Okay. So that’s not the title the WaPo gives his op-ed, but we may as well just cut to the chase. From “One Choice in Iraq”:
Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians—innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.
If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.
Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus’s security strategy has failed and that the war is “lost.”
And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.
This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.
What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.
In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis—particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.
This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.
The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.
Indeed, to the extent that last week’s bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.
Al-Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.
In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.
That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq’s “civil war” is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda’s strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.
The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States—to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.
When politicians here declare that Iraq is “lost” in reaction to al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.
Lieberman will, of course, be excoriated for such statements, even though he attempts to downplay the criticism by noting that it is not the “intent” of cut-and-run Dems to play perfectly into al-Qaeda’s strategy—a strategy that is well known. This is a conciliatory gesture, but an empty one, ultimately: because the fact is, the intent of anti-war Dems (which I see as an attempt to will the war into failure, blame Bush and Republicans, parlay that blame into electoral victories, then institute a foreign policy that will weaken the US militarily and force it to join coalitions of consensus, lorded over by international bureaucrats, while concentrating its energies domestic policies driven by a collectivist ideology and an unhealthy fealty to dubious social engineering) aligns with that of al-Qaeda.
That they surely know this—and yet have such a thirst for power that they are willing to put their ambitions before our long-term safety, which will certainly suffer from an emboldened Islamist offensive—is unconscionable, just as it is unconscionable that they can vote nearly unanimously to give General Petraeus their vote of confidence, only to ignore what he and others counsel about how to proceed in Iraq.
This despite the fact that they know that their legislation will be vetoed. Which means that they hope it will help them politically with those voters who have grown tired of the war, even though it will have no practical effect on policy—and so it underscores just how willing the Democrats are to provide propaganda victories to our enemies (and, according to General Petraeus, those enemies, even in Iraq, are the same as those who brought down the World Trade Center) if the tradeoff is the potential for short-term political power at home.
Thus, it is a largely symbolic bit of legislative posturing—it’s likely the next version will not include the withdrawal time table—but it is one that makes clear that, to Democrats, at least, the enemy is less al-Qaeda than it is “neocons” and pro-war Republicans.
It is one thing to disagree with the war. But it quite another to intentionally sabotage our ability as a nation to present a united front against the enemy by consistently painting the President and Republicans as the real threat to the world (see Kerry, John F.).
That so many people seem willing to do so—that they see politics and war as “games” fought on the battlefield of rhetoric, where “truth” is merely what gets repeated most and makes its way into the public consciousness—is a sure sign that our country is broken, and that it will take a wholesale re-examination of what we stand for to fix the chasm between “progressives” and the rest of us.
In the meantime, let’s just hope we can weather the storm.
Concludes Lieberman:
Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week’s attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias—as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq’s leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.
But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the “political solution” we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.
Al-Qaeda, after all, isn’t carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn’t to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it.
Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.
The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda’s barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do—abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week’s atrocities—or whether we stand and fight.
To me, there is only one choice that protects America’s security—and that is to stand, and fight, and win.
His optimism is touching. But aiming pretty principles at the unprincipled just means he’s setting himself up for more heartbreak and derision.
His party has left him. And sadly, many whose party affiliation is merely habitual, and whose political opinions are shaped by the willful finessing of narratives by an advocacy press, will join in, however unwittingly, when they head to the voting booths.
Instead of “anti-war” Democrats, they should be called “White Feather” Democrats.
This is what I sent to my esteemed senior Senator, Joe Biden:
I was disappointed that you chose political expediency over the welfare of our troops and the Iraqi people. Your call for surrender, and for the political pork projects that were attached to this bill, are morally repugnant.
As a veteran, I had hoped that you had learned something from the carnage that was caused by Congress denying the South Vietnamese the aid that was promised to them.
