Reply With Quote
Well aren't they?
as usual Corso whoever Corso is makes no sense. But heCorsos at "the surge worked"
Corso says no more violence in Iraq! Corsos won! the Iraqi Corso government is stabilized! and the country is united under one Corso!
makes boutons look like an intellect.
Well aren't they?
Lets play theory-world for a moment....
If the Dems plans were ultimately the ruin of America, then that plan would obviously encompass nearly every aspect of their foreign and domestic policy, yes?
So, since youre convinced of the above, and feel strongly that the essence of that sentiment is being pushed onto Iraq making it a fore gone conclusion...
Name 3 other policies outside of Iraq that declare to everyone looking in that the Dems are out for American failure.
Because they are invested, lock, stock, and barrell in an Iraqi defeat being the underpinning of their future political success. Republicans took us into a losing war...vote Democrat!
As you said, very early...and, meaningless.
Soclialized Medicine.
Punitive Tax Structure.
Ruinous Global War...uh, Climate Change policies.
Kalifornia-style oppressive regulation and government for all!!!
You are going to have to be more clear on what you are
trying to say. It makes no sense to me at all.
I think you are trying to ask about the dimms other
policies that are ruining America. If that is your
contention then let me say they have not given any
foreign policy plans other than Iraq. And that plan is
simply: Surrender.
Works everywhere in the world except in the US. Controversial, yes. Game breaking, no. Next.
Please explain. Meaning the rich pay more than they already do? ???Punitive Tax Structure.
Ruinous Climate Policies....hmm, meaning making cars emit "X" percentage less harmful emissions? Restrictions on oil companies? Might want to clarify this. Because the only car companies crying about these changes are the American companies. Thats because theyre losing their ass and have no more money for R&D. Dont see Mercedes, Toyota or Honda crying.Ruinous Global War...uh, Climate Change policies.
California is an exception. It always has been since its inception. If youre looking for a more realistic example, you might want to head east about 2500 miles. New England area. Big opressive government there.Kalifornia-style oppressive regulation and government for all!!!
Did Dems pass the patriot act? I forget sometimes....
So, the only one I cant say is hogwash, political rhetoric is the Punitive Tax Structure.
Where does it work? You need to read more scholarly reports on socialized medicine and less Michael Moore.
Well, we're fast approaching the point where less than 50% of the population will be paying 100% of the taxes and that more than 50% of the population will be receiving some form of monetary benefit from the government.
That can't be sustained.
No, meaning they will stifle free enterprise and the markets with their silly environmental nonsense. You will see our GDP tank.
But, Kalifornia is what you'll get if you let the Democrats control Congress and the White House.
No, but they renewed and enhanced it.
That's because you're an ignoramus.
I meant in theory-world. Lets remove Dem and Repub from the equation and put in some place-holders...
By your ascertation, The Eagles want to destroy America.
The Eagles, by virtue of holding such an idea, must obviously pursue this goal in a multifaceted fashion. Nobody has taken over the world or fell a country on a direct route.
If the Eagles hold such a policy and want to ruin America, then they must be pursuing that goal in numerous ways.
You claimed Iraq to be one of those ways. Ive asked you to cite others.
Fair enough. /debate
Petraeus: U.S. Forces Have Achieved 'Uneven' Results
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
If Petraeus is calling the his baby's results "eneven", some bad, some good, you know without any doubt there is much more bad than he will admit and not as much good as he will claim. "damning with faint praise"
Bagdad has less violence now because the Shiites have mostly ethnically cleansed it of Sunnis, not because Petraeus has been kicking ass. And we have all noted the increase of violence outside of Bagdad, as well as the relentlessly deteriorating infrastructure.
But the surge has failed because the Iraqis have not achieved, nor anywhere near achieving, like years away, if ever, political/sectarian accomodation.
So, you, Yoni, keep your tongue slurping up dubya's ass.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-07-2007 at 03:16 PM.
I see the subscription to Sean Hannity's newsletter is paying for itself already.
Yoni's is will be part of the choir that sings the song that opposition to the LOST Iraq war caused dubya to it up and lose it.
boutons, you can rest easy. You have UBL in your
corner chastising the dimms for not following through
on their promises. I know you must feel better.
And when are you going to embrace Islam? Or have
you already?
Never listen to the guy.
It must be incredibly embarrassing to get ass ed (with the entire world watching) by a guy without a country.
Well you should know. You carry his water for him.
Nah, I listen to what Petraeus and the GAO tell me.Hey Chump, got to congratulate you. You got the
dimm-o-crap line down pat. Just keep attending those
on-line classes and remember what the dimms tell you.
