debate issues with fact instead of smoke blowing bullshit - that the truth is somehow "irrelevant". You, sir are a bullshit artist. Perhaps you were a gunny in the corps... but I find it hard to believe that someone with as little regard for the truth as you exhibit could have advanced that far in the Marine Corps that I served alongside

The only thing I'm guilty of is not anticipating a dirtbag like you wanting to play stupid little games of literalism instead of discussing an issue. If you're all you claimed to be, then obviously you got waste more than your fair shair of time in the Gulf, as did I. There isn't just a two-man outpost stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharain.

The MEUs I deployed with were roughly manned by 2500 Marines (sorry, no exact, to the man strength report) and at least that many of you dumbass squids to drive and clean a LHD and two LPDs. Not to mention the guided missile cruiser we picked up prior to entering the Gulf.

That isn't taking into account the Army, Air Force and Navy personnel doing one-and-two year stints in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharain.

If you don't think that cost a shitload of money and tied up manpower and materiel, then you just ain't thinking. And if you want an exact number, feel free to go find one.


I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

That has never been my argument. I suggest that after 9/11, the identity of our most dangerous enemy was made clear to us - and it wasn't Saddam and his secular baathist regime in Iraq which, besides being rather prick-like to his OWN people, was accomplishing some VERY real and valuable things for us. If you do in fact [i]"agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger." then you should share my concern that we have focused the greater amount of our men, money and material on something that was not the greater danger.

I agree, and have not stated otherwise.

and when I said, "to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one."


you flippantly replied, "How nice."

Was that some backhanded statement of agreement with me, or are you just a blowhard gadfly without the requisite balls or grace to pull it off?

I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military.

In case you missed it, I happen to agree with much of your assessment as far as invading Iraq goes. I disagree that there was no justification. I would not have invaded because we could see as far back as 1991 that it was going to create this internal, factional warfare and give Iran an excuse to start meddling.

Which is not relevant to the fact that we are there and if the politicians don't pull their heads out of their asses REAL QUICK nothing positive is going to come of it. We can't go back and "un-invade." Done deal. We have to deal with "now."

If they increase in manpower and alleged change in tactics is going to make a positive impact, then it's worth trying.

[retiredman]

I am not a literalist by any means.... I just don't enjoy people flip flopping and bullshitting and then acting all indignant when they get caught at it.

You first said:

"The US is bound by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself."

THEN, when cornered, you flip it around to say:

"You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do."

words have meanings. If you use words, you ought to abide by the rules of language and you ought to expect people who read your words to assign some commonly agreed upon meanings to them. YOU are the one who claimed that we were "bound" by "treaties" and then followed that up with the wording found in mutual defense treaties... and it was bullshit. Why can't you be a man and just admit you messed up?

THEN you say:

"I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read squid."

Actually, I read pretty well. I distinctly remember reading this sentence from you a bit earlier:

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight."

the way I learned to read, those sentences are, in fact, contradictory. Where did YOU learn to read and what connotations, pray tell, do you draw from those two sentences that would make them something OTHER THAN contradictory?

Finally, you toss our this cute little insult:

"I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military."

Were you under the misconception that once someone has served a career in the US Military that they get some sort of lobotomy when they retire and, from that day forth, are incapable of forming opinions about America's fopreign policy? That is really not the case. Someone who has served a long and successful career in the military is eminently qualified to form and voice opinions about the ways that the civilian suits choose to use the uniformed services. While on active duty, I was duty and honor bound to hold my tongue in public regarding any legal decisions made by my chain of command, and I did so. I am now retired and am perfectly capable of standing up and stating my opinions about the misuse of our uniformed military services by this administration. I have significant experience on the ground in the middle east and I feel it is my civic duty to speak my truth and let my reasoned objections be heard. You should feel free to do likewise.... if they told you in your departure briefing from the Corps that you were forbidden from doing so, they were lying to you. You seem to agree with me that we have much bigger threats confronting us, yet you blindly continue to support this president and his misguided Iraq initiative, which necessarily precludes us from appropriately addressing those more dangerous issues. That seems unsupportable to me.