This may do you and your political aspirations much good. US troops, and the Iraqis who were stupid enough to take us at our word and risk themselves by voting, enlisting and to be seen working in the reconstruction will probably not fare as well. But then, that does not appear to be any sort of priority for you. That is unfortunate.
I ask that you demonstrate some measure of self-restraint and refrain from your rash calls for insertion of US forces in Darfur. Since this Congress is not interested in supporting our troops or defending basic human rights, such cavalier statements can only serve to get more servicemen killed.
I can’t wait for Joe’s caucus mates tell us again how we need to turn our focus back to Afghanistan so that we can wipe out al-Qaeda.
Biden, in last night’s debate, was asked what the greatest threat to America is. He answered that it’s North Korea, with Iran a distant second.
Is this plain stupidity, or is this the product of a disturbed soul? Both? And how do such poor quality people keep getting elected?
Somewhere in Connecticut, Ned Lamont’s hot, bitter tears are drying on Markos’s shoulder.
Thank God.
Wholesale re-examination being a polite euphemism for something substantially less pleasant for all involved.
Doesn’t make it any less necessary though.
I’m pretty well convinced that the progressive understand this also but are counting on those who still hold to enlightenment principles and liberal ideals to be the ones who blink.
N. O’Brain: perhaps we could call them white Gump feathers or some such thing. White Feather was the enemy’s nickname for Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam, I’d hate to see his good reputation tarnished by association with the surrendercrats.
So. Do ya think that Joe will be inviting me to one of his inaugural balls?
(straight line provided free of charge)
(You have to pay for the pun; we all pay for puns).
Blue Hen – nice. I, however, won’t even bother writing to my two Senators (Durbin and Obama). Like trying to teach a pig to sing – gets you nowhere and annoys the pig.
Does anyone think it could be the case that we may simply be unable to pacify the situation, no matter how long we stay?
In our case, Delaware is a small state, and the few ‘figures’ here play musical chairs. Joe’s son was crowned Attorney General here. Even if Joe passes due to complications from an errant hair plug redeployment, we’ll then have to deal with the heir.
(hair. heir. I am on fire today)
Moops – possibly. That is no reason to throw ones hands up and walk away. I still feel shame on America’s behalf for abandoning the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. Not to mention the post Gulf War I debacle by GHWB in stirring up the Marsh Arabs. As bad as what we did with the Hungarians in 1956.
“Never Again” means something to me.
Yes. I do think that this is a possibility. Thus, we, especially those advocating abandonmnet should question all current deployments of US forces.
Do you see this happening? I don’t. Joe Biden, the current star of the show, is demanding that we insert troops into Darfur, saying “I’ve been told that 2,500 troops there will make a tremendous difference”. Do you see a plan for pacification here? Do you see the MSM demanding that he produce one?
Also, is anyone advocating surrender being honest about the likely consequences of this proposed abandonment? I’ve yet to hear one. It’s telling that several members of Congress, including dear Joe, were in Congress when Saigon was cut adrift. Therefore, these guys should be experts on what this course of action would entail.
Instead, we’re now supposed to get hard assed with N. Korea!?! I wonder how the S Koreans and Chinese feel about this?
BH – Ah, sounds like DE is a little like Illinois then (our AG is the daughter of the current House Leader). See also Daley, Mayor. See also Stroger, Todd (his old man had a stroke right before the Dem primary vote for Cook County President, so after he “won” they slipped the son in to run in the general election). And our State Comptroller is another son inheriting political fortune from Dad. The governor is the son-in-law of a powerful ward boss in Chicago. Jesse Jackson’s son is a Congressional Rep…
The State has no Republican Party worth even a sneer (see Keyes, Alan, debacle thereof), so I feel like I live in a quasi-feudal state/aristocracy.
