4,000 dead Americans

[Atticus Chaos 0]

If Iraq is so safe, Ann should volunteer to go live there!

[SuperJerk 0]

I've often wondered if people like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh are on some secret GOP payroll.

 

In their defense, they do fulfill an important role in our society. The 28% of the American people that approve of how Bush is doing his job have to get their information from somewhere.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Want a good laugh? I present Ann Coulter's latest commentary:

--snip--

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

--snip--

...wow.

 

*raises hand*

 

And probably for a few more, too.

[Jingus 0]

Out of all the crazy shit she vomited out of her beak, why take issue with that part? She's kinda right. There have been other attempts at planning and executing terrorist attacks on American soil since then. Just none of them were terribly successful.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Just saying, it's not like it was unfathomable. There were tons of attempts at planning and executing terrorist attacks on American soil before 9/11 as well. None of them were terribly successful as well. One successful attack does not mean that there can be or will be many more afterwards, and that would've been true whether or not Bush was president.

[NoCalMike 0]

The post-9/11 foreign policy was basically predicated and driven by the fear that we were in a constant state of further imminent attacks. Every conservative pundit worth his/her salt was helping to push the campaign of fear, and it worked pretty much up until the 2006 election cycle, which gave the administration plenty of time to start the ball rolling......

[SuperJerk 0]

U.S., Iraq seek 'time horizon' for troop exit

Withdrawals would be one of several 'aspirational goals,' White House says

 

updated 10:27 a.m. CT, Fri., July. 18, 2008

WASHINGTON - The United States and Iraq called for agreement on a "general time horizon" for American troop withdrawals Friday.

 

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the timing of troop reductions should be part of a broader security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad, according to the White House.

 

Troop withdrawals would be one of several "aspirational goals" and would be based on continued improvements on the ground in Iraq, the White House said.

 

"mproving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals — such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the statement said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736448/

 

I'm going to put aside the political analysis for now and just say "didn't see THAT coming". Also, WTF is a "time horizon"?

 

[snuffbox 0]

After spending a more than a half of a wasted decade exhausting our military in Iraq, now there seems to be some consideration for actually getting serious in Afghanistan.

[SuperJerk 0]

This isn't a new thought, but another way of putting it...

 

The people who are now telling us withdrawing forces from Iraq is a surrender, are the same people who thought the war was a good idea in the first place. How many times does someone have to be wrong before we can just ignore their advice and only listen to people who actually know something?

 

We've already demonstrated time and again how little John McCain knows about the Middle East and most radio talkshow hosts are not experts in anything except broadcasting. Of all the former Secretaries of State alive today, I think only George Shultz has defended it. No one who has left the current administration is saying anything positive.

 

And why is it surrender to leave Iraq? Doesn't "surrender" imply we are conceding defeat to someone? Why are we still over there, just to defeat the groups of people who's only unified goal is to get us to leave? We did all the stuff we said were going over there to do. We've toppled Saddam Hussein regime and installed a democratic government. We made sure they weren't building WMDs. There were no links to Al Qaeda until AFTER we invaded.

 

This is maddening. The American casualties are maddening, the collateral damage has been maddening, and the effects of the war our our economy is maddening.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Iraqis looking foward to tourism industry

 

Come to Iraq! You'll have a blast!

[SuperJerk 0]

Iraqis looking foward to tourism industry

 

Come to Iraq! You'll have a blast!

Not even Don Draper could sell someone on voluntarily going there.

[NoCalMike 0]

I have really been tuning the election cycle out lately. It just feels boring at the moment. I am likely to vote for Obama but if he is going to be an extension of the newly elected congress then I am not all that excited in the least.

 

I really think Obama needs to hit home the point of "endless" war. To me THAT theme is more powerful then Iraq itself. It is that Bush and his administration set into motion and seemingly the foreign policy that McCain will choose to continue.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm going to remember all this "Obama isn't liberal enough for me" talk when President McCain is expanding the war into Iran, vetoing health insurance for children, and appointing Orin Hatch to the Supreme Court. You guys keep talking like this and it makes me wonder about your attention spans...are you forgetting what we are dealing with now? The thought of getting the Republicans out of the White House is all the motivation I need to want to vote.

 

The reason the Congress hasn't done anything about Iraq is because the second they move to cut funding they'll get labelled as"not supporting the troops" and will be giving the Republicans a giant club to hit them over the head with. Ending this war is going to required control of the Executive Branch, because the Executive Branch runs foreign policy and diplomacy is going to be required to move out of Iraq as painlessly as possible. We can't just cut funding and leave without throwing the region into turmoil, and we can't keep doing the same thing over and over expecting to "win". A third way to get out of this mess is needed, and the President is the only one who can do it.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't vote for the letter next to a name. That usually ends up with things like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush Jr. If candidates want votes, they should earn them.

 

Why is Bush evil for domestic spying, but it's fine if Obama does it?

 

Why is McCain bad for wanting to prolong the Iraq war when Obama apparently wants to keep a 'residual force' of upwards of 60,000 there indefinitly?

 

Keep voting for those letters. You'll never get what you want.

[At Home 0]

Or how about just remain vocal about the issues you're passionate about, but actually vote for the person that'll get you the closest there with the best chance? Why do some democrats have a problem with this? It seems to me there's this childish mentality within many democratic voters that banks their vote on just a couple of issues. That's where we end up with a situation like in 2000.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Keep voting for those letters. You'll never get what you want.