[Gunny]

I am not a literalist by any means.... I just don't enjoy people flip flopping and bullshitting and then acting all indignant when they get caught at it.

You first said:

"The US is bound by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself."

THEN, when cornered, you flip it around to say:

"You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do."

words have meanings. If you use words, you ought to abide by the rules of language and you ought to expect people who read your words to assign some commonly agreed upon meanings to them. YOU are the one who claimed that we were "bound" by "treaties" and then followed that up with the wording found in mutual defense treaties... and it was bullshit. Why can't you be a man and just admit you messed up?

THEN you say:

"I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read squid."

Actually, I read pretty well. I distinctly remember reading this sentence from you a bit earlier:

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight."

the way I learned to read, those sentences are, in fact, contradictory. Where did YOU learn to read and what connotations, pray tell, do you draw from those two sentences that would make them something OTHER THAN contradictory?

Finally, you toss our this cute little insult:

"I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military."

Were you under the misconception that once someone has served a career in the US Military that they get some sort of lobotomy when they retire and, from that day forth, are incapable of forming opinions about America's fopreign policy? That is really not the case. Someone who has served a long and successful career in the military is eminently qualified to form and voice opinions about the ways that the civilian suits choose to use the uniformed services. While on active duty, I was duty and honor bound to hold my tongue in public regarding any legal decisions made by my chain of command, and I did so. I am now retired and am perfectly capable of standing up and stating my opinions about the misuse of our uniformed military services by this administration. I have significant experience on the ground in the middle east and I feel it is my civic duty to speak my truth and let my reasoned objections be heard. You should feel free to do likewise.... if they told you in your departure briefing from the Corps that you were forbidden from doing so, they were lying to you. You seem to agree with me that we have much bigger threats confronting us, yet you blindly continue to support this president and his misguided Iraq initiative, which necessarily precludes us from appropriately addressing those more dangerous issues. That seems unsupportable to me.


Sure words have meanings. So feel free to replace "treaties" with "agreements" if it makes you feel better. The meaning of each is the same.

And where did you learn to cherrypick words to suit your agenda? My statement concerning the military and its financing does not equate to your saying I stated that a quarter of the military budget was spent on Iraq, unless you purposefully misread the statement or are just to dumb to understand it.

I've gone out of my way as far as I'm going in order to accomodate your literalism, clarify every irrelevant little detail you have attempted to deflect with.

Since you want to play literalist, I did not address your opinion, nor your entitlement to it. I addressed your comment that you do not support this war.

Disagreeing with the reasons for a war and vocally not supporting the US while it is engaged in a war are two different things. A person with twenty-plus years in the military would KNOW that such statements add to the undermining of the morale of those who are actually fighting the war; therfore, undermining the effort itself.

A military person would have moved on by now from "I don't agree with this" to "how do we get the job done?" and is professional enough to put personal opinion aside and assess the situation from a professional standpoint.

I didn't agree with a whole lot of shit I had to do in the military. I did it anyway. And it has nothing to do with blindly following anyone-or-thing and a whole lot to do with the fact as long as the order was not unlawful, I carried it out to the best of my ability no matter how distasteful and/or what my personal opinion on the matter was.

[retiredman]

actually...as someone who served on active duty during Vietnam, I know full well that the content of political discussion amongst civilians at home had absolutely no impact on me or on the morale of the ship's crews in which I served. I guess they train sailors how to worry about their jobs and not get all worried about the political process... I should check with my classmates who've made flag rank in the Corps to suggest that they train you guys better.