Sure, moops, I think about that all the time in regards to Iraq. But, as has been shown in here time and time again by quoting leading democrats, insurgencies take more than three to four years to quell. I was never an advocate of restarting the Iraq battle, because I thought the battle could have played out in Afghanistan and I thought that Saddam was fairly neutralized at the time. BTW, with that being said, Al Queda would have (as they are already there now) just made their central front Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq. And the many dovish democrats would have been saying the EXACT same things about Afghanistan as they are now saying about Iraq (we created more terrorists by invading and we should treat the islamist problem as a law enforcement concern, rather than a military one). But, we are there and we have to give it time.
Moops, your question is the foundation for a host of memetic sins, like the “Pottery barn Rule” and the “Humpty Dumpty” syndrome, that seem erudite, but are inapplicable to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This is because the enforcement of “pacifism” (ie. the lack of violence) over an enormous, bustling, multicultural nation has never been our goal. It was regime change pure and simple, with only three caveats: the new government must be democratic, it must observe prohibitions on the sponsorship of terrorism, and it must be confirmed not to possess WMD’s.
I think Bush’s opponents have raised the bar for victory too high on purpose. How else, given all we’ve accomplished on the ground since March 2003, can the left still frame the Iraqi battlefront as a loss?
I think Bush’s opponents have raised the bar for victory too high on purpose.
I don’t see how my bar for victory could be lower than it is at this stage of the game, but the Bush Administration still can’t seem to clear it. The president has had four years to prosecute this war any way that he saw fit and he failed miserably. Time is up. It’s called the democratic process.
How else, given all we’ve accomplished on the ground since March 2003, can the left still frame the Iraqi battlefront as a loss?
I guess steveaz is the only person in America who took seriously The Onion’s headline “Celebrating 4 Years of Victory.†If Iraq seems like a success to you I’d hate to see your idea of failure.
We should get the hell out of Iraq immediately and if the civil war escalates then tough shit. Americans don’t give a crap about dead Muslims. Remember the quote about the Iran/Iraq war(Kissinger/Brzezinski?) “It’s just too bad only one side can lose.â€Â
Then why are you so eager to bring it about?
How about cutting and running from Vietnam because the Vietcong’s huge military defeat during Tet 1968, was spun by Uncle Walter as a huge defeat for the U.S.?
Speak for yourself.
this seems a little…off. Even if those three caveats are the only three, the first one is meaningless without some form of stability from outside forces (Iran, Syria, Turkey, etc) and a reasonable expectation of stability within the country. While we can disagree as to what level of violence is “acceptable” in terms of national stability…I don’t think we are near most people’s prefered level yet.
Some Guy, I recall Bush listed six or seven caveats in his speech back in ‘03. And I admit that I took some license when I reduced them all to three.
For example, one other caveat was that the new Iraqi government must be an ally in the War on Terror. I wrapped that one up loosely in my “sponsorship” point.
That said, the establishment of “pacifism” and extermination of any “external instabilit[ies]” were never the campaign’s stated goals, so to retroactively imply they were in order to lambast OIF’s accomplishments still qualifies as “raisin’ the bar.”
*Americans don’t give a crap about dead Muslims.*
Welp this american does. If we can’t find a way to start a dialogue with a muslim nation and find common ground (like democracy) with muslim nations, the coming war with the Middle East is going to make our little war in Iraq seem like a minor skirmish. Perhaps its you who don’t give a crap about dead muslims and are projecting ? You’ll note how many people on this board advocate staying in Iraq to finish the mission and to finish helping the Iraqis ?
Some people understand this and other people will do their dhimmi duty and welcome our new islamic overlords. Personally, I’d rather live in peace with muslims then be ruled by them. But we won’t be able to live in peace with muslims if we can’t find that common g round. OUr common ground is democracy in Iraq. You’re missing the big picture.
Oh also, what do you think is the effect on all those muslims in Iraq the minute we leave ?
How long does a war take, Ronaldo? And did we win the war with Saddam, or were we fighting insurgents then? Or al-Qaeda? Second war, third war, front in a global war. Or just one war in Iraq? Where’s the book you’re using that tells what the timetables are for a conflict like this?
