We Can’t Get Out Of Iraq Fast Enough
We’re still there, and we’re not leaving fast enough. During the campaign Obama said he’d get combat troops out in 16 months. That’s been upped a few months as a compromise with the generals on the ground. But no matter how long we stay, we’re never going to create the democracy BushCo thought it could. And now, more tragedy in a country we’ll never be able to control.
At least 75 people were killed and 120 injured in two Thursday explosions.
In the first attack, a woman wearing a suicide belt exploded herself in the Karada district of Baghdad as dozens of people lined up at a food giveaway, killing 28, including 12 police officers, and injuring 50, according to an official with the Interior Ministry.
In the second attack, in Muqdadiya in Diyala Province, a bomb went off inside a restaurant where a group of Iranian tourists were eating lunch, killing 47 and injuring 70, according to police officials.
The Baghdad attack occurred as the Red Cross was distributing food. The second one targeted Iranian tourists. Five US soldiers were killed in Mosul earlier in the month by a suicide truck bomber. Two days ago a suicide bomber killed five and wounded 15 in a mosque.
Since every Republican running for office loves to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagan, let us remember what happened after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon in October 1983. President Reagan eventually realized we didn’t belong there. Here is what he said about the Lebanon debacle:
“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that make the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have. Perhaps we should have anticipated that members of the Lebanese military whom we were trying to assist would simply lay down their arms and refuse to fight their own countrymen. In any case, the sending of the Marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president.”
That’s three straight posts with “BushCo,” big Alan! Isn’t “ObamaCo” now liable for all of this?
All the nonsense about “BUSH LIED” is false. We made a mistake: we thought there were WMDs and there were not. The problems arose when we tried to create a democracy.
So I am in partial agreement with you libs, strangely. If we had known for sure there were no WMDs, we probably should not have invaded.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
There was a huge amount of intelligence at the time that said there WERE no WMDs…Bushco delibrately chose not only to ignore it, but to mislead the public…are you REALLY unaware of this fact, or are you just flapping offf again about how there enough “blame” to go around?
Why won’t you own up to BushCo’s actions?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
McFROSTY,
George Tenet ring a bell? Clinton’s own CIA chief provided the intelligence the Bush administration used as justification for going into Iraq…in that sense…yes, there is plenty of blame to go around…
Members of congress had access to the intel that Bush did…in that sense…yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.
You and OLD LEFTY can sit there all day and say Bush and Cheney cherry-picked the intel to make it appear as though there were WMDs in Iraq…but that doesn’t explain why the UN thought it necessary to constantly send in inspectors…in that sense…yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
As much as it would please you to think it was all just an “understandable mistake”, lol…you need to read up a bit more. Actually, a lot more.
Put down the TV remote, and perhaps vsit the library.
I suggest either the Guardian Weekly , or the New Internationalist, both of which will be in the periodical section of your local. You can find the address in the yellow pages.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
McFROSTY,
How about taking a bit of your own advice and stop listening…then regurgitating left-wing talking points over and over and over and over and over and over…..
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Lol
More “I know you are, but what am I?” nonsense from six-gun Jared.
It’s not “left wing talking” points to examine the complex truths behind the ‘decision’ by BushCo to invade Iraq.
Do you even know what is meant by a “talking point”, Jared?
You appear to think it is anything you don’t want to hear, or agree with.
Lol
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
McFROSTY,
A “talking point” is something you like to use to prove your point…but with a whole buncha spin included…
The complex truth is that the Bush administration and his congress (guess what…that means democrats as well) went into Iraq under false intelligence (learned afterwards, by the way). In that sense…yes, there is blame to go around.
The decision wasn’t Bush’s alone. I could give you a quick lesson on American politics if you’d like…all you have to do is ask…
VegasLib Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Bush made a serious mistake, but the right-wing nutshow hosts will forever praise Bush as a ‘class-act’ for sending our troops into harms way for nation building.
flap Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I will even grant that it was a “mistake.” But that’s way different than LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE that many on the left want to keep attributing to Bush.
Of course Bush wanted there to be WMDs. But there was plenty of evidence that indicated there were WMDs.
I disagree with nation-building.
Bush was a class act. He toppled Hussein because he truly believed he posed a threat, not for popularity’s sake or a personal vendetta. Good grief, if you want to be a popular president you don’t start a war.
OldLefty Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
It’s nice in the Bizzaro Universe, isn’t it?
People told us before the 2000 election that Cheney was going to invade Iraq.
Paul O’Neill told us that invading Iraq was all they talked about and were even dividing up the oil fields before 9/11.
They carried out the PNAC plans to the letter, right up to needing a “new Pearl Harbor” to the few number of troops.
They wrote a letter to Clinton in 98 asking him to invade.
There really is no question that it was a lie.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Not only that, but funny how as all the museums, universities, hospitals and other GCE’s (gov’t controlled enterprises) were allowed to fall into chaos and 50% unemployment by the invading forces, the US was VERY QUICK to take over the national energy and oil offices…first thing they did.
It had been planned since before 9/11, as OL has shown, and America now knows.
This is all common knowledge, so I guess that’s why I find iot so incredulous to have posters like Flapper there come up with this silly “bizzaro” denial, time after time…It’s like the ‘dead parrot’ sketch of US politics!
“No he’s not!”
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hmm…why do you suppose that was??
Could it be because that is the source of Iraq’s wealth and that if they were ever going to have a chance to rebuild their nation and infrastructure, which was crumbling under Sadam, they would need these resources??
Doh!
How come we’re not stealing their oil, if this was our real intention? Hmm?
Maybe you don’t care about the genocide Sadam was waging against his own people, (geez, were those mass graves an elaborate Bushco hoax?), or the torture of innocent civilians that were occurring in Iraqi prisons on a granscale. (Bushco has tortured Gitmo detainees, Bush is a war criminal!!) give me a break.
And Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq??
They’re being redeployed to Afghanistan.
(bring home the troops, bring home the troops!!)
Yes, you’ve been duped.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Maybe you don’t care about the genocide Sadam was waging against his own people”
Give me a break, Trees. Like you’ve ever been concerned about the Iraqi people. Now what do you say about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and/or wounded AFTER Saddam was out of power? How about the millions who have been displaced? I guess that’s okay, huh? Anything to make Bush look good is your motto?
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
No.
But, “anything to make him look bad” would appear to be yours.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I just want to know one thing TDro, will you remain consistent in your opinion??
If Obama fails to bring the troops home will you be as outspoken against him as you have been against Bush?