I also followed many orders while on active duty that I found distasteful and counterproductive, but I, too, always saluted and left the captain's cabin with the attitude that is was MY decision and not his. And I know that every officer on active duty in Iraq today may have personal reservations about the wisdom of the mission - all the way to George Casey who, I am sure, has questioned the validity of the surge behind closed doors with Gates AND Bush - but if you choose to stay on active duty, you choose to play by those rules. If you examine the criticism leveled by RETIRED flag officers concerning Iraq, you will find that I am not the lone ranger. I would love to see you tell Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division that their criticism was undermining the morale of active duty troops.... or do you reserve such disrespectful tripe for retired naval officers on internet message boards?

And I have moved on to discussions of alternatives.... I think that redeploying to the borders where they can interdict arms shipments and leave the urban fighting to the Iraqis makes a great deal of sense. I have been having a discussion about what else we could be doing beyond "staying the course" for quite some time. I happen to disagree with the surge, only because it puts OUR boots on the ground in Baghdad and Anbar instead of forcing Iraqis to police their own mess.

As long as we keep coddling the Iraqis and not expecting them to perform, they won't. As long as we continue to sit back and let OUR troops die, the Iraqi soldiers will certainly sit back as well.

[TheSage]

Gunny, he's punked you up one side and down the other. You most certainly did say a quarter of our budget is going there. And you were just plain wrong about the treaties. Can you be honest for once?

[retiredman]

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight"

Please Gunny.... explain to me how that sentence does not mean that Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade.

[Gaffer]

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight"

Please Gunny.... explain to me how that sentence does not mean that Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade.

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.

[TheSage]

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.

Yes. Overemphasizing with wrong statistics.:2up:

[retiredman]

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.


no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

[Gaffer]

no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

I can't prove or disprove his statement. But then again how many carrier groups were in the gulf and med sea in those 12 years? Air Force bases surrounding the area being ustilized to support the no fly mission? That includes all personell on the bases. How many brigades were in Kuwait? Just based on the region I would say Gunnys estimate is likely pretty close when everything is factored in. 25% of the forces weren't hovering around iraq but they were involved in the mission and protecting Kuwait and anyone else saddam might want to mess with.

He was not a stablizing factor over there. He was a wildcard and unpredictable.

[Gunny]

actually...as someone who served on active duty during Vietnam, I know full well that the content of political discussion amongst civilians at home had absolutely no impact on me or on the morale of the ship's crews in which I served. I guess they train sailors how to worry about their jobs and not get all worried about the political process... I should check with my classmates who've made flag rank in the Corps to suggest that they train you guys better.

Really? WTF would YOU know about troops on the ground? I'd have guessed it was because your head was then where it is now ... up your ass.

I also followed many orders while on active duty that I found distasteful and counterproductive, but I, too, always saluted and left the captain's cabin with the attitude that is was MY decision and not his. And I know that every officer on active duty in Iraq today may have personal reservations about the wisdom of the mission - all the way to George Casey who, I am sure, has questioned the validity of the surge behind closed doors with Gates AND Bush - but if you choose to stay on active duty, you choose to play by those rules. If you examine the criticism leveled by RETIRED flag officers concerning Iraq, you will find that I am not the lone ranger. I would love to see you tell Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division that their criticism was undermining the morale of active duty troops.... or do you reserve such disrespectful tripe for retired naval officers on internet message boards?

If the general officers you mentioned state publicy they do not support the war, I'll be more than happy to tell them they're undermining the morale of the troops, to their faces. If, however, it is that they don't support the way the war is being conducted, that would be an entirely different matter.

One can only hope YOU can figure out the difference.

And I have moved on to discussions of alternatives.... I think that redeploying to the borders where they can interdict arms shipments and leave the urban fighting to the Iraqis makes a great deal of sense. I have been having a discussion about what else we could be doing beyond "staying the course" for quite some time. I happen to disagree with the surge, only because it puts OUR boots on the ground in Baghdad and Anbar instead of forcing Iraqis to police their own mess.

As long as we keep coddling the Iraqis and not expecting them to perform, they won't. As long as we continue to sit back and let OUR troops die, the Iraqi soldiers will certainly sit back as well.