How long was it supposed to take to win and what exactly does that entail in your estimation?
Carping is insufficiently convincing.
And yet the cut and run crowd aren’t getting their way. Because of the democratic process.
tw: policy28
finish the mission and to finish helping the Iraqis
Please stop. You almost made me spit some decent Spanish Rioja through my nose. If you wanted dialogue you should have thought about that before we invaded. I predict that things won’t get worse when we leave. The situation will stabilize when there is no longer the incentive to antagonize U.S. occupation. I could be wrong, but I was right when I said what would happen if we invaded Iraq, while everything conservatives predicted turned out to be completely off the mark. Go back and check the archives for this site for early 2003 and I’ll bet there aren’t too many intersections with reality.
I just wanted to make sure that one was preserved for the gem that it was.
Like Afghanistan did after the Soviets left?
I’m comfortable with that. File it right next to your “They will great us as liberators” comments and demands that people who opposed the invasion apologize in those halcyon days of Mission Accomplished.
Well, we have learned one thing today and that is that ronaldo likes, or at the very least, doesn’t give a shit about dead muslims. Religionist!
You blame rape victims for dressing too provacatively, too. Don’t you? How does that jibe with the no love for dead Muslims thing? I love people’s definition of peace as the absence of war. It’s just so simple!
BTW, ronaldo, I don’t lose any sleep over dead islamists. But, to you, they’re all the same anyhow.
What situation will stabilize? Why will car bombs aimed at civilans magically stop? The majority of the violence isn’t directed at US or coalition forces. Some of it is sectarian, some of it is aimed at stopping attempts to rebuild Iraq, and some is criminal activity.
By “situation will stabilise”, do you mean “it’ll drop out of sight in my rear view mirror”? We’ve been told ‘before 2003’ that the situation was ‘stable’. There was no violence then? there was no terrorism then?
Why are we subjected to these repeated calls for a posture (stability) that tacitly approved of terrorism, some of which was directed at us, and of perpetuating miserable conditions in the Middle East?
I can’t believe that I’m a conservative, and yet I care more about those oh-so-vital root causes than you.
And now there is Ronaldo. The number of sympathizers I find in the west is truly refreshing. Thanks so much ronaldo. Please condemn a zionist or two before you move on.
Prescience, huh? Appears to me more like retrospection topped with a generous dollop of smugness. And if “everything conservatives predicted was wrong”, surely you’re magnanimous to admit that everything progressives predicted was “off the mark” as well? Shall we list them?
Noted also is the ease with which you can hedge yourself against being wrong about future events but apparently disallow it for the Bush administration. How very generous of you.
Oh? Back when we and the UN kept insisting that Saddam demonstrate his compliance with the Security Council resolutions, dating back to the 1990s, about his WMDs, and he steadfastly refused (apparently assuming, as Osama had, that Clinton’s bugout from Somalia was the ultimate demonstration of American resolve)?
You mean during the fifteen solid fucking months of “the rush to war?”
That “before we invaded?”
The pathetic attempt to equate your ignorance and/or callousness by associating it with themes played up by, and in some cases created by the media don’t wash.
If your contention is that no Iraqi is worth any sort of effort, and that human rights don’t pertain, then say it and be done. If you want to claim that events in Iraq haven’t lived up to your expectations, then do that. This shouldn’t be difficult, since your regard for others is so low, no efort could, by definition, meet them.
Since you hate any effort in Iraq, no matter what the outcome, why should anyone care what your assesment of the current ‘situation’ is?
People do not castigate Ronaldo. He is allowed to choose his side. Just as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelois and CNN are allowed to choose a side. Praise Allah they have all chosen mine.
If you ask me Ronaldo and the rest should have chosen sooner.
You mean in those days when we were greeted as liberators? How about these days?
I don’t care about dead muuslimans either.
In fact, I quite liked making them dead.
Hey Uday, you cross eyed son of a goat!