If you are consistent I will admire you for sticking to your principles.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“If Obama fails to bring the troops home will you be as outspoken against him as you have been against Bush?”
I’m pretty pissed as it is that he’s not bringing them home fast enough. If he rescinds and decides to keep the troops there, you’ll hear plenty from me!
I’m not interested in Obama. I’m interested in the safety of our troops.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I can respect that answer, TDro
And to answer your question, yes I am genuinely concerned for the well being of the Iraqi people, I also happen to have a Chaldean for a friend, not that that really matters, as I also hate having to “prove” that I don’t beat my wife.
Anyway, I gotta run, sincerely your friend trees
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“as I also hate having to “prove” that I don’t beat my wife.”
What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about the troops and you come up with some way off-the-wall comment about beating your wife!
One subject at a time, please.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Bush (or should I say Cheney/Rumsfeld) made no mistake. They were planning to attack Iraq, which is why they tortured the 9/11 detainees in an effort to extract false information that Iraq was responsible for the WTC attack.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
TRDO, you are correct. Hundreds of other Americans of Arab and Iraqi descent were rounded up in an effort to make the link. They failed.
I am starting to think that many Bush supporters are just not aware of just what type of strings BushCo pulled and lies they told, to get America onside with the Iraq invasion.
“Bush was a class act”
Lol, priceless…
Well, he WAS out standing in his field, I’ll admit that…
maryalice Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Nearly every responsible government in the world said they believed Hussein had WMD’s. The nations of NATO, the five members of the UN securitty council, (and that includes China and Russia); even President Mubarak of Egypt said that he believed Hussein had them and he believed that he would use them. The disagreements came over what to do about it. Bush “lied” is absolute nonsense. All of these other governments had to have been “lying” too. Get out of the third grade, kids.
OldLefty Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Not enough to bomb a major city.
Those who still live in Bush lala Land still have not answered 2 things:
Why didn’t Bush campaign on toppling Saddam, (if EVERYONE thought he was a threat?), and why did he kick the insoectors out when they said he was cooperating?
In February of 2001, Powell said that Iraq was not a nuclear threat: Powell: “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Powell also declared the containment policy a success. Powell: “And even though they may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been. So to some extent, I think we ought to declare this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in a box.”
The “Downing Street memo” expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that “George W. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A former CIA official who coordinated US intelligence on
the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of “cherry-picking”
intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to
war, The Washington Post reports.
Inspectors said he was cooperating Mar 2, 2003 … Iraq began destroying its short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles today, crushing four of them with a bulldozer under the supervision of Hans Blix…
(Al Samouds are conventional weapons).
CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
Powell calls pre-Iraq U.N. speech a ‘blot’ on his record.
Get out of Fantasy Land, maryalice
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“All the nonsense about “BUSH LIED” is false.”
No it’s not. Your backwards. Extremely backwards.
I blame the FOX and other GOP generated media all around you. That must be why you don’t know recent American history and are embarrassing yourself.
Bush most certainly did.
First he said we were going in for WMDs. Then it became democracy. Then it became to end global terror.
All lies. We went for two reasons. One, oil. Two, geography.
You are still so confused as this after so long!?!
You are aware that ‘bush co’ admitted to wrong doing and bad management of the Iraq AND the Afghanistan wars.
No matter how you weasel around you know it’s true.
Bush lied. He lied us into war and keeps the lies going to this day with this ‘water boarding isn’t torture’ BS we hear coming from Cheney’s dogs.
Today … I’ll be nice.
It is not in the spirit of American values to lie about the Constitution, break treaties and start wars without due and just cause.
Bush holds the mantle of blame for all three.
And anyone standing in his defense shares in this charge of dishonesty.
This is reality. There is no changing it. You must learn to accept the truth.
flap Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
You’re talking a lot of crap, Eric. Just because you attach “this is reality” doesn’t make it so.
Paine Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Obama is carrying on where Bush left off, only with different spin and emphasis. Bush handed him a dictatorship, a ceremonial congress and judiciary. Obama wasted no time (over)using the executive order privilege to attack our liberties. The congress doesn’t even read their bills anymore – it’s all a rubberstamp. He’s already spent more in 100 days than all the previous presidents in US history combined, most of which will end up in off-shore banks, and to pay off his political supporters.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“At least 775 people were killed…”
Should be 75?
VegasLib Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Yea. I caught that one too.
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I thought that was odd, too. Thanks for pointing that one out. I was confused until now, thanks Lily.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Some people said the same thing about this county before, throughout, and during the aftermath of the American revolutionary war and again throughout the civil war. Either we’ll never be a democracy or our democratic ideas can’t prevail.
Good thing for us today’s liberals weren’t yesterday’s liberals.
I seriously wonder how you ever manage to get out of bed every day, be careful the sky might fall on you.
Obama is at least smart enough to know that we can’t cut and run, I’ll give him that much. Sorry for you guys who voted for him and got duped.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Gee Trees, you say that with such ease and nonchalance. I guess it’s a lot easier to say we should keep the killing going – as long as it’s not your ass on the line.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I guess you were daydreaming again that you can read minds.
I do not say that with ease and nonchalance, I say that with respectful appreciation of those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
I do get tired of partisan hacks spewing left wing propaganda.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
What freedom is that, Trees? How did our invading Iraq bring the U.S. freedom? Freedom from what? You just won’t be happy until the death toll reaches/surpasses the death toll in Viet Name, will you?
I do get tired of partisan hacks spewing right wing propoganda.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Allow me to focus your attention for a moment here….it’s right above this posting.
Now, stay with me…………….
I was equating the sacrifice of those who gave us freedom to the sacrifice of those who are attempting to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq.
Quit trying to read minds and read what people write, please?
Or are you really only interested in trying to twist someone’s words to fashion an opinion that means something other than what the author intended.
If so Frosty can probably give you some lessons using his favorite source material for this practice, the bible.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I thought we were talking about the Iraq war. And you’re bringing up the revolutionary war. Smooth move.
Now let me see if I understand this. You said, “I was equating the sacrifice of those who gave us freedom to the sacrifice of those who are attempting to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq.”
Sure. So how many more soldiers need to sacrifice their lives trying to liberate people who don’t want to be liberated? And when did you start to care soooooo much about the Iraqi people?
It seems to me you are only interested in trying to twist the facts to fit your way of thinking.
But you keep cheerleading this unnecessary war and unnecessary torture. Who know? Maybe one day we’ll have over 100,000 American soldiers killed. I’m sure that would make you happy.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
So how many more soldiers need to sacrifice their lives trying to liberate people who don’t want to be liberated?
