4,000 dead Americans

[SuperJerk 0]

Feingold said it better than I can:

 

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal?

 

I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted.

Feingold strikes me as the kind of guy who'd get a free steak dinner and then complain about the silverware.

 

More Democrats like him, and we'll find ourselves back in the minority.

[snuffbox 0]

Oh, I know it. If the Dems don't get back to being spineless twits acting like GOP-lite (Kerry, Bayh, etc) then they will never win.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Feingold strikes me as the kind of guy who'd get a free steak dinner and then complain about the silverware.

A dirty Jew?

[Guest]

I don't even give enough of a shit about this administration anymore to even discuss them (codewords: they are not worth anybody's fucking time), so I'll just put it like this.

 

Iraq's situation is some West Africa type shit. It won't be fixed by anybody, and it was bound to happen eventually. I'm sad that it happened, and I'm not going to say sooner rather than later or some such shit. It's time to get the fucking troops out of there. 6 months ago. Let the Iraqis fix their own problems through their own methods.

 

I don't care anymore. This will be handled like Uganda or the Sudan. As a fucking tragedy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Feingold said it better than I can:

 

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal?

 

I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted.

 

No, they definitely didn't call for what Feingold wants.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.

 

The official US policy has been that the refugee situation is temporary and that most of the estimated 1.5 million who have fled to Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere will eventually return to Iraq. But US and international officials now acknowledge that the instability in Iraq has made it too dangerous for many refugees, especially Iraqi Christians, to return any time soon.

 

Ellen Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of state for refugees and migration, said that while the Bush administration does not think resettlement is needed for most refugees, its policy could rapidly change.

 

"It is quite possible that we will in time decide that because of vulnerabilities of certain populations that resettlement is the right option," Sauerbrey said. While acknowledging that the administration originally set a quota of no more than 500 Iraqi refugees, she said the president has the legal authority to admit 20,000 additional refugees.

 

...

 

Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey, who was President Bush's assistant secretary of state for refugee affairs until last year, said that "for political reasons the administration will discourage" the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States "because of the psychological message it would send, that it is a losing cause."

 

Boston Globe

[Guest NYankees]

Hundreds of thousands? WWWhhhhaaaatttttttttt???????? Can you picture how many Americans are not going to feel safe in their own country now. I just heard on the news that 60 day laborers were killed in Iraq today. Supposedly the suicide bombers make phoney job offers that attract people to work. The day laborers show up and are put into a Bus which then explodes. I cant even imagine what it would be like to live in that country.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hundreds of thousands? WWWhhhhaaaatttttttttt???????? Can you picture how many Americans are not going to feel safe in their own country now. I just heard on the news that 60 day laborers were killed in Iraq today. Supposedly the suicide bombers make phoney job offers that attract people to work. The day laborers show up and are put into a Bus which then explodes. I cant even imagine what it would be like to live in that country.

 

Me either. That's why we should bring our troops home. I don't think we can even begin to imagine what a total barbaric hellhole Iraq is. If Iraq is going to be pulled up, it's going to be by Iraqis, not the US and its allies.

[SuperJerk 0]

Feingold said it better than I can:

 

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal?

 

I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted.

 

No, they definitely didn't call for what Feingold wants.

 

And what would that be? A shiney new bicycle? A Red Rider B-B Gun? An X-Box 360? Or the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq? Because the report definitely called for one of those things.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

He wants good times for a change. See, the luck he's had can make a good man turn bad.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Feingold said it better than I can:

 

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal?

 

I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted.

 

No, they definitely didn't call for what Feingold wants.

 

And what would that be? A shiney new bicycle? A Red Rider B-B Gun? An X-Box 360? Or the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq? Because the report definitely called for one of those things.

 

Timetable for withdrawal by '07.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

 

New York Slimes

[Dobbs 3K 0]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

 

New York Slimes

 

Bush is in bed with the Sauds, so why the fuck would he care?

[snuffbox 0]

Bush is apparently leaning towards 'more troops to help stay the course'

[EricMM 0]

In other words, fire Rumsfeld but stay the course.

 

Fucking idiot.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Geez, you'd think there would be some group or body that could step in and end this mess...

[snuffbox 0]

Is there anything the Dems can do to stop this except cut the funding?

 

How long will Gates last after already contradicting Bush's rosy outlook at his confirmation hearings?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Cutting the funding would be an answer.

[snuffbox 0]

I agree, but the backbones of Jim Webb & Russ Feingold does not an entire caucus make.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, the problem is that Bush's entire presidential legacy is going to based on a war he started in Iraq. If we pull out now, it's going to be seen as a failure (it already is a failure, but let's not let that get in the way). He's going to do everything he can to make sure that the war goes on to the next president, so any pullout or further losses will be pinned on the next guy.

 

"Well, you know, I, uh, thought I left our troops in good hands, but the pullout in '09 ensured that the militants would take over the country."

[theintensifier 0]

It's war. What do people expect? I realize that there are women/children being killed/murdered, but if faced with a situation that our troops are faced with, I doubt anyone here would react differently, I know I wouldn't. You never know who has a bomb strapped to their chest, who is neutral, who is bad, who is good, etc.

[snuffbox 0]

Does anybody but the most retarded folks (example - Gary Hart) let LBJ off the Vietnam hook?

 

I'm still amazed, though I know I shouldnt be, that Bush has supposedly read over 50 books on American history this year alone and still hasnt found his own striking parallels to Vietnam.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It's war. What do people expect? I realize that there are women/children being killed/murdered, but if faced with a situation that our troops are faced with, I doubt anyone here would react differently, I know I wouldn't. You never know who has a bomb strapped to their chest, who is neutral, who is bad, who is good, etc.

 

Exactly. That's why I think all those stories earlier this year about supposed war crimes commited by our troops were a crock. Our government puts them in harm's way, underprotects and underfunds them, puts them on multiple tours of duty, and then acts shocked when someone who looks like a terrorist is mistakenly shot or something, because a US soldier had to make a split second decision that could have resulted in himself and his comrades being blown to pieces.

[snuffbox 0]

Those Abu Ghraib folk might have had bombs up their buttholes. Gotta check everything!

[theintensifier 0]

I had a roomate when I was stationed at Camp Lejeune. He went to Iraq at the beginning of the war, and his entire unit had no ammo for their M-16's. They put cigarette packs into the magazine chamber instead and had black/silver tape around them to make them look like magazines. Ridiculousness.

[snuffbox 0]

A sleek agile force can't be weighted down by ammunition.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Does anybody but the most retarded folks (example - Gary Hart) let LBJ off the Vietnam hook?

Well, I can recall at least four TSM/Pit posts that said Vietnam was Richard Nixon's fault, so yeah.

[snuffbox 0]

Did they involve SuperJerk?

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

No, his was the one that said Vietnam was Harding's fault

[snuffbox 0]

Well, obviously. Any isolationist policies that can span 2 decades and 3 administrations can surely haunt us into the 1960s as well.

 

Who were the posters that actually did blame Nixon?

 

Some of my hardcore Democrat friends/family (much to the surprise of current Republican toadies, my libertarianism doesnt agree with these people) also think Vietnam was Nixon's fault. While it is true that he (and Dulles) had proposed military action there as far back as '54, when the actual escalation started Dick was too busy yelling at the California press in the midst of a hangover.