I fucking franchised that shit waay before you were even an itch in your daddy’s lice infested loins.
Franchise fees are due. PAY UP BITCH!
Boy! If you want to see a Lib get red around the ears, suggest that maybe, just maybe, Iraq will be a successful, functioning democracy in 2012.
When I grow fed-up with all the anti-Iraq talk at a liberal Flagstaff dinner party, I like to propose that Baghdad may resenble Phoenix in five years, and that I might consider buying a townhome there if the view is right, and if the AC works.
It made one guy, a Transgender Literature major, I think, spit up a little clump of his half-chewed filet mignon. Not shittin’ ya.
Timing is always a bitch, huh G.o.S.H.?
So. You’re dead and resigned to haunting the nether regions; dreaded places where mortals seldom tread.
Tell me; How did Nancy Pelosi decorate her bedroom?
Ronaldo: You are a man entirely without heart or honor. How did you get in here? I thought I locked the fucking door.
I am tempted to direct profanity at you, Ronaldo. But I try to keep things polite here.
The Muslims of Afghanistan and Sarajevo might argue otherwise. I have spent an awful lot more of my life protecting Muslims than you have, I am quite sure. I have had Muslim brothers in arms (Gul Zaman in the Koh-e Safi, for example) killed in this fight. I suppose the bitter tears I shed for him were all an act, eh?
You have managed to reveal yourself as someone not worthy of even the minimal effort it would take to type a profane word…
Now I’m depressed. Why oh why didn’t I vote for Poshard? He had a D after his name but he acted like a much better R than his opponent. Arrggh. That Ryan asshole. I’d like to take low numbered license plate and cram it up his ass. It would be worth the $1000 he used to charge.
The most public warrant hearing in the history of mankind. Gee? What do you think he’ll do with the contraband? I know! He’ll flush it to Syria.
If Bush had framed his reasons for the Iraq War around our need to help the Iraqi people he would have been laughed out of office. He said it was to protect the American people from an imminent threat from Saddam. Whenever collateral damage (I love that euphemism. I hope whoever thought that one up got a promotion, or at least a couple of rounds of free drinks) was mentioned, it was war supporters who screamed that Iraqi civilian casualties were being brought up to discredit the war effort.
I’ll go out on a limb by saying that a further Sunni/Shia rift is a win/win situation for America, not to mention Israel. We threw fuel on the Iraq/Iran War, so what’s the difference now? Fly in a squadron of C-5’s, pack our shit, leave the Pizza Huts, and go home.
Did I hear someone say 2012? How much do you think that experiment will cost this country? Let’s see? A billion dollars a month for…yikes.
War is a lousy and expensive foreign policy tool. Our battle against Islamic extremism is one that should be fought primarily by our intelligence and law enforcement services. If a big enough target runs into the open then the military is a good choice to level that threat. Almost everyone now agrees that Iraq was not the place to unleash our military.
As I said earlier, what I said before and directly after the invasion is a heck of a lot closer to the facts than the way Bush and Co. called it. We can’t bomb the world into thinking we are a beacon of light and hope; we need to project this ideal with a huge new campaign of benevolence. Just this morning at the Paris airport on CNN I saw where NASA sent Stephen Hawkins up in a gravity-free flight. What awesome publicity for America. I noticed that everyone around me was kind of nodding with approval. We need more of that sort of spin.
P.S. Major John wants to direct profanity at me but holds back? The military must have changed since I served. I’m still recovering from my Tourette’s Syndrome over-use of George Carlin’s seven words (plus “douche bag”).
Ronaldo, the reasons we went to war are enumerated and committed to the record.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Google it. Read it. Learn it. Live it.
And when you’re finished with that, start on UN Sec Res 1441.
That is all. Except that the Iraqi people collaterally benefit from our desire to have a democratic non-terrorists supporting state where their murderous dictator used to roam free. It wasn’t necessarily the point, but our best interests converge with theirs. And it’s a good thing.
