Here’s a telling prediction from an unnamed presidential adviser to Time magazine about the remainder of George Bush’s second term: “This guy, at 11:59 and 58 seconds on the 20th of January 2009, in the moment before his successor is inaugurated, is still going to be trying to make it work in Iraq. He really believes it can work, and he believes that his will can be part of a formula to make it work in Iraq, and that’s a course for us to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
43 Comments
Nothing new, here. Sounds like another example of stubborness. I truly believe he believes his position is correct. Also, to those who remember Dr. Kissinger’s thoughts: does this make you think of the post-Vietnam time, that is, the reason things ended so badly is the “loss of will”?
Stay the course….
A vote for tiahrt is a vote to stay the disasterous course.
And in those same final minutes…
tiahrt will STILL be supporting bush’s insane policies.
And you all just keep sending him back to do more of the same.
END THE WAR! KEEP TODD IN WICHITA!!!
But then, toddly will have SO MUCH CLOUT in the new democratic congress….
heheheheheheheh.
Mindlessly supporting bush AND out of power.
And we wonder why kansas is a laughing stock.
Would you bring YOUR business here?
The GOP’s strategy in Iraq? Cut and stay.
Vote Democratic–for a change.
Then why the window dressing of the so-called bipartisan Baker Commission?
Soldiers ask of help from Kerry…
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/01/lazy-and-uneducated-photo-of-the-day/
Ben, my cynical side says political cover for the midterm elections. Just can’t come up with any other thought which makes any sense whatsoever, given the recent Administration pronouncements.
mrbill, great link; amused me, at least.
mrbill,
hahaha, great link to that photo. I guess you can say the soldiers in Iraq are a bit miffed.
Despicable troll using political moms name.
YOU illustrate the gutless bully qualities of the despicable Republican party.
Perhaps when bush’s term is over he can PERSONALLY go to Iraq and clean up his mess.
Ben,
I am convinced the Baker group is George Herbert Walker trying to help out sonny. The problem is, that is too obvious and sonny will turn down the ideas, no matter how good they are.
In GWBushWorld the only thing worse than doing what Clinton might do, is to do what your dad would have you do.
As Jay Leno noted, one of the reasons that GHWBush and Clinton are getting along like “father and son” (GWBush’s words) is that GHWBush “always wanted a smart son.”
Steven – WELL SAID!
Hehe, hey trool (drooling troll), keep it up! It’s hilarious!
You want to use my nic next?
I have a nic of MY OWN at least troll boy.I also have a live email. Why don’t you shoot me an invite for a time and place for me to kick your ass?
Bush cuts and runs., abandons search for missing US soldier.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103100452.html
You wingers need to denounce your trolls. We police our own. It is about time you told those on your side that are doing this shit to cut it out.
I see you used MY email troll. I’ll be waiting for your email as to when we can meet and you can cry like the chickenshit you are.
I am tired of this crap. I got a baseball bat with your name just waiting to be on it.
Once again, why I have always thought we should have to register our names and log in…
Mr Troll, do be a good sport and use your own name.
On a side note, The picture of JR holding a baseball bat is nothing to be scared of…
Aw, c’mon, Nathan, JR may be not an imposing presence, but I suspect he could “play ball” well enough. . . :)
I’m inclined to agree with you nathan.
You are right.
I’m much better with a pool cue and a beer bottle.
I can take care of myself very well thank you.
I see I scared the little troll off.
Email me troll. Let’s have a beer and play some pool!
You can TASTE the desperation from some on the right..
Sucks to be you guys. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes JR,
Some wierdo on the internet is hardly proof positive about the Republicans.
But hey, you could get a flat tire on your way to work and probably blame it on some Republican conspiracy to keep the poor white man down…
So, it has come to this: at the request of Al Malicki, the U.S. has ended the blockade of Sadr City. This effectively gives up the search for the missing U.S. trooper.
Plain english: at the demand of Moktada al Sadr, the Administration has cut and run from the kidnapped U.S. trooper in Iraq.
Steve Gilliard puts this in the proper light:
***********************************
“Ever since World War II, soldiers and Marines have followed a simple creed: leave no man behind. In combat units, it’s a matter of faith. No one is left on the battle field. During Vietnam, Marines would take casualities to rescue their wounded. It got so bad that commanders had to order units not to get killed rescuing the wounded.
You don’t leave people behind. It’s simple, it’s taught reflexisively. American soldiers do not each other behind. It is a matter of faith.
You may not have a wife or a job when you get home. You may not get home in one piece. But you know one thing as you suit up for another day in the sandbox, they will not leave you behind. No matter what they have to do, they will bring you home, alive or dead. It it understood, it is a compact.