Neither will you, though, because what you want is likely unattainable. The insistence of many left-leaning individuals to expect perfection out of their candidates and refuse to vote for them if they don't meet that standard is baffling. From my perspective, a president with a (D) next to his name is much, much more likely to get me some of what I want and believe is best for the country. A president with an ® next to his name isn't going to get me any of it. Given that those are the only two choices that will generate actual results in something as grand in the presidential election, I will always take the solution that gives me the most, even if it's not a lot.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well I am going to vote for Obama. In my post above I should have omitted the word "likely" It's just that I am not as enthuiastic about it as I was maybe a year ago and, I am not all about this "Obama Fever" stuff. I am still holding out a little hope that Obama's growing centrist rhetoric is just having to do with the natural way elections are won.

 

If you are left of center at all, then yes Obama is the best option out there, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, and it doesn't mean I still can't voice my displeasure with some of Obama's changing rhetoric as the election cycle draws nearer.

 

As far as the "gonna get labeled soft on terror" tripe.....it's not my goddamn fault the democratic party has not come up with a reasonable way to defend this attack, and instead continues to roll over on such issues like domestic spying. I'm sorry but for the last two years all we have heard is how evil it was and how we cannot give immunity, and then it seems like overnight the same old rolling over happens with a lot of double-speak, and apologist rhetoric.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

As far as the "gonna get labeled soft on terror" tripe.....it's not my goddamn fault the democratic party has not come up with a reasonable way to defend this attack, and instead continues to roll over on such issues like domestic spying. I'm sorry but for the last two years all we have heard is how evil it was and how we cannot give immunity, and then it seems like overnight the same old rolling over happens with a lot of double-speak, and apologist rhetoric.

 

The problem is that any "reasonable" defense the Democrats manage to come up with just elicits the exact same bullshit, prefab response from the Republicans. There's no honest give-and-take at all. It's the Marabar Caves. After a while that shit starts to wear you down.

[SuperJerk 0]

Why is McCain bad for wanting to prolong the Iraq war when Obama apparently wants to keep a 'residual force' of upwards of 60,000 there indefinitly?

 

You can't be serious. The difference is between having troops there as a contingency while diplomacy goes on, and having troops there to kill and be killed as their only objective.

 

Let's not fool ourselves, we really only do have 2 choices, but they are two VERY different choices.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

There's no honest give-and-take at all. It's the Marabar Caves. After a while that shit starts to wear you down.

Barack OBouma.

[snuffbox 0]

Why is McCain bad for wanting to prolong the Iraq war when Obama apparently wants to keep a 'residual force' of upwards of 60,000 there indefinitly?

 

You can't be serious. The difference is between having troops there as a contingency while diplomacy goes on, and having troops there to kill and be killed as their only objective.

 

Let's not fool ourselves, we really only do have 2 choices, but they are two VERY different choices.

 

By changing the name to describe their presence, they will no longer be shot at/bombed? That's the kind of sheltered thinking that has WG Harding starting WW2 with his bare hands.

[NoCalMike 0]

60,000 seems like a high number to be a "residual force"

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't envy Barack. Should he be elected, he has one hell of a mass ready to be dropped in his lap, on more than one front.

[SuperJerk 0]

Why is McCain bad for wanting to prolong the Iraq war when Obama apparently wants to keep a 'residual force' of upwards of 60,000 there indefinitly?

 

You can't be serious. The difference is between having troops there as a contingency while diplomacy goes on, and having troops there to kill and be killed as their only objective.

 

Let's not fool ourselves, we really only do have 2 choices, but they are two VERY different choices.

 

By changing the name to describe their presence, they will no longer be shot at/bombed?

 

Its not what they are calling it, but what they will be doing over there that will make the difference.

 

 

That's the kind of sheltered thinking that has WG Harding starting WW2 with his bare hands.

 

Way to straw man, Mr. Intellectual Integrity.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm saying you're an idiot for thinking having a large force being used in a foreign country magically becomes cool only because of the letter next to a politician's name. I then provided an e-historical precedent to show how you tend to consistently form opinions solely based upon that letter.

[EricMM 0]

You're a bigger idiot for not seeing the differences between McCain and Obama, and not acting on said differences.

 

Based upon your previous stances here, I think you should care about them.

[snuffbox 0]

Again, I'm not, under any circumstances, voting for McCain. I have absolutely no clue where you got the idea that I am. Why the fuck would I disagree with Obama's enjoyment of domestic spying & desire to stay in Iraq but vote for a guy even more infatuated with those concepts? Whether you're obtuse or plain dumb, I don't know, but, please, just stop.

[At Home 0]

Wait, you're voting for Obama?

[SuperJerk 0]

I said before the difference was between having troops there as a contingency while diplomacy goes on, and having troops there to kill and be killed as their only objectives. At no time did I say just changing which party was in charge would "magically" fix Iraq.

 

Your straw man tactics are getting pretty obnoxious, dude.

[snuffbox 0]

Wait, you actually think that by changing the label given to their mission that the idiots over there will stop setting up roadside bombs? Do you really think that the supply and support vehicles that are most often hit no longer will be, simply because a different term, in English, has been given for what they are doing?

[snuffbox 0]

Wait, you're voting for Obama?

 

Probably.

 

But I'm definitly not going to delude myself to thinking that his policies are better than Bush/McCain's, not because they actually are but because I like the letter by his name. If I disagree with anything he does on the campaign or if he becomes president, I will say so. I do not give free passes to one party for doing the exact same bullshit as the other.

 

Will he be better than McCain or Bush Jr? Absolutely. But I am not so blind to think that what he does is perfect even when it is no different than what we might otherwise view as evil.