You are either an idiot or a liar, because he specifically said if we wait until the threat is imminent it will be too late.
Well that didn’t take long, okay, you are an idiot.
How do you think that played in Tehran? How about Beirut? Damascus? The Gaza Strip? Pyongyang?
B Moe
Did you come after Shemp? You probably still believe Iraq had a link to al Qaeda and I’m an idiot?
Shemp replaced Curly Joe, who replaced Curly. Moe was one of the originals and was there the whole time.
Idiot.
Christ-on-a-cracker, not this again.
I submit that nobody should respond to Ronny until he proves that statement.
Please provide a quote, Ronny, from the president, saying that there was an immenent threat from Iraq.
Go on, we’re waiting.
Provide a quote? Are you kidding? How about everything he said prior to the invasion? If you want specifics how about Bush’s press conference on March 3, 2003 where he said Saddam was a direct threat to our country? 50 tons of nerve gas on a turkey farm? None of this rings a bell? collective amnesia?
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
[url=”http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html” target=”_blank”]
-G. W. Bush[/url]
See how easy that was? Now how about you come up with just one time he said otherwise.
Yes, a quote.
There is this thing called a “search engine” that allows you to search pretty much every word (and non-word) that Bush has uttered since he became president.
If he did indeed make the statement that we had to invade Iraq because they were an imminent threat, it will be there to find.
So off you go Sparky.
To B Moe aka Dogberry, the wisest of all the Stooges,
You are too clever to be understood. Me know not of what you ask.
Here is the press conference you refer to. I see many references to 1441, none to imminent threats.
Apparently there are quite a few things you aren’t clever enough to undestand.
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. Bush March 3, 2003
That’s from your link, B Moron. I am confused by your tack on this argument. If you are saying that Bush didn’t say that Iraq was a direct/imminent threat then why the hell did we invade?
Read his opening statement, it seems pretty clear to me. And just to try to clarify something for you:
You pose a direct threat to score a debating point on this thread, but it certainly isn’t imminent.
You seem to be confused about a lot of things Ronny.
Oh, now it is direct/imminent? The sounds of goalpost moving are deafening. The words aren’t equivalent. From moe’s post above:
See that quote says exactly the opposite of what you allege.
So we continue to await your proof of his imminent threat comment.
Imminent is the exact opposite of direct? The day before we invaded, Jacques Chirac said on French TV that Iraq was not an imminent threat. So why was he pilloried by the right here in America?
After 4 years of a horribly mismanaged and botched war you are reduced to splitting hairs on the definition of a single word? That’s just too pathetic.
Don’t bother folks, Ronaldo is simply “heet” writ small. Wilfully obtuse or unknowingly dim (I would vote the later). Makes no difference what you say – you’ll not convince, persuade or embarass one like that. Facts, evidence and the like make no impression.
Time to move on.
Quoth Ronaldo, pre-backpedalling:
Ronny, we STILL await the proof of this statement.
(sorry Battle Capt.
)
I second Major John’s comment. Direct=imminent to ronaldo. Moron? Willfully ignorant? It really doesn’t matter.
ronaldo is example96 (just this day) of the profound stupidity of his ilk.
JACQUES CHIRAC, PEOPLE !
WE’RE TOAST !!!
The military must have changed since I served.
On whose side?
You are on a direct course towards death. That doesn’t mean that your death is imminent.
Yeah, but you gotta give the little bugger credit for that athleticism. I don’t think I have ever seen a troll chase his tail that fast.
Yea, he’s pretty cute when he does that, the little nimrod. We should record him and send the tape into “World’s Dumbest Trolls”. Maybe we’ll win a prize.
In any case he can come around every Friday and dance in leiu of the land lobster.
Congratulations.
Such mindlessness must’ve taken years to grow.
“After 4 years of a horribly mismanaged and botched war you are reduced to splitting hairs on the definition of a single word? That’s just too pathetic.