You have the GAO version, which is what you like. But
you haven't heard Petraeus report yet.
Of course you like your leaders, Reid, Durbin and Pelosi
are already disputing a report which has not been made.
Typical of you type.
It's the closet thing to an unbiased accounting, so yes -- I like it very much.You have the GAO version, which is what you like.It's pretty easy to predict he'll say in his testimony that the military component of the surge is working but will take more time. And it's not his report -- the White House is going to write it.But
you haven't heard Petraeus report yet.Hey, Yoni has already decided the surge is an unqualified success, an he hasn't read the report either.Of course you like your leaders, Reid, Durbin and Pelosi
are already disputing a report which has not been made.
Since it will be written by the White House, I imagine some numbers about violence will be cooked or made up to make things especially rosy. It's all academic at this point though -- troops will start coming home in April no matter what.
I wonder if once the report comes out, if the under-reported agreements being made by clerics of different factions will be reported as well, or still be hidden in the news? They are planning to issue fatwa's to stop the religious strife in Iraq. That’s right. It’s been happening. They are working together at the religious level. That is where the real progress will be made. They are looking for ways to respect each other, and end the sectarian violence.
Once this happens, we can probably start returning troops home. Of course, the media ignores these developments so that they can claim democrat pressure returns the troops when they start coming home.
Over in 3 weeks.
No.
Zarqawi and many other insurgents were in country prior to our invasion in March of '03.
Who?
There was a period where al Qaeda tried -- with some success -- to foment sectarian violence. But, it appears now, the Iraqis have banded together to help defeat al Qaeda. Just ask Chuck Schumer.
Treasonous Terrist-huggers at the GAO
==============
US Auditor Queries Military Iraq Casualty Figures
Agence France-Presse
Friday 07 September 2007
Washington - An independent US government auditor on Friday cast doubt on US military statistics expected to show a huge dip in sectarian violence in Iraq under the current troop surge strategy.
Comptroller General David Walker said there was a "significant difference" of approach between the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which he heads, and Pentagon evaluations of violence in Iraq.
"The primary difference between us and the military is whether or not violence has been reduced with regard to sectarian violence," Walker told the Senate Armed Services committee.
A GAO report published this week on 18 benchmarks for progress for the Iraqi government set down in law by Congress, found that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's administration had failed to reach targets for cutting violence.
"It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased - a key security benchmark," the report said, pointing to the difficulty in judging whether a killing was sectarian or criminal in nature.
In long-awaited testimony on Monday to Congress on the progress of the surge, Walker said war commander General David Petraeus will cite a large decrease in sectarian violence.
"I think you need to ask him how he defines sectarian violence," Walker told senators.
"The other thing you have to look at is if it's sustainable."
Some reports say Petraeus will argue that sectarian violence in Iraq has fallen by up to 75 percent under the surge.
"We could not get comfortable with (the military's) methodology for determining what's sectarian versus nonsectarian violence," Walker told senators.
"You know, it's extremely difficult to know who did it, what their intent was."
Walker was unable to go into further details, as the rest of the GAO's conclusions in the report on sectarian violence have been declared secret by the Pentagon, and urged senators to read the classified version of the study.
Democratic Senator Jack Reed asked why such vital information to assessing the state of US policy in Iraq was such a closely guarded secret.
"This may seem like a dumb question - why is this classified? I mean, who are we trying to keep this information from: the American people?" Reed said.
Democratic committee chairman Carl Levin meanwhile said he would make a request by the end of Friday for relevant portions of the report to be declassified, so senators could discuss them in a public setting.
==================
Cherry-pick and inflate the desired evidence, and classify the contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
you're doing a heckuva job, dubaiya
Last edited by boutons_; 09-09-2007 at 06:37 PM.
September 10, 2007
Military Seen as Best Able to Guide War
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MEGAN THEE
Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
On the eve of what is sure to be a contentious debate on Iraq, the results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.
Today, General Petraeus will appear on Capitol Hill along with the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, in what has become the most anticipated testimony from a military commander in decades.
Only 5 percent of Americans — a strikingly low number for a sitting president’s handling of such a dominant issue — said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war,
That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief.
Some Democrats took issue with the characterization of General Petraeus as operating free of influence from the administration.
“I don’t think he’s an independent evaluator,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said on “Fox News Sunday.” A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, responded sharply, saying, “Attacking him in this way is reprehensible.”