—–
I seem to remember a lot of happy people cheering in the streets when the Marines rolled into Baghdad, tearing down statues of Saddam and pummeling it with their shoes (in a sign of disrespect)
There are those that would have preferred the Saddam regime but those are the few that benefitted from stealing UN oil for food monies and lived in one of Saddams many palaces.
You should probably ask the Kurds, the raped, the families of those murdered by Saddam if they didn’t want to be liberated.
At our current pace we’d have to be in Iraq for well over 100 years to reach your lofty 100,000 dead American Soldiers.
VegasLib Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I dunno about duped. At least Obama’s going after the guys that actually attacked us and not the one that tried to kill his daddy. W. just put BinLaden aside and went after Sadam. Doesn’t that send you a real clear message? We didn’t go after the guys who attacked us under W! He lied. He knew that there was a very strong possibility that there were no WMDs, took the risk of sending our troops into harms way anyways just to be sure, and ended up sending 4,000+ of our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, to their demise. I don’t know how the ‘class-act’ can live with himself after that.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“” Sorry for you guys who voted for him and got duped.”‘
Who would that be? With Obama’s steady 60-65% approval rating, I don’t think many americans are feeling “duped”, lol..
He’s doing pretty well exactly what the people elected him to do, and so far is handling it quite well, even without the support of many bitter and angry right-wingers still upset at “losing”, and having a person of colour (and integrity) in “their” White House.
Too bad for you that todays neo-cons are a far cry from yesterday’s conservatives…even more unfortunate for over 1,000,000 dead and wounded Iraqi citizens though…
Perhaps, as you continue making amends for this BushCo disaster, with your checkbook, you will come to see Bush/Cheney as they were…deluded neo-cons trying to spread “democracy” (and American corporate interests) and chistianity to the Arab world, which wants neither…
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Our military involvement is a direct result of the Arab world attempting to export terrorism to the rest of the world and this has nothing to do with our trying to spread Christianity.
9/11 and the other attacks against western civilization, perhaps you’ve heard of them?
Democracy and freedom are the result of Christian teaching, that’s true however.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Actually, TREES, I’m afraid you’ll find that the current democracies and freedoms we enjoy came about because of the “Age of Enlightenment”, where men started to “cast off” the yokes of religious dogma and doctrine. The French and American revolutions, civil, and human rights and freedoms all really took of during this time.
Prior to the Enlightenment, despotic kings ruled by “divine right” handed down by your ‘god’.
It was this ‘age of reason’, not religion, that brought forward the rights of man to knowledge, freedom and happiness…
There ARE some good bits in the bible, here and there…mostly in the NT, the golden rule, that kind of thing. But nowhere does it call for democracy and freedom from strict religious dogma, or even tyrannical gov’t, does it?
…In fact, Paul makes it very clear in Romans doesn’t he, that all gov’t, no matter how tyrannical, come from “god” and must be obeyed during our time on earth…although he does say we are all REALLY only accountable to “god” in the end…
Here’s some suggested reading for tonight’s bible study. I’d prefer you did some reading about the ‘Enlightenment’ thinkers of the late 17th and thoughout the 18th century, *sigh*, but the ‘bible’ will have to do, as it appears to be the sole book on your shelf these days I’m afraid, doesn’t it?
Romans 13:1 “we must obey gov’t”
Titius 3:1 ” …and the magistrates”
1 Peter 2:13 …We must submit “to every ordinance of man ”
Christianity itself, more directly the ‘churches’, were brough howling, kicking and screaming into the modern world…some still have a ways to go…clearly.
Happy to help, as usual…
your friend,
fRosTy
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“Our military involvement is a direct result of the Arab world attempting to export terrorism to the rest of the world and this has nothing to do with our trying to spread Christianity”
Frost beat me to it.
That was all false. Your whole thing.
Democracy and Christianity are not the same thing and do not generate one another.
The Arabic Nations are NOT trying to destroy us to a degree to warrant TWO wars in the middle east.
Everyone except viscous neo-cons understood this leading up to the Iraq War.
Your assuming that the USA even makes attempts to spread Christianity. I see nothing of that in terms of federal or state efforts.
You would need to show me state approved religious recruiting to make that statement anything but baloney.
Your whole premise is wrong.
We are there for strategic positions and most importantly resources.
No other reason.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Obama also promised to unite the country which judging from your post he isn’t doing very well at.
Obama promised to change how business is done in Washington DC yet it looks pretty much the same to me.
He promised to usher in an new era of post partisan politics another no go. Don’t look much different from where I sit.
He promised to make America better than its ever been yet his foreign policy has our enemies thumbing their noses and laughing at us. North Korea laughs as they launch their missile. The Taliban laugh as they move closer and closer to Islamabad. Hugo Chávez laughs as he hands our president a book written in Spanish. Cuba laughs as our administration doesn’t know the difference between “lets talk” and “we are willing to free some prisoners.”
At best our president is beginning to look as if he is in over his head. One has to wonder if he had it to do again would he have released the torture memos. How long will those memos and resulting flap dominate the news.
A far as the 1 million dead Iraqis goes where did you get our facts? Is it based on the British study which was debunked several years ago?
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Bernie, Frosty is the Marlboro man on mescaline.
He makes stuff up all the time…………..
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Who said anything about a million dead Iraqis, Bernie-in-Michigan, (if your name really IS Bernie, and you really ARE in Michigan!)?
;-)
Your view of the world is pretty pessimistic, I agree. Woe unto us! And great gnashing of teeth!
I’m afraid I just don’t see it the same way – I read your list of things done ‘wrong” by the president, and I’m afaid I can’t find much truth there at all, sorry.
Your ‘enemies are thumbing their nose’? Is that a miltary term, I’ve not heard that one used in diplomacy, in peace or in war. You’re upset that Chavez was smiling? you’d just like to punch him, wouldn’t you?
Lol, how it must bother you that even this bully, and he is a bit of one, has brought millions of his countrymen out of poverty and into more affordable health care than you probably get!
Bugs ya, don’t it?
Or that Cuban relations are going to improve? That sucks, eh Bernie…it’s FUN to hate commies, innit?
From where you “sit”, which I can only presume is on your fat Yankee arse in front of the TV, Faux News most likely, lol
Huh? You don’t “see any change” from “where you are sitting” even after all that?