I agree the Iraqis themselves should take more responsibility and action for what's going on.

[Gunny]

Gunny, he's punked you up one side and down the other. You most certainly did say a quarter of our budget is going there. And you were just plain wrong about the treaties. Can you be honest for once?

You want in? Taking potshots from the rear because I don't believe any of youor knucklehead conspiracy theories?

I did not state a quarter of our budget was going anywhere, and if you want to call me wrong on the treaties because you want to play semantics, knock yourself out. I believe I have already clarified myself. Re-read it as many times as it takes.

Nothing dishonest about it.

I've tried REAL hard to get along with you, RWA, in light of your recent "condition." But go fuck yourself, huh? You wouldn't know reality or the truth if it slapped you in the face.

[Gunny]

no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

Tapdancing, huh? For a literalist, you really suck at your own game. I did not state Saddam tied up over 25% of our military, nor did I state he tied up 25% of our budget. Is there some reason you feel the need to embelish my words?

I took a stab in the dark at the pecentage. Big deal. You're resting your whole bullshit argument on that, and the fact that agreements for defense of our allies are everything but treaties in name. Neither of which are really all that relevant to the argument. You have continually tried since to keep the argument about me rather than the issue even though I went to the trouble to clarify my statements.

If you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not addressing it again. And I'm just wondering how someone who could attain the rank required to stay in the US military for 25 years could be such a petty fuck.

[Gunny]

Yes. Overemphasizing with wrong statistics.:2up:

Please feel free to provide the exact statistics since you're so damned smart and want to stick your crank in the hatch.

[Gunny]

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stmil.html

Be sure and check out page 5 where it states over one quarter of military personnel are stationed outside the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/military/usstrength.htm

This one's a strength breakdown from 1998. Feel free to take a quick guess at what the pecentage is.:dev:

[retiredman]

Tapdancing, huh? For a literalist, you really suck at your own game. I did not state Saddam tied up over 25% of our military, nor did I state he tied up 25% of our budget. Is there some reason you feel the need to embelish my words?

I took a stab in the dark at the pecentage. Big deal. You're resting your whole bullshit argument on that, and the fact that agreements for defense of our allies are everything but treaties in name. Neither of which are really all that relevant to the argument. You have continually tried since to keep the argument about me rather than the issue even though I went to the trouble to clarify my statements.

If you don't like it, tough shit. I'm not addressing it again. And I'm just wondering how someone who could attain the rank required to stay in the US military for 25 years could be such a petty fuck.

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

[Missileman]

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

I think the jury is still out on whether the Iraq War has been folly. But folly or not, we are at the point now where anything less than success there will be catastrophic to our credibility in handling Iran, North Korea, etc. If we ever hope to prevent the "Axis of Evil" from becoming strong enough to pose a devastating threat to the U.S. we need to have that credibility.

[Gunny]

Gunny: here's the deal. I think the Iraq war is the most counterproductive, boneheaded foreign policy move my country has made in my lifetime. I am 100% FOR getting the bad guys in this world.... I am ESPECIALLY 100% behind getting the guys who had anything to do with the planes flying into the buildings that I have seen and seen and seen over and over and over again in my dreams nearly every single night since 9/11/01. I have been retired since 09/93, but I wrote the SecNav on 9/12/01 and volunteered to go back on active duty and do whatever I could to get the bastards that did that to us. They wrote back and said thank you but old grey haired commanders like me needed to let younger folks do it from now on. I am anything BUT a petty fuck.