Not any longer.
[Edited for content]
But the point of this, no matter how extensive the exercise is this: we don’t leave our soldiers behind. They discomforted Sadr City. So what do Maliki’s bosses do? Demand he force us to leave.
And US forces leave.
What does the media talk about? John Kerry saying the troops are stupid. Which matters why?
CENTCOM has just abandoned a US trooper to the tender mercies of the Mahdi Army. Think hard about that, because every grunt will be. When you’re captured by the enemy, the US Army will try to rescue you, when convienent. Otherwise, hold your head up on your video before they kill you.
At least the Israelis are willing to make a deal for their missing soldiers. The US just stops looking for them.
Now, maybe this guy ran away, maybe not. But no matter what, soldiers need to know his fate.
The right wing media wants to talk about anything else but Iraq. They want to spin this Kerry story, hoping you won’t notice the US Army has abandoned a soldier in the field.
I don’t imagine morale recovering from this. Because nothing says pointless as taking orders from Sadr on how to conduct US operations.”
stevegilliard.blogspot.com
***********************************
This is exactly what the attacks on Kerry are designed to obscure: that Bush cares NOT AT ALL for the troops he has condemned to die in the futile war in Iraq.
Worthless trolls: your desperation is stinking up the place.
George Bush = aggressive stupidity.
Nathan
I call it telling that the “extreme trolling” always comes from those on “your side” of thinking. No one on the left does the name stealing stuff. On the ONE occasion some one did it to you, there were more than ten of “my side” telling them to knock it off.
Hey Troll? I’m still waiting for that email…….
Hey troll? Come see me when you guys lose the House and Senate next week! You should be even MORE fun to watch then!
Let’s twist the knife a bit more…..
Abortion will ALWAYS be safe and LEGAL!
bush is the most failed president in history!
Yeah JR, and did you see this afternoon, that the preznit INSISTS that dead eye did and rummy WILL STAY in his administration until the bitter end.
And tiahrt supports the preznit, no matter what.
So if you think dead eye dick and rummy are good for the country, vote for toddly.
If you think we need to CHANGE THE COURSE of our great nation, then vote for GARTH MCGINN.
Rummy or change? cheney or change?
You know how to vote. Change to a better direction? Or stay the current disasterous course.
You get to decide, but only if you vote.
Nathan and others-I am with you on the registering to log on to this blog. I’ve been trolled and it’s chickenshit. Even jr shouldn’t be trolled and that’s saying something.
Partisan dems are such mindless animals, just as bad as the repukes. Our system is juadaised and rotten to the core and changing bit players every election cycle changes nothing! Wake up, coconuts!!!
On the website Counterpunch.org (10/14 and 10/24), writer John Walsh analyzes how Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Congressman in charge of strategy and the purse-strings for Democratic candidates running for the House, has worked to ensure that pro-war candidates are running, regardless of what rank-and-file party members want: “64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq… The position of these candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush… Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.”
Walsh notes, “Emanuel had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections… In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq—despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins.”
Their Program For The World: “Democrats Are Determined to Take the Fight to the Enemy.”
The Democrats’ position on Iraq flows from their global strategy and agenda and their overall nature as an imperialist party—not fear of being tarred by the Republicans as soft on “national security” (the Democrats, after all, were in charge during World Wars 1 and 2 and Vietnam). Specifically this means that they have fundamental agreement with the Bush regime on (a) the need to maintain U.S. global predominance, (b) that dominating the Middle East is essential to doing so, and (c) they agree on the broad outlines of the so-called “war on terror,” which is actually a war for greater empire.
Their differences with the Republicans—which are very real and very sharp—are not the same deep anger and alienation that millions feel for Bush and whole direction he’s taking things. They’re differences between ruling class parties over how to carry out objectives a, b, and c, above—in short, over how to maintain their empire and rule (which allies can be worked with, which countries pose the greatest threats to U.S. power, how much capacity the U.S. has to wage which kind of wars, etc.).
Consider the following from leading Democrats:
In a new book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America,” Democratic Party, strategists Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed call for “a muscular, progressive strategy to use all the tools of American power to make America safe in a dangerous world” and for enlisting “our allies in a common mission against the conditions” that breed terrorism, including by calling for 100,000 more troops for the Army.
Howard Dean: “The United States has to…take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they’re funding terrorism.” While campaigning for president in 2004, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran.
Senator John Kerry (opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “Losing Afghanistan”): “We’re not adequately fighting the war we should be fighting… Quite simply, we must change course—starting with the immediate deployment of at least 5,000 additional U.S. troops.”