Perhaps you should ask for a window seat for your next flight to “bizarro-land” mate…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
McFROSTY,
I’d still like to see where you got your 1M dead/wounded Iraqis. Don’t tell me you’re relying on TDRO as a source…heehee
our view of the world is pretty pessimistic
Definitely agree that your view of the world is that it’s in the tank…and because of America
has brought millions of his countrymen out of poverty and into more affordable health care
Just more left-wing propaganda. Chavez has actually effectively created a country of fear. 6000+ of his own countrymen murdered at his order (state dept memo)
According to the Human Rights Watch report, Chavez:
– Maneuvered a “political takeover” of the Supreme Court in 2004 by the president and his allies by signing legislation allowing his supporters to “pack and purge” the court.
– Fired and blacklisted political opponents from state agencies and the Venezuelan oil company.
– Denied citizens with unfavorable political opinions access to social programs.
– Required state oversight and certification of union elections.
– Engaged in reprisals against striking oil workers.
– Subjected rights advocates to exaggerated charges and groundless investigations.
Reporters Without Borders took Chavez to task in its 2008 report on press freedoms. It reported that Chavez:
– Shut down RCTV, the major Venezuelan TV station, in 2007 by refusing to renew its license. Though Chavez apparently said he was not renewing the license because the station backed the 2002 coup, Reporters Without Borders said in its report that Chavez had a more sinister motive, since another TV station that backed the coup was allowed to continue operating. (RCTV later moved to cable, but was still threatened.)
– Controls “nearly all the country’s broadcasting.” Chavez went on TV 1,500 times for more than 900 hours between January 1999 and November 2007. Plus he took up 1,000 hours on his Sunday show Alo Presidente.
– Pushed for the creation of about 60 newspapers to support his agenda.
The State Department report also noted that harsh freedom-of-speech and press laws are still on the books in Venezuela.
– The penal code was amended in 2005 so that insulting the president is punishable by up to 30 months in prison.
– reporting that disturbing the public peace carries a sentence of up to five years.
Chavez’s “health care” plan for the poor was a good idea…until it came time to pay for it…now the clinics are woefully understaffed and constantly short on materials…pretty much limiting them to preventative medicine (and that’s even a stretch).
Sure Chavez has done a lot to lower the poverty rate in VE…but that’s until his oil dropped out of the bottom…he’s already announced cuts in social spending as a result…in addition…he’s taken a play from Obama’s playbook by limiting executive pay to an amount he, himself, thinks is adequate. All the while lining his state-owned oil company buddie’s pockets with oil money.
Socialism is great….”innit”?
Yeah…Chavez is a peach, isn’t he?
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Your just an Obama nay-sayer.
He could fix the economy, end the war and capture Osama and you all your friends would say:
“Not good enough. You didn’t torture enough Arabs.”
You know I’m right, just admit it.
I guess it could be that it’s the first Black President.
Who knows? I don’t crawl inside your head, you don’t crawl in mine.
But I do know that the modern conservative has lost all perspective and become partisan fools in the matter of a few months.
It’s sad.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
We can get out of the sixth century, but we can’t get the sixth century out of Western Civilizaton. There have been bombings in Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and of course here. What are you lefties going to do about that – blame the Pope?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I lived in the UK for many years when, in fact, innocents were being killed by murderous Christians….
….and as a matter of “fact”, MaryAlice, I do not recall any of you war-mongering far-right Americans calling for a carpet bombing of Belfast…do you?
maryalice Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
No, I don’t recall anybody “calling for a carpet bombing of Belfast”. In fact, I don’t recall anybody calling for a carpet bombing of anyplace, because I don’t remember World War II.
RDM Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
?Belfast?? Is that the UK?
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
9/11 and the other attacks against western civilization, perhaps you’ve heard of them ~ trees
Refresh my memory. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? I can’t remember the exact number.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
SOUTHERNGIRL,
You constantly bring this up…but it’s never a good move as it has been proven over and over again that the Bush administration did not go into Iraq because Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
She brings it up because she is right and you are wrong.
That is why.
This is confusing for you?
Well an answer remains the same even if you don’t like it and destroys your whole argument.
Your still at a loss to explain why we invaded Iraq.
That’s not true, Jared. Cheney made an attempt to connect Al Qaeda and Saddam just before he left office.
You really need to get your facts straight.
Like most Republicans I hear you just are not making any amount of sense these days.
I’m getting worried.
Could you all be going insane or something?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
ERIC,
We went into Iraq because George Tenet provided intelligence…and other countries had intelligence…that Iraq had WMDs. It’s the left that’s been making the case for Iraq & 9/11…not Bush and Cheney.
No…YOU are in the wrong. Cheney NEVER said there was a connection between Saddam and Al-queda. There was a connection between members of Saddam’s regime and Al-queda. I’ve already quoted the 9/11 commission report that says the same. TDRO provided quotes from Cheney saying the same…
Where’s the proof for your argument?
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
So, in your opinion we should have or maybe still, should, attack Saudi Arabia?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
TREES, you are unbelievable…are you sure you’re not Kregg on acid?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Her point was to outline the false connection between 9/11 and Iraq, no matter how many times you fling it at the wall, it ain’t gonna stick…
And BushCo did some fancy flingin’, didn’t they?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
uh-uh…McFROSTY,
I’ve not heard from any credible source that the Bush administration claimed there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration did say there was a link between Al-queda and Iraq. It has been the left-wing that took this to mean Bush advocated a stance that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That’s just not the case.
VegasLib Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The Bush Administration might not have claimed that there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11, but they certainly did imply and reimply it in order to make Iraq seem more justifiable. Bush had 70% of us Americans believing that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
VEGASLIB,
I disagree. I think the implication came from the left…and only after the dust settled and we found no WMDs.
Gotta go to work…be back in a jiff!
VegasLib Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Jared,
Of course you do. Bush was impecable in his presidency. Did everything right. Remember, he’s a ‘class-act.’
flap Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Being classy doesn’t mean you do everything correct. I personally think Obama is classy and do I agree with much of what he has done? Too much hatred for Bush.
VegasLib Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I don’t hate Bush, I just hate what he did and how low he took our country with it. Remember, don’t hate the sinner. Hate the sin… Or don’t hate the player. Hate the game. Really. I just don’t think that 4000+ American lives were worth it in exchange for the nation building of Iraq. Honestly though, I don’t think he’s that classy either.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
VEGASLIB,
You know that’s not true…I’ve been very vocal about Bush’s missteps…perhaps not as vocal as the “hang ‘im high!” crowds…but vocal nonetheless.
VegasLib Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
If you have been, I have missed it.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“So, in your opinion we should have or maybe still, should, attack Saudi Arabia?”