Posted by Ronaldo | permalink
on 04/27 at 08:13 PM:
Don’t know much history, eh Ronny?
Don’t know much history, eh Ronny?
So in your parallel universe the war is going well?
After 4 years of a horribly mismanaged and botched war……………..
Posted by Ronaldo
Ronaldo, dude. Your a general? Awesome!
Quit trying to change the subject and answer the question Ronny:
Quoth Ronaldo, pre-backpedalling:
Ronny, we STILL await the proof of this statement.
Please everyone, lay of Ronnie for a while, he’ll need all his (available) synapses firing for this one…
I’ve been telling ducks not to quack and fish not to swim for years. I hope you have better luck.
Ronny, we STILL await the proof of this statement.
Please everyone, lay of Ronnie for a while, he’ll need all his (available) synapses firing for this one…
Posted by TomB |
We may not have that much time.
If Ronny is gone any longer, we may have to put him on a milk carton.
I get it now. This is some dorking blogger thing about making a huge deal over whether Bush actually said “imminent.†Imminent was my word and if Bush didn’t say it then he sure implied it with all of the false reports of WMD, not to mention all of the other completely erroneous claims made by the administration about the war and what a cakewalk it was going to be. Should I google all of those hilarious quotes for you?
So we’ve gone from Bush saying the threat was imminent, to direct, to not really saying anything, but implying it.
You really need to put wheels and a steering wheel on those goalposts.
Quoth Bush:
The. threat. was. not. imminent.
If Bush didn’t say it, you shouldn’t be insisting that he did. Is “dorking blogger thing” your way of admitting that you’re wrong, Ronaldo?
Please do.
Morning Pablo
We invaded a country that had no link to 9/11 or al Qaeda, no WMD were found, we’ve now been there for four years and it’s worse than ever, the reconstruction has amounted to almost nothing, some estimates put the cost to U.S. taxpayers at a trillion dollars, over 3,000 American lives lost, and I’m wrong?
“Dorky blogger thing” means I don’t give a shit about your silly semantic games. This war has failed miserably and now you want to put the blame for it on a recently-elected congressional majority.
The. threat. was. not. imminent.
Then why did you people on the right lose your minds when, on the very eve of the invasion, Chirac said exactly that? Chirac was a lot closer to the mark than you folks. Hell, everyone was more accurate in their predictions about what would transpire in Iraq than the people who actually planned it.
Ronaldo sez:
Then he sez:
Seems to me you invest a lot into silly semantic games whenever it fits you. How about you just pack up and leave, and don’t forget to pick up & take with you all the yellow feathers you’ve been shedding.
…don’t forget to pick up & take with you all the yellow feathers you’ve been shedding.
Is this some passive-aggressive way of calling me a coward? I don’t consider myself a super-patriot but be careful, I served honorably in the U.S.A.F. I know that my friends who served in the Army and Marines don’t really think this counts but it trumps some civilian jackass who is calling me a coward.
No silly semantic games from me. Iraq looks pretty messed up and you people did it. You have been so desperately wrong in the past that your opinions about the future of Iraq are hardly worth considering. Move over, it’s time for a new driver.
This is pretty simple, Sparky. You make a straighforward statement:
You have since be asked over and over to substantiate that statement. However, you have been unbable, despite your verbal gymnastics. Now the honorable thing to do would be admit your mistake and move on. But you’ve chosen otherwise.
That you can’t admit a simple mistakes says alot about you.
OK, I’ll admit it. Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. Iraq wasn’t a real threat at all. Are you happy now? THEN WHY IN THE FUCK DID WE INVADE?
Now you have to admit to a little less simple mistake. Why did we do it?
With this I end my foray into the seamy underbelly of America’s far right fringe.
It isn’t that hard, Ronny. Its all spelled out right here:
House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
I’m sure you’ll feel much better slumming with your own kind.