Hillary Clinton, January 18, 2006 speech at Princeton: “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don’t believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let’s be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.”
The Situation They Face: “On the Verge of Losing Not Just One but Two Wars”….http://revcom.us/a/068/dems-en.html
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
The President on keeping the Veep, Sec of Defense, and other things:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2621650&page=1
I don’t see any “change of course” coming; but, I guess I never did.
Ya’ll are doing a heckova job Dick and Don.
Ben Huie & Vaughn Tolle,
Exactly. And anybody who thinks Shrub is going to do anything different would be well advised to mark his decision to ’stay the course’ with DickandDon.
Vote Democratic–for a change.
juadaised?
Ian, try a dictionary.
So we have a “Dick” running things as VP. We previously had a “Dick” running things as P. What are Dicks used for?
Good one, heartlander!
Tiahrt made some absurd claims in today’s Eagle. He actually believes if we don’t use young men and women as cannon fodder in Iraq then thousands of Iraqis will fly to America to start killing Americans. It’s hard to imagine that anyone can be this stupid.
First of all the Iraqis attack Americans because they don’t want them in their country. If Americans weren’t in the country then there would be no reason to attack. However Tiahrt is just saying the typical talking point because Tiahrt can’t actually speak for himself.
When it comes to supporting the troops Tiahrt does better than the Kansas senators, but that isn’t saying much.
http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/keyvotes/?id=261&lvl=C&azip=67204&bzip=
Tiahrt ranks a C. Tiahrt likes the war because it brings in some pork barrel spending. He’ll get billions for useless lasers on planes but will then lie to Kansans and say he’s fiscally responsible. He signed the Contract With America saying that is he wasn’t fiscally responsible that he should be fired. Give him what he asked for.
He also asked for term limits Doug.
I say we give him what he asked for on THAT Contract with America point as well.
Did he keep ANY of the promises of that contract?
heheheheh
Jesus might be a republican, according to values boy, but I still dont think he approves of liars.
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
10 Reasons to Oppose War with Iraqby JOSH FRANK
1. War with Iraq won’t make us safer.
A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment, feeding right into Bin Ladin’s own evil rhetoric, and may stimulate more attacks by fundamental extremists.
2. There is no imminent threat.
There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Recent UN reports suggests inspections have shown no evidence that Saddam’s robust nuclear program of the 1990s has continued. According to these same reports the United Nation’s believes Iraq has little means to deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle East, let alone the U.S.
3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further encourage other nations to do the same. Not to mention the contradiction of the United States in relation to the numerous U.N. resolutions Israel has broken with their dealings of occupied territories of Palestine. While Israel continues to receive the majority of US foreign aid, totaling a staggering 1.6 trillion dollars since 1973, with over 50% supporting Israel military operations in Palestine.
4. Our allies don’t support us in this war.
U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security.
5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians. The CIA also reports that if Saddam does possess biological weapons, he is more likely to use them in defense if attacked by the US, putting even more of Iraqi civilians and US troops at risk of death.
6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war ends.
7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in order to pay for the “war on terror.”
Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq, a drunken thought if one realizes our economy is currently suffering an awful recession. Also the environmental impact of another Gulf War could potentially threaten even more oil reserves, and endangered species (if set on fire like the first Gulf War), as well as contributing greatly to global warming- which Bush after his 2003’s State of the Union address- is acknowledging actually exists.
8. Things may not be better after a war.
We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the Iraqi people, who already live under a tyrannical dictator. Or that Iraq will be any friendlier to the U.S. than Saddam currently is. The Taliban were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our enemy after a few years as well?
9. There are other options.
The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means. Most significantly trying Saddam in an international court of law for War Crimes, such as was done post-Bosnia conflict for Slobodan Milosevic, is an option. This may also entail prosecuting certain United State’s officials and companies who openly supplied Saddam with biological components.
10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your own community. In the rhetoric of our President Bush, a proclaimed Christian, one must wonder, has he ever thought-”Who would Jesus bomb?’ The response surely would not be the innocent people of Iraq who have already suffered greatly because of Saddam, along with the U.N. sanctions supported and controlled by the United States.
“Don’t expect the President to blink on Iraq.”
How can he blink when he’s kept his eyes shut from day one?
For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
And we keep believing these people . . . fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a thousand times, shame on me.
Tracy,
It’s obvious that Josh Frank’s 10 Points were written before our invasion of Iraq. It’s just as obvious that he was correct on all 10 of them. Too bad our administration chose to ignore what many people clearly saw, Mr. Frank being only one of them.
Libs = weak on the warLibs = “I loathe the military”
hotlick = I love sending troops to diehotlick = I love quagmires
hotlick=blogfart