Oh no! Bush’s way was much better. Attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course since Bush was planning on invading Iraq long before 9/11, it’s a good thing the WTC attack happened and gave him an excuse.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
So what should we do?
Should we reset and return everything to exactly how it was on 9/10 and hope for the best?
I notice that word hope is linked to every Democrat that runs for president.
At some point you will realize they’re playing you, I hope………
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“At some point you will realize they’re playing you, I hope………”
Don’t count on it. We hold the democrats to a higher standard than you hold the republicans. Besides, methinks the republicans have been playing you, and with great success, I might add.
maryalice Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
What did Germany do to us? Do you lefties hate FDR for getting us into that war? Hasn’t the judgement of time proved him correct? Time will render the judgement on the war in Iraq, also; and most of us will be long gone when it does.
OldLefty Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Germany declared war on us.
Germany was an actual PROVEN threat to us and it’s neighbors unlike Iraq, AND we did not arm Hitler, ( except for Prescott Bush, who lost his bank under the trading with the enemy act), AND under the Marshall plan we made certain there was no war profiteering, whereas the REAL purpose of Iraq seems MORE and MORE to be war profiteering.
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Wha???
Iraq wasn’t a proven threat to its neighbors?
Did you ever turn on the t.v. when Iraq and Iran were killing each other?
How about when he attacked Kuwait??
Gassed the Kurds??
Killed the southern Iraqis and drove them into the swamps?
Continually violated the cease fire agreement??
Hmm…yeah I can see how you didn’t think Sadam was any threat to us…………
maryalice Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Well, I think Germany was acknowledging the inevitable. FDR was right, but men like him are certainly nowhere to be found in the current administration. I think you are still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome; but I’m starting to feel the same way about the man-child, Barry. So, I guess I can’t criticize.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“Hmm…yeah I can see how you didn’t think Sadam was any threat to us…………”
Oh so THAT’s why Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11! Now was that before or after his WMD excuse that turned out to be bogus?
Yessir! That Trees really loves the Iraqi people! Which is exactly why he supported the war in Iraq. After all, the sooner the people get killed, the sooner they get to be with God!
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It just gets crazier and crazier form the war-mongers on the right, doesn’t it?
They compare the debacle in Iraq to WW2? And then the civil war…the War of Independence?!
What’s next, the Peloponisian?
David and Goliath?
Goof grief.
And, yes I remember the Iran/Iraq war…whose side where YOU on, Trees?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“”After all, the sooner the people get killed, the sooner they get to be with God!”‘
Lolo, not so sure I’d even want to go to this “heaven” place, after seeing and reading how many bigots and war-mongers have already got their ‘free’ tickets early, from the Jeesus hisself…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
TDRO,
Oh so THAT’s why Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11!
Oh, you mean this quote from Bush in 2004?:
“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda,” Bush said.
geez, man…you’re hatred of all things Bush and republican has forced you into swallowing left-wing carp whole! Think for yourself for a change!
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Should we reset and return everything to exactly how it was on 9/10 and hope for the best?”
I don’t know. Maybe Bush didn’t understand the intelligence information given to him months before 9/11 that said Bin Laden planned to hijack planes and use them as missiles:
“CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden�s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press�s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools�a warning that went unheeded.”
Or maybe Bush understood the message and chose to ignore it in an effort to have an excuse to invade Iraq.
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“Or maybe Bush understood the message and chose to ignore it in an effort to have an excuse to invade Iraq.”
That’s not a ‘maybe’ TDro. That’s exactly what happened.
Bush used this as an excuse to finish what daddy started and he and his whole admin understood less of the world than Obama and I did by imagining that they could ‘win’ the war by Christmas.
Fools. All of them. Fools with blood all over their hands.
RDM Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
We should have attacked them first! We could have got SoDaminsane anytime!
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
but I’m starting to feel the same way about the man-child, Barry. So, I guess I can’t criticize. ~maryalice
Sucks to lose doesn’t it? At least you didn’t lose by a nail biter like we did in 2000. Your man took a lickin. But don’t worry, maybe Sarah will run in 2012!
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
What?
Based on that logic America could justify being at war with many nations including IRAN and North Korea.
The fact is Bush himself said they had nothing to do with 911 and had No WMD’S But that was the justification and bait to get us in the real mission was nation building
Invading them made the world less safe by making Iran stronger with no buffer, Stretching our military too thin on a Global problem not to mention the many lives taken and billions spent that hurt us economically.
We took our eyes off the ball in Afganastan and are now paying the price of that…Were the people that attacked us are!
Any type of Democracy in Iraq will be one run by Islamic code..Therefore majority rules…Just like we have read about many oppressive laws in Afganastan and Saudi Arabia the same is true in Iraq…The Bush administration was so ignorant of history of region and so blinded by Patriotism they refused to see the obvious.
This was not the culture geographic location or religion to try and build a democracy in…
It was not worth or boys blood…..
The American people thought IRAQ was a threat at the start based on the propoganda that was put fort by Bush administration… etc
They never would have supported some Neo-Con nation building mission…Nor would the senate…
Yet many time they claim “WE WON” then bombs start going off like in last few weeks and I ask what did we win and I hear silence…
Was Iraq a threat sure but not the threat Iran is becoming because no longer a buffer in region and we have wasted military Collateral when we should have focused elsewhere.
Prioritizing is important when we all agree terror problem is a global one..Not isolated to one area…
One has to be blinded by extreme nationalism to believe otherwise.
Oh wait the right is………
DANKA
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Ironically, President Bush provided his own indictment of the Iraq war when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in September 2003: “No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare.”
But that is exactly what the United States did by going to war against Iraq. To make matters even worse, the American taxpayer is stuck with the bill for the war and postwar reconstruction.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
What the US did by invading Iraq is turn an enemy of Iran into a good friend and ally of Iran.
Good job, Brownie.
greedisdead Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
So true.
Let the pro war people list the positives from this war I can’t think of one
But so many negatives are obvious.
There only hope is that IRAQ turns into a strong Representative pro American Democracy in an area of world surrounded by other Islamic nations they would become the enemy of terrorists and many exterme Muslims.
Yea that will happen NOT Does Bush now anything about teh history of region?
Look at the struggle they are having in Pakastan getting troops to enforce the law against Taliban
DANKA
trees are people too Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Shouldn’t they be friends??
Aren’t you guys always calling for peace, and a world community?
Ohh…..wait a minute, Iran really is our enemy isn’t it??
Thanks for pointing that out Rock.