( what is reprehensible is dubya saying he listens to his Generals, while he continues to fire them when he doesn't like what he hears. If Petraeus isn't fired, then we know he's sucking dubya, rather than Doing the Right Thing. )
Still, the poll showed how difficult the White House’s task of sustaining support for an unpopular war had become. There is a deepening disillusion over the war’s course and its purpose, with the highest numbers of Americans, 62 percent, saying that the war was a mistake, and 59 percent saying that it was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs.
A majority, 53 percent, said they did not think that Iraq would ever become a stable democracy. Still more, 70 percent, said they did not think the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was doing all it could to bring stability.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans said the United States should reduce its troops in Iraq now or withdraw them. Asked if a timetable should be established for a 2008 withdrawal, a position many Democrats in Congress have advocated, 64 percent favored doing so.
The Democrat-led Congress also enters the debate in a weakened position. The popularity of the current Congress reached a new low, the poll found, less than a year after the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. Only 23 percent of Americans approved of the job lawmakers were doing.
While Congress has rarely scored highly in the public mind, the current Congress’s rating is now lower than that of its predecessor in the months before the election swept the Republican Party from power.
“I think both parties will make the wrong decisions,” one of those polled, John Cross, a lawyer and a Democrat from Greensboro, N.C., said in a follow-up telephone interview yesterday. “I just think they’ll make them differently.”
The poll’s results encapsulated sentiments that at times seemed contradictory, highlighting the complexity of a debate over how to win a war that has had few easy answers. As a result, Americans reflected a nuanced concern about the consequences of a withdrawal, even as they fervently expressed hope for one. The consequences of leaving Iraq hastily or prematurely has been one of the administration’s recurrent themes of late.
Presented with three possible plans, the poll found that Americans favored a measured approach, with 56 percent supporting reducing troops in Iraq, but leaving some in place to train Iraqi forces, fight terrorists and protect American diplomats.
( now that's a useless tasks, since those diplomants are appointed by dubya to work on the oil grab )
Twenty-two percent favored a complete withdrawal in the next year, and 20 percent favored keeping the same number of troops “until there is a stable democracy in Iraq.”
Just under half favored a decrease or withdrawal of all troops even if the result was “more mass killings” among Iraq’s ethnic groups. The proportion favoring reductions or a withdrawal dropped to 30 percent if Iraq would become a base of operations for terrorists as a result.
The poll was conducted nationwide by telephone from Tuesday through Saturday and included 1,035 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus three percentage points.
The findings suggested that both parties were paying a price for the way they have handled the war. Six in 10 Americans said in the poll that administration officials deliberately misled the public in making a case for the war;
33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
( holy ! head is an extremely effective liar, at least for the sheeple and rabble and Repugs
The poll found that the edge held by the Democrats this year on the issue had diminished, perhaps because of the inability of the party’s leadership in Congress to push through measures that would restrain Mr. Bush or mandate any steps toward ending the war.
What was an 18-point advantage in May for the Democrats on the question of which party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war has fallen to a 10-point advantage, 42 percent to 32 percent for the Republicans.
With barely 16 months to go in his presidency, Mr. Bush has a popularity rating that hovers nears its historic lows, with only 30 percent approving of his handling of the job and 64 percent disapproving. That level — essentially the reverse of his ratings when the war began in 2003 — has remained roughly the same since Mr. Bush announced in January the increase in American troops that became known as the surge.
Only 26 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq and of foreign policy generally, while only one in four Americans think the country is generally on the right track.
Politically speaking, the poll indicated that Americans favored a flexible approach to Iraq as opposed to unbending positions.
That could prove significant in this month’s debate in Washington and in next year’s presidential election. A vast majority, 94 percent, said that sharing a candidate’s view on the war was important or very important.
And 71 percent said that flexibility in deciding on a withdrawal was more important than demanding either an unqualified victory (Mr. Bush’s position) or an immediate withdrawal (that of much of the antiwar Democratic base).
Over the summer, perhaps with such sentiment in mind, Democratic candidates and lawmakers in Congress have softened their demands for a hard and fast schedule for pulling out.
The White House’s strategy of portraying “the surge” of troops as a success could have an unintended effect.
( OOPS!
The poll found that if General Petraeus were to report that the situation in Iraq was improving, 56 percent thought the United States should then decrease or remove all troops, while 38 percent would favor increasing or keeping the number the same.
If he reports that the situation is getting worse, the number supporting a reduction or withdrawal drops to 47 percent, with 43 percent favoring staying on.
Marjorie Connelly, Marina Stefan and Dalia Sussman contributed reporting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