The war in Iraq was dumb. It enflamed the arab world. It pissed off our allies. It turned the heat up on sunni-shi'ite hatred and resentment in Iraq. It gave those very guys who we ought to have been seeking and destroying a rallying cry to further their agenda. It emboldened Iran who now is seen as an heroic state by the Islamic world. All of those ancillary reasons you throw up to justify this boneheaded war don't cut it. They didn't cut it BEFORE 9/11 and they CERTAINLY don't cut it afterwards. We had -and have - an enemy...and it was NOT NOT NOT sunni secular Iraqi ba'athists. The war in Iraq has only served to make us poorer, fewer, more despised and less safe than we we were before we invaded... and in this post-9/11 world, I think that such a monumental waste of time and resources with such a negative outcome is nothing less than a criminal undertaking on the part of the Bush administration....and if I were a rock ribbed Maine republican - instead of an Illinois raised midwestern Adlai Stevenson democrat, I would feel exactly the same.... and many rock ribbed Maine republicans who I work with and worship with DO share those exact sentiments.

And I will again disagree in regard to the justification for invading Iraq.

I will again say that had it been my decision, I would not have invaded Iraq at the point in time we did. We were already engaged on the ground in Afhganistan, and I would not have divided the focus of my forces unnecessarily. Saddam had been on the back burner for 13 years, he could have stayed there for the time being.

It was not my decision and the invasion was carried out. Had I carried out the invasion, it would have included keeping the religious fundamentalists isolated as they already were in the "No Fly Zones," and not let them mix themselves with the general population. I'd have left them there for the IRai government to deal with after we left.

I also would not have telegraphed my blow for 3 months in the media, and I would have deployed enough forces to seal the borders.

I am not a politician and don't have to play by their rules. The government does, and has for the past 50+ years, both Democrats and Republicans alike.

I don't know that I am for or against the additional troops. Without a change in tactics, it doesn't matter how many troops we send. So, I am more interested in seeing this "new" strategy and tactics than I am how many more people get sent over or brought home.

Whether or not I agreed with the invasion at the time, the fact is, we're there, and I propose that rather than cutting and running and leaving who knows how many Iraqis we promised democracy to at the mercy of fanatical religious fundamentalists that we do something that will give them at least that opportunity.

We do however need to stress Iraqi involvement. At some point, we have to draw the line as far as us carrying them goes. It's their liberty and they need to defend it. But drawing an arbitrary line in the sand as Democrats want to do is just giving the fundamentalists a timeline.

As far as the War on Terror goes, it encompasses the whole Middle East, not separate countries, and trying to fight it as if it is contained by national boundaries is just a waste of time.

[Gaffer]

As far as iraq goes, we're there, its on, now we deal with it on a daily basis. Instead of harping about how we got there how about what to do next? besides cut and run. That's not an option. I have never heard any dem put forth a plan of action other than to run away. It's pretty much a wait and see now with the new strategy going into effect.

I have a hunch Bush gave maliki a time line though it won't be made public. He either acts or gets beheaded by the fundimentalists when we leave.

[avatar4321]

He looks forty years older than he did when he got elected.

Considering the weight of the world is upon his shoulders almost half the country spitting upon everything he does, is it any wonder its aged him?

[avatar4321]

the fact remains: invading Iraq was not in OUR national interest.

The fact remains: As much of an asshole as Saddam was, he did three things better than we have been able to do them. 1. Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse....2. Keep radical wahabbist (AQ) Islamic extremists from using Iraq as an area of operation...and 3. Keep Iranian regional influence from growing

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to remove a regime that supported terrorism and try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.

Tell me, where exactly have the sunnis and shiites been slaughtering one another in mass? Since when weren't there radical Islamic extremists in Irarq. and since when did Saddam have anything to do with keeping Iranian influence from growing?

[retiredman]

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to remove a regime that supported terrorism and try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.

Tell me, where exactly have the sunnis and shiites been slaughtering one another in mass? Since when weren't there radical Islamic extremists in Irarq. and since when did Saddam have anything to do with keeping Iranian influence from growing?

there are terrorists all over the world. Irishmen in Boston have supported terrorists for decades.... every time they had a bingo night with the proceeds headed to the IRA....