We need to hurry up and get out of there so that they can consolidate and become a global threat I guess…………
Good thinking………
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
AAT least 87,215 Iraqis have been killed in violence since 2005, according to a previously undisclosed Iraqi government tally obtained by The Associated Press. Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and a review of available evidence by the AP, the figures show that more than 110,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
As a result of US actions or insurgent actions, GREED? Or does it not matter to you? Every death/injury is America’s fault?
Far cry from the “millions” TDRO and McFROSTY throw out there any chance they get…
Oh, I know where they get their “millions” numbers: From Saddam’s Iraq.
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Hey Jared. I hear the Armed Forces are looking for a few good men. You sound like a killing type of guy. Why don’t you enlist and fight in this war you so love?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
TDRO,
I’m in the military right now…my pacifist friend…and have been for the last 15 years.
What have you done for your country lately?
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It sounds to me like you have a cushy “Bush type” military job. I think if you saw firsthand the devastation and misery war can cause, you’d have a different perspective.
On the other hand, maybe you have seen real combat and simply enjoy the devastation, misery and killing. I don’t know.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
TDRO,
ANYONE who has been to combat would never say they enjoy it…I certainly did not…but at the same time I realize that the military is the “last resort” extension of the failed political process.
Sometimes “talking” isn’t as effective as we’d all like it to be.
Sarah Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Well “talking” certainly isn’t effective if it’s never implemented to begin with. And unfortunately, for “talking” to be effective, it’s best to have the right people in place for active and engaged “thinking,” which was also sadly lacking.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
SARAH,
agreed. But I would caveat your statement by saying “effectively implemented”…talking just to talk gets us nowhere…and fast…
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“but at the same time I realize that the military is the “last resort” extension of the failed political process.”
Sorry Jared. I still don’t buy any of the republican excuses as to why we had to invade Iraq.
No matter how pretty a picture you paint for this invasion, I still say it was unnecessary (well, unnecessary for the U.S., not Bush and Cheney). And the Iraqi people agree.
Sarah Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Jared: “But I would caveat your statement by saying “effectively implemented”…talking just to talk gets us nowhere…and fast…”
(Tsk, tsk, tsk. With that attitude, it’s easy to see why men have difficulty talking themselves out of speeding tickets.)
Even talking that gets you nowhere, can buy a little time. Buy yourself a little time, while you adjust your grasp on the mongo-sized wooden mallet you’re hiding behind your back.
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Jared: “What have you done for your country lately?”
Glad to hear you serve your country.
But what you just said is un-American.
You should know what you are defending (The Constitution) inside and out if you are willing to die for it.
An American is a free person. That means they can join the military or not and still be free to call themselves a patriot.
It also means that ANYONE can speak out against the government and military without fear of DEATH from those like yourself who take orders from above.
I serve my country in a different way. Do you ever try to help the people are not doing too good?
That’s what I do.
I won’t judge your choices if you don’t judge mine.
But don’t you EVER question my patriotism just because I didn’t join in 2001.
If you want to make enemies then you keep that crap up, right there.
We all serve in different ways. A teacher serves the nation as does each HONEST American in the media.
Let’s try to be at least partly civil.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
ERIC,
Wha?!?! Where does this obvious anger stem from?
The question was simple…and in no way implied any angst against those who don’t serve. I know people serve for various reasons…I also know there are those who don’t serve for various reasons.
“What have you done for your country lately?”
Congratulations…you deserve a pat on the back for your selfless acts of kindness to those less fortunate than you. But how many people do you know who sit on their fat arses watching TV and not doing a damn thing to help their fellow American?
Let’s try to be at least partly civil.
LMAO! That’s rich!!!! Especially coming from you…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
TDRO,
No matter how pretty a picture you paint for this invasion,
I’m sorry…I must have missed when I “painted a pretty picture” of the invasion…
I said that talks failed…and only after repeated failures on Saddam’s part…the logical, but unfortunate extension was military action. Were you yelling when Saddam invaded Kuwait and we responded?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
You’re a typical right-winger, aren’t you?
Where did I ever say that a million died?
Don’t be so, how shall I say it “stingy with the truth”, lol
At any rate, you seem proud that “only” 100,000 plus innocents died (it’s more)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
McFROSTY,
No, you said millions were killed and injured. Which I still find a bit hard to believe…
and I’m not proud that only 100K+ have been killed…at least not any more so than you seem to be of the “millions” killed or injured…
I’m a “typical right-winger”? how so? Or do you just like to make statements like that without corraborating evidence?
RDM Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Frosty, your picture is creeper than Old Lefty’s.
What’s your boat named; Amber Alert.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
McFROSTY,
Or better yet…list for me, if you will, my personal values…since you know so much about me…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
the problem Frosty is that you or someone dropped the I million number..doesn’t really matter who. In the argument against the war, however isn’t making a false claim in an argument much of your complaint against the Iraq war is all about?
We can debate the merits of going to war, and even if there were shenanigans pulled to get us there, but making false claims to repudiate or demonize is a cheesy tactic at best and sinister at worst.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“”No, you said millions were killed and injured..”
Again, no I didn’t.
I said 1,000,000 killed or injured. I don’t think that’s bad estimate at all. If your house crumples down on top of you during an airstrike, you can be killed, OR injured.
If you agree that over 100,000 were killed (which is the LOWEST estimate I’ve heard btw) it is not too big a stretch that many others were injured.
If Guido wants to say that’s a false claim, I say fill your boots. I have heard many differing estimates, and INCLUDING the injured, 1,000,000 is as fair a number as any I’ve heard. Saying that I said “killed”..that’s the ‘false claim’ mate!
Personally, I also tend to think that being made homeless by a foreign invasion force is a type of injury as well…but that’s a whole different story, innit?
How does a US court define an “injured” party, btw?
“”Frosty, your picture is creeper than Old Lefty’s.”"
cool!
“What’s your boat named; Amber Alert?”
No. My hydroplane is baD MISS fRosTy, and my sailboat I’m building with my dad will be christened “Lil’ Hooker”…
And I got an old zodiac I call “patches”…
Thanks
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
If Guido wants to say that’s a false claim, I say fill your boots. I have heard many differing estimates, and INCLUDING the injured, 1,000,000 is as fair a number as any I’ve heard. Saying that I said “killed”..that’s the ‘false claim’ mate!
–
fair enough, I didn’t bother to re-read the rest of the discussion to figure out who said what and what exactly was said.
the point I did want to make was that making outrageous and false claims to support your argument (especially exagerated numbers) is cheesy and/or sinister.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
McFROSTY,
Yes…you did…reference your post on this thread at 1:48pm
…even more unfortunate for over 1,000,000 dead and wounded Iraqi citizens though…
correct me if I’m wrong…but “dead” = “killed”…especially when your comments infer the “dead” were as a result of Americans in Iraq.
