Reply With Quote
Yay politics!
Conservatives who don't watch the Daily Show might have missed the little gem that Stewart showed from the Glen Beck show, where the pundit said that Osama needed to nuke an American city to get us "back on track", and Beck nodded his head about that probably being a good thing.
WTF?
Yay politics!
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit..
You're on a roll lately.
What's the deal? You leave for a few weeks and then come back with this kind of weak ?
You're better than that.
Doesn't surprise me.
Yay my side; screw yours has a powerful pull to it.
Dems rooted for bad economic news and bad news from Iraq during Bush's term; now Republicans quote bad employment figures with a gleam in their eye toward November '10 - and quietly hope that "we get hit again".
And why not? Look at how well the bad news, and economic collapse worked out for the Dems; they now have a near bullet-proof majority, and are on track to pass legislation that is FAR to the left of what the President ran on, and what the American public has indicated it wants (gotta get it done this year, because next year is an election year, and people can remember what you did to them for at least a couple of months).
Strangely enough, when John O'Neil was at the FBI trying to warn everyone about Al Qaeda, people thought he was being overly paranoid. Ironically, he left the FBI in 2001 and took a job as head of security at the WTC, where he died on 9/11.
Doesn't everyone wish that the Clinton and Bush admins had taken Al Qaeda more seriously before 9/11?
Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, ....
Pow! Right in the kisser.
I was always desperately hoping that good news would come out of Iraq and the economy.
The difference between the two is that the Bush adminsitration had a LOT of control in Iraq and not so much for the economy.
Which makes the first few years in Iraq so damning. Any real objective look at that period makes it very clear who was reasonably responsible for what.
It was definitely not schadenfreude *I* felt when watching the daily grind of US troop casualties mount because of the sheer inep ude of the Bush administration's handling of the situation.
That and the Katrina response sealed the "bumbling incompetant" narrative for the Bush adminsitration.
Been Busy. Speaking of which, back to work.
And I don't root for another million people to be laid off; there are exceptions to the rule.
If, however, you don't think certain posters believed different than you then, and me now, you aren't paying attention. And on the national level; well we could both name politicians from the "other" side that are damn near cheerleaders for bad things happening when they are out of power.
.................................................. ........x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly out- bag yourself..................................................... ........
I have said quite explicitly in this forum that I truly wished the administration would be competant enough to handle the Iraq occupation better, in order to reduce the endless stream of US fatalities.
I repeatedly criticized the handling of the war as ignoring the army's own counter-insurgency doctrine, however.
Astonishingly enough, after 3 or 4 years they started doing the things I said they should have been doing for years and it worked. , I even gave Bush some credit for the change in tactics/strategy that accompanied the surge.
If you think that I EVER in ANY way wished that our troops would have to suffer so that my "side" would gain politically, you can off, you pathetic baggy, piece of .
It was frustrating as all to see the admistration ing up for years, and bags like you defending the adminsitration for NO other reason than because he was on YOUR "side".
If ANYBODY sought poltical gains from our troops dying it was assholes like yourself who ignored the body counts and never ONCE asked of your president that he really take the time to get a good strategy. Instead you blindly aped the "stay the course" mantra, until Bush had the good sense to do a comprehensive strategy review and make changes, albeit 4 years too late.
And what is your take on that?
The Bush administration was very clearly responsible for the get-go for not understanding what would happen after they deposed Saddam, and not following their own counter-insurgency doctrine.
They literally had NO plan for post-war occupation, and that negligence directly caused thousands of our troops to die needlessly.
You are absolutely wrong. They knew the current situation could happen in their various outcome assessments. They bet on things going better.
Instead of preparing for foreseeable outcomes, they bet things would *go better*.
That's some pretty fancy war planning.
I've come to hope for the best and expect the worse as far as the country is concerned. Partisans hoping that the country declines to further their agenda should tell us something about the true character of partisan politics, as well as just what kind of power is really at stake. I know I expect certain things to happen due to the current track of the federal government, but I do hope against hope it doesn't happen.
Of course, the country consists of more than just the federal government, though oddly that distinction has long since left us.
I meant for specifically who was to blame with my question. I don't agree that they had NO plan for postwar occupation. The generals certainlly did. The person I would specifically place the blame on is that idiot Paul Bremmer and his decision to disband the Iraqi army against the generals advice. Of course you can extend the blame for that decision upstream through Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush but if I had to pick one person who's incompetence caused the most damage in post invasion Iraq it would be Bremmer.
And they made no contingencies for any other outcome.
Bremmer wasn't the first person they appointed for the occupation.
And why couldn't his order to disband the army simply be stopped or reversed by Rumsfeld or Bush? You're saying that Bremmer was beyond their control.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