After 9/11, we needed to make sure that we were after the terrorist who were after us. The terrorist groups supported by the Saddam regime were exclusively arab nationalist organizations, not - absolutely NOT - wahabbist, islamic extremist organizations like the ones who attacked us. Saddam had every reason to distrust wahabbism given the fact that the dissolution of his regime and every other secular regime in the region was the primary mission of that philosophical movement.

regarding your question about sunnis and shiites,the following link is germane:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1247089.php/UN_More_than_34000_civilians_killed_in_Iraq_in_200 6

from that article: Latest figures from the UN in Iraq show a total of 34,452 civilians were killed in the country last year and 36,685 wounded as a result of sectarian violence and unrest.

That is in a country with a total population of 27M. Let's extrapolate, shall we? If blacks and whites, let's say, were killing each other in America, and the annual death toll from the carnage was 350THOUSAND dead Americans and 400THOUSAND wounded Americans, are you suggesting that saying that the killing was en masse would be an INACCURATE assessment???? How many dead Iraqis do you need to have dumped on your front lawn before it becomes a bloodbath for you?

Regarding Saddam and Iran.... many scholars have written about the fact that Saddam's control and subjegation over Iraq's shiite majority prevented Iranian influence from spreading westward from Iran. Clearly, sunni ba'athist panarabism was standing between Iran and its goal of expanding its influence in shiite communities in Iraq and Lebanon. The emboldened Hezbollah attacks on Israel are as a direct result of the increased Iranian influence in the region in the wake of Saddam.

I hope I have answered your questions.

[retiredman]

Simply asserting that it wasn't in our best interest to ... try to help establish a free ally in the middle east isnt in our national interest doesn't make it so.



I have absolutely no problem with the idea of fostering democracy anywhere...and the more allies we have, the better, obviously.

I am asserting that it was not in our best interest to invade, conquer and occupy an oil rich arab country with a largely christian army of inadaquate size to keep the historic enmity between sunnis and shiites (that had been held in check by the previous government) from going crazy. I AM asserting that it was not in our best interest to take our eye off the ball and forget who our enemy was - and it was NOT secular baathists in Iraq...it was wahabbist islamic extremists who were NOT in Iraq when we foolishly invaded.

[Gaffer]

The constant arguement is that saddam was a blocking force to iran. Well the last two years have shown that would not have been the case. Shea iran is good buddies with baathist syria. As they have the same goal. Iran is good buddies with hugho chevez and other communist dictators in the region. As they have the same goal. Iran is cuddling up to anyone that is anti-US. They are buds with NK as well.

So to say taking out saddam was a mistake is wrong as it is more than likely saddam and iran would have become buds too. Because they had the same goals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here. After they take us down they will turn on each other.

By the way hassan abbasi, the head of iran's revolutionary guard and top terrorist leader was captured in northern iraq. Iran is throwing a hissy fit and the US has a great source of information. It's the equilalent of capturing the secretary of state in a hostile country. Something really big must have been in the works.

[retiredman]

shia persian Iran is not good buddies with sunni baathist syria.... it is a relationship of convenience only.

Have you read Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem"? I highly recommend it. If you do, take particular note of the chapter entitled "Hama Rules" You will find it very enlightening in understanding the realpolitik philosophy of the Assad regime in Syria.

Neocons really need to understand that the middle east is a byzantine network more complex than then can grasp and that their simple on-off, black-white, good-evil paradigm fails them when they attempt to apply it there.

[Gaffer]

shia persian Iran is not good buddies with sunni baathist syria.... it is a relationship of convenience only.

Have you read Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem"? I highly recommend it. If you do, take particular note of the chapter entitled "Hama Rules" You will find it very enlightening in understanding the realpolitik philosophy of the Assad regime in Syria.

Neocons really need to understand that the middle east is a byzantine network more complex than then can grasp and that their simple on-off, black-white, good-evil paradigm fails them when they attempt to apply it there.

They aren't buddies? They meet and pledge to defend one another, they both supply hizbollah and hamas. They both have a mutual goal to wipe out Israel and the US. And they are both looking to use each other to their individual benefits. This isn't a simple black and white paradigm. Two enemies are joining together to fight their mutual enemies. Its been done in the past. What does an alliance with hugho chavez gain them or him? He's not even muslim. Do you think it could be for influence in this hemesphere? Do you think if they won against the US that they would tolerate chevez for more than a day?

I haven't read friedman's book. But recommended by you it must be a dhimmi islamic appologist read. But I will look into it.

[retiredman]

Syria does not have a goal to wipe out the US.....

just read up on the subject - and Tom Friedman is as knowlegeable a journalist about the issues of the middle east as anyone - and then get back to me. Until you know a little more about what you are talking about, our discussions will only result in anxiety and feelings of futility and I, frankly, don't have the time.

[Gaffer]

Syria does not have a goal to wipe out the US.....

just read up on the subject - and Tom Friedman is as knowlegeable a journalist about the issues of the middle east as anyone - and then get back to me. Until you know a little more about what you are talking about, our discussions will only result in anxiety and feelings of futility and I, frankly, don't have the time.

Well I wouldn't want you to have anxiety and feelings of futility. I am well read on the subject.

Syria would very much like to wipe out the US, they just don't have the power alone to do it. They couldn't even take Israel out without help. They are not listed in the axis of evil for nothing.

[retiredman]

Bush's axis of evil did not include Syria.

yeah...you are obviously very well read on the subject!

[retiredman]

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea....now really...I need to go get some sleep... you'll hav to ask someone else to carry on with these remedial foreign affairs lessons..... you could get "Foreign Affairs for Dummies" which perhaps is not over your head, and then maybe we could continue.

[Gaffer]

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea....now really...I need to go get some sleep... you'll hav to ask someone else to carry on with these remedial foreign affairs lessons..... you could get "Foreign Affairs for Dummies" which perhaps is not over your head, and then maybe we could continue.

since the fall of saddam it has become iran, syria and NK. You quoted the old list.

[avatar4321]

Bush's axis of evil did not include Syria.

yeah...you are obviously very well read on the subject!

I was unaware that a nation had to be in the axis of evil to be hostile against us.

[retiredman]

I was unaware that a nation had to be in the axis of evil to be hostile against us.

they don't.... but they do have to be a member of the axis of evil to be a member of the axis of evil, don't they?

and if they aren't called Iran, Iraq or North Korea, they aren't in the axis of evil.....

I mean, just because Peyton Manning is a good football player does not make him a member of the New England Patriots, does it?

This idea that there is some new list as to the axis of evil is a pathetic attempt to save face.

[Gaffer]

they don't.... but they do have to be a member of the axis of evil to be a member of the axis of evil, don't they?

and if they aren't called Iran, Iraq or North Korea, they aren't in the axis of evil.....

I mean, just because Peyton Manning is a good football player does not make him a member of the New England Patriots, does it?

This idea that there is some new list as to the axis of evil is a pathetic attempt to save face.

Not saving face at all. When sadam went down iraq replaced syia on the list. If iran or syria are teaken down venezula will probably take its place. Kind of a top three that hate us the most list. Bush made the list, I didn't. If he choses to change it that up to him.

[retiredman]

actually...I have heard where a few administration officials have made comments like Syria is in a group Beyond the Axis of Evil or in a league with the axis of evil...but I have yet to find anything where Bush has ever called Syria a member of the axis of evil. If you have a link, please produce it.

[Gunny]

actually...I have heard where a few administration officials have made comments like Syria is in a group Beyond the Axis of Evil or in a league with the axis of evil...but I have yet to find anything where Bush has ever called Syria a member of the axis of evil. If you have a link, please produce it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

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

[Gaffer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

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

Thanks Gunny

[retiredman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

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

true to form...I asked if anyone could provide a link where Bush called Syria a member of the axis of evil and Gunny - numb as a hake Gunny - posted two links which attribute the assignment to John Bolton.

what a tool.

And Gaffer, like a lap dog, congratulates him for his missed opportunity.

Why am I not surprised?

[Gaffer]

true to form...I asked if anyone could provide a link where Bush called Syria a member of the axis of evil and Gunny - numb as a hake Gunny - posted two links which attribute the assignment to John Bolton.

what a tool.

And Gaffer, like a lap dog, congratulates him for his missed opportunity.

Why am I not surprised?

And Bolton worked for who?

[retiredman]

And Bolton worked for who?

Oh...so let me get this straight. Anytime anyone who works for someone says something, that is exactly as if the person they worked for said it themselves? Do I have that right??

I hope so...

In that spirit, here is an interesting quote by George W. Bush

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after ME, the great and beneficent George W. Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated."

George W. Bush
9/22/2003

[MtnBiker]

In that spirit, here is an interesting quote by George W. Bush

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after ME, the great and beneficent George W. Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated."

George W. Bush
9/22/2003

Quite interesting, care to post a link?

[retiredman]

Quite interesting, care to post a link?

read the thread....

see if you can capture the satire.

either that or google the quote.

[MtnBiker]

read the thread....

see if you can capture the satire.

either that or google the quote.

You posted the quote, I would like to see a link.

[Gaffer]

Oh...so let me get this straight. Anytime anyone who works for someone says something, that is exactly as if the person they worked for said it themselves? Do I have that right??

I hope so...

In that spirit, here is an interesting quote by George W. Bush

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after ME, the great and beneficent George W. Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated."

George W. Bush
9/22/2003

More of your liberal bullshit. Bolton worked for Bush. So whatever he says concerning such things as an axis of evil would be following discussions with the president.

That quote sounds like an al franken attempt to be funny. Which he never is.

[Gunny]

true to form...I asked if anyone could provide a link where Bush called Syria a member of the axis of evil and Gunny - numb as a hake Gunny - posted two links which attribute the assignment to John Bolton.

what a tool.

And Gaffer, like a lap dog, congratulates him for his missed opportunity.

Why am I not surprised?

And manfrommaine, as usual, can't see the forest for the trees.

[Gunny]

More of your liberal bullshit. Bolton worked for Bush. So whatever he says concerning such things as an axis of evil would be following discussions with the president.

That quote sounds like an al franken attempt to be funny. Which he never is.

Right? Like Bolton is going to make a proclamation like that without clearing it with the President first.

True to form, maine wants to play his dishonest, literalist games.

[retiredman]

More of your liberal bullshit. Bolton worked for Bush. So whatever he says concerning such things as an axis of evil would be following discussions with the president.

That quote sounds like an al franken attempt to be funny. Which he never is.

that quote came from Richard Perle...He worked for Bush too... don't you suppose he cleared it with George that he was gonna tell everyone that there was going to be a grand square named after him? Don't you suppose he must have agreed?

[retiredman]

You posted the quote, I would like to see a link.

And I remember when I wanted a pony for Christmas.

[MtnBiker]

And I remember when I wanted a pony for Christmas.

Why is it so hard to complete to a simple request?

[retiredman]

Why is it so hard to complete to a simple request?

do you understand that this discussion concerned, at this point, the fact that George Bush has never said that Syria was a member of the Axis of Evil yet someone on here said that he had...I asked for a link and they provided quotes from a speech by John Bolton entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil" where he mentioned new threats growing in the world and mentioned Syria in that speech. I then, somewhat sarcastically, asked if someone says something it is the same thing as their boss saying that same thing, and used, as an example, a statement made by Richard Perle, who worked for Bush, that claimed that a grand square would be named after Bush in Baghdad....I changed the voice of the quote to make it first person.

If you had read the thread, or if you were aware that one of Bush's lackeys had actually made that idiotic prediction, maybe you could have figured that out without me having to write a freakin' novella to explain it to you.

[MtnBiker]

I am aware of all of that. I'm also aware that there have been some who would like to attribute that quote to Bush.

Someone giving an independent speech and someone speaking on behalf of an administration are two different things.