I look forward to your impending concession…
That’s funny…you tell someone else to prove their numbers…but you haven’t yet. You say “it is not too big a stretch that many others were injured.”
heehee
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Nay, Jared, lol, you correct ME if I’M wrong, but “wounded” ain’t dead…
This is getting more Pythonesque by the minute, lol…”This parrot is dead”
“No, he’s not!”
“Yes, he is”
“No he isn’t”
Good grief.
I’m unbookmarking this silly thread of quibbling and poor eyesight and/or poor reading comprehension, and listening to the show…
cheers
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
McFROSTY,
Are you that deluded?
Where, oh where, did I infer “wounded” = “dead”?????
How, on this God-lovin’ earth is “dead and wounded” different from “killed and injured”???
Can anyone else tell me the difference between the two??? Anyone???
I have to say that I don’t enjoy watching you implode and revert to school-yard debate tactics when you’ve been proven incorrect.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Calm yourself down, six gun…
…you’ve made a simple mistake, no big deal – you do it all the time. I forgive you. Although here you made it twice:
“”Far cry from the “millions” TDRO and McFROSTY throw out there any chance they get…”" – Jared
“”No, you said millions were killed and injured.”" – Jared
No, I did not. I said over 1,000,000 dead and wounded. That is not “millions”. Sorry if you consider it “schoolyard” tactics to not want to be grieviously misquoted…
I consider 1,000,000 plus dead and wounded to be a fair estimate. There are usually far more wounded than dead, especially when it comes to partially destroyed or collapsing houses/shrapnel etc. Of course, as a military man yourself, you should know this.
As a ‘military’ person, you should also know that an invading force is responsible for civilian deaths caused by disease if that force chooses to destroy civilian structures and infrastructure.
Add that to the 1,000,000…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:39 am
McFROSTY,
I’ve calmed down…and yes…you did say “million” as opposed to “millions”. But the point remains the same…
Regardless, the number is exaggerated and based entirely on conjecture. You can try to play the “cause and effect” game and try to infer the “million” number is plausible…but it’s just not the case.
As a matter of fact the Iraqi Government puts the total number of Iraqis killed between ‘05 and ‘09 at 87K, with an additional 10-20% increase for those injured or missing. Note this figure does not differentiate between civilians and insurgents. Additionally, the report does not differentiate responsibility for the deaths between the insurgency and allied operations.
Why did you put military in quotes?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Well, I don’t see the point in a pi**ing contest over how many were killed and injured, until you continue to accuse me of “exagerating” etc.
Not my style…There’s enough nonsense in the world without making it up!
But the numbers I can find range from your 87,000 KILLED (the lowest I can find ANYWHERE) to a high of, well, 1,033,000 from WIKI. Because this study includes death from disease due to unsanitary living conditions, dysentry, diarhea etc, it tends to be at the HIGH end of the estimates.
But Jared, really, even if we use a lowball estimate of violence only deaths (no disease), for instance (from WIKI):
Iraq Family Health Survey -151,000 violent deaths, up to June 2006
OK, add another few thousand for 2006-09….and then use the historically sound ratio of 3:1 seriously wounded to death…
We have 200,000 dead
we have 600,000 seriously wounded
…add on top of that the less ’severely’ wounded…well, I stand by my estimate of a million.
I may be slightly at the “high” end, but the lowest ANYONE can get is still several hundred thousand dead and wounded…and so I think it’s a bit unfair to accuse poor ole fRosTy of BS’ing!
Anyway, cheers.
PS I put military in single quotes when I said “person” which I suppose can be ascribed to anyone…as in “my girlfriend is a ‘cat’ person”.
In my first use, I used no quotes as in Army Men…
RDM Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Your right Mr. J. The totals haven’t even come close to the bloodshed of the Clans. How friendly can you get. They hate each other!
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“geez, man…you’re hatred of all things Bush and republican has forced you into swallowing left-wing carp whole! Think for yourself for a change!”
Maybe I should have clarified so you could understand. I meant to say “Oh so THAT’s why Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11!”
I get my information from the Washington Post for March 13, 2007.
“WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney, lashing out at Democrats for the first time since the felony conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, his former top deputy, resumed his controversial claims Monday that the war in Iraq is the central front in the worldwide U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
9/11, IRAQ: CHENEY AGAIN CLAIMS TIE
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference 2007 in Washington March 12, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003. ”
Now maybe YOU should stop swallowing the republican rightwing crap and start to think for yourself.
EricG Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
It’s not hatred when it’s all facts.
That’s why most Obama Haters are likely racists not political adversaries.
because the logic is lacking and that leaves … skin color.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
ERIC,
That’s why most Obama Haters are likely racists not political adversaries.
That’s probably the dumbest comment you’ve ever made. There are some who disagree with Obama…and they’re racists? Were the black-Americans who disagreed with Bush racist?
If not…you may want to rethink your diatribe, my friend.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
TDRO,
What you typed doesn’t at all prove your point…all you did was list soundbites of Cheney saying there was a link between Al-Queda and Iraqi leadership.
While there may not have been a link between Saddam and Al-queda…in the same report you base your argument on it identifies ties between Al-Queda and top members of Saddam’s administration.
You said Bush stated Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I’m still waiting on the proof of that.
yawn…you’re not in the best form today…rough night?
TDro319 Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Never mind, Jared. Obviously you’re willing to believe anything the right tells you to believe.
BTW, I meant to say “Oh so THAT’s why CHENEY said Iraq was responsible for 9/11!” My mistake. But I’m sure you wouldn’t know about that since you don’t make mistakes. Of course your forte seems to be insulting people who don’t agree with you.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
TDRO,
Obviously you’re willing to believe anything the right tells you to believe.
Not so fast, my friend…even you know that’s not true…
And again…Cheney didn’t say Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Cheney did say there was a link between Al-Queda and Iraq…not that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
I’ve made plenty of mistakes, by the way…and I’m forthcoming with an apology when I do.
Apologies if the comment at the bottom of my last post came across as a bit insulting…I enjoy debating you as you have vastly different opinions/beliefs than I do…I was just surprised by your weak argument, is all…
greedisdead Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 11:03 am
He is form texas noygh said
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Have you even read SOME of the facts from the 9/11 commision?
Are you kidding us with this “Bush never said…” carp?
Or are you THAT misinformed?
Within hours of the attack, we now know that Rumsfield was busy trying to forge a link, any link.
We have sworn testimony from Richard Clarke that the day after the attack Bush wanted to connect it with Saddam, and his 60 minutes interview where he says “Bush said to me ‘Iraq. Saddam. Find the connection”. When, as Clarke says, there was no connection found in the ensuing days, Dubya said “Wrong answer, do it again…”
When he was preparing to invade Iraq, starting immediately after 9/11, Bush started using Saddam and bin Laden’s names together, linking them, over and over and over…have you that short a memory?
Here’s some quotes to jog it…
“”you can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Iraq… The true threat to our country is an al-Qaeda type network trained and armed by Saddam” -Dubya, fall 2002
“”There is overwhelming eveidence that there is a connection between between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi gov’t” – Cheney 2002
“….a sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network…” Powell to the UN, spring 2003.
“The reason I keep insisting there is a relationship bewtween Iraq and al-Qaeda, is that there is a sinister relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda…” -Bush
How much clear can we be, Jared? You are in absolute denial here, and are clearly not willing to hear the unpleasant truth….like a 8 year-old with his greasy peanut butter fingers in his ears going “la la la la la!”.
BushCo ignored CLEAR warnings from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and European Intelligence which reported “We have found no links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, if there were suck links we would have found them, but we have not…”
BushCo’s bold and confident assertions that there was a connection, leading 70% of Americans to believe there was – after beiong told repeatedly that there WAS NOT is the gravest example of lies and deception so far in this century.
man, you need to get off the Fox, lol…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
McFROSTY,
but I never said Bush/Cheney didn’t say there wasn’t a connection between Al-Queda and Iraq…but that’s not the topic of discussion is it, dummy?
For all of your “cut and pastes”…not one statement saying “Iraq was responsible for 9/11. – Bush”.
Try again…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Odd that you would call my post a “cut and paste” as, reading back over it, lol, my many spelling mistakes are glaring!
I never cut and paste, ever, without stating cleary that I am doing so, (and I rarely do), as well as using quotes and credit. I AM however a pretty fast typer. Most of my info comes from good ole ink on paper, (that’s BOOKS to you)and I’m generally forced to type it in. :-(
If you want to prevent making these types of false accusations in the future – the best way to find a C & P, like TREES for instance, is to copy a few lines into the google box. If it exists on the web, it will show up.
But Jared, at least you ‘ve done ONE thing fairly!
By calling me dumb (again) (I’m not, not really, although my GF thinks I am for coming here so much) because you don’t like that I’ve rebutted your assertion, totally, …..and by trying to weasel out by substituting 9/11 for al-Qaeda when you know full well that’s a strawman sidestep…by your continued use of “McFrosty” (which I’ve gotten used to)…and finally your Monty Python Black Knight-ish use of “try again” at the end of your post, even though I have answered your challenge AND straightened you out on the “million dead” error you keep making…
…you have answered your own question about what makes you a typical right-winger…
:-)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
McFROSTY,
Ok, the “copy and paste” was an obvious reference to your left-wing soundbite promulgation…it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. For as “learned” as you say you are…I thought for sure you would’ve picked up on that on.
Now on to the Iraq issue.
Since you’re a bit behind here, let me catch you up. TDRO said: “Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11.”
That is the topic of conversation. NOT whether or not Bush/Cheney said that there was a connection with Iraq and Al Queda.
The only thing you’ve done is prove (which I’ve already conceded, by the way) that Bush/Cheney said there was a link between Iraq and Al Queda. But still no proof that Bush/Cheney said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Maybe I should rephrase the question…you know…dumb it down for you:
Show me where Bush has said “Iraq was responsible for 9/11.”
And me calling you McFROSTY, and using “try again”…I
…have answered your own question about what makes you a typical right-winger
Weak…real weak…
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“”There is overwhelming eveidence that there is a connection between between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi gov’t” – Cheney 2002
Now, to be fair:
I think the link existed but may not have been strong. Bush did make it clear that not only would Al Qaeda be seen as an enemy, but so would any State that provided safe haven. Technically accurate? Maybe.
greedisdead Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
PINO
But Bush himself admits no connection………
“It is true, as I have said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks.”12/5/2008
Right out of the jackass mouth.
But what did he say before war?
“We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.” [Bush, 10/14/02]”
thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/bush-iraq-911/
He threw many Neo-Cons under the Bus with that statement…
And admitted no WMD
So why did we go to war again?
Danka
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Obama will never get us out of Iraq. Bilderberg/CFR/TLC, whom he serves, won’t let him. Obama’s job is to ramp up our military interventions and provoke a major new war so the bankers can get martial law declared, trash the Bill of Rights, impoverish Americans, and present our necks to Northcom’s boot. Its all about the money (and fascist control).
April 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Jared
The surge was a good thing but the fact it was needed speaks volumes about the probability of a strong democracy in IRAQ-
The surge took place years after invasion….WHY?
Historically a democracy is one of the toughest forms of Government to build..
Even with America on paper a democracy we still had to go through slavery, Civil war, civil rights Woman’s rights etc and it is still a work in progress…And that was with a strong internal desire for democracy something the Islamic world does not manifest.
They did not rise up against Sadam like we did the British, we took him out
Before the First World War there had been just three republics in Europe; by the end of 1918 there were thirteen. All forced and pressured by the West…
Yet democracies triumph proved short-lived. The Democratic values disappeared as political polarization brought much of Europe to the verge of civil war. Ruling elites in many countries soon showed themselves to be anti-communists first, democrats second.
The culture of Europe was not plausible for a working democracy….
How anyone can defend trying to build a democracy in
an Islamic nation is beyond me….
The war has not made us safer for the many reasons already discussed and has not produced a strong foundation for democracy to build on.
BTW another bombing today…………
You still don’t answer what we won? If anything ?
And if so was it worth the cost….?
The answer is obvious unless blinded by extreme nationalism and ignorance of Islamic Culture.
Sad to say many are…………
Danka
April 24th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]“
Paine Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Bush was a lying puppet, just as Obama is a lying puppet, though I think Obama has him beat by a mile on both counts.
Assuming the invasions of Afhanistan and Iraq were justified, both these mission could have been accomplished in a matter of weeks (Afghanistan was). Democratic nation-building is what is taking so long. Should never have bothered with any of this – taking out Bin Laden and Hussein was enough.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am
How is Obama a bigger Liar
He is doing everything he said he would do during campaign
And not going into a war based on lies
Thansk
April 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm