During a presidential news conference on Wednesday, members of the media made it very clear to President Bush that they do not support increasing troop levels in Iraq. Although no such plan has been officially announced, several print and television reporters appeared to be launching a preemptive strike against the idea and in support of a quick withdrawal. During the hour long question and answer session, a "New York Times" reporter made comparisons to Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam. CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod asked how much longer the President will continue to defy the polls, and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell tried to trap Bush into a game of criticizing Donald Rumsfeld. Early in the news conference, Reuters reporter Caren Bohan commenced the media attack on any plan that would increase troop strength in Iraq:
Caren Bohan: "If you conclude that a surge in troop levels in Iraq is needed, would you overrule your military commanders if they felt it was not a good idea?"
Bush: "That’s a dangerous hypothetical question. I am not condemning you, you are allowed to ask what you want. Let, let me wait and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground. I’m interested in the Iraqis point of view, and then I will report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try."
NBC reporter Kelly O’Donnell continued this line of questioning, offering Bush a simplistic either/or query about Donald Rumsfeld:
Kelly O’Donnell: "Your former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld advocated for a lighter, more agile military force. Have you now concluded that that approach was wrong?"
Bush: "No, I, I strongly support a lighter, agile army that can move quickly to meet the threats of the 21st century. I also supported his forced posture review and recommendations to move forces out of previous bases that, you know, they were there for the– for the Soviet threat, for example in Europe. He, he’s, he’s has introduced some substantive changes to, uh, to uh, to the Pentagon and I support him strongly. However, that does not necessarily preclude increasing in strength for the Army and Marines."
CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod wondered just how long Bush planned on defying polls and "the will of the American people":
Jim Axelrod: "In the latest CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans say they favor a beginning of an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq. 43 percent said keep fighting, but change tactics. By this, and many other measures, there is no clear mandate to continue being in Iraq in a military form. I guess my question is, are you still willing to follow a path that seems to be in opposition to the will of the American people?"
Bush: "I am willing to follow a path that leads to victory. And that is exactly why we are conducting the review we are. Victory in Iraq is achievable, it hadn’t happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would’ve. I know it’s the fact that there are still unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that’s troubling to the American people. But, I also don’t believe most Americans want us to just get out now. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States."
Though Axelrod didn’t say this, he could have easily added "the desire of the media" to his list of groups that Bush is defying.
Finally, "New York Times" journalist Sheryl Stolberg offered the Commander-in-Chief one of the more loaded questions:
Sheryl Stolberg: "Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn’t sleep during the Vietnam war, questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can’t help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you could talk to us about that? Has it been a painful time?"
On December 18, the MRC’s Megan McCormack noted a report by ABC News reporter Dan Harris. He claimed that any increase in troops "could be a very unpopular policy." If Thursday’s news conference is any indicator, Americans should expect the media to continue framing this hypothetical policy in a negative tone.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Comments Policy
These media twits floor me.
December 20, 2006 - 13:27 ET by mattmThese media twits floor me. They can't even handle journalism, yet they apparently consider themselves to be foreign policy and military experts. Sheeesh!
Exactly, Very well said.Mer
December 20, 2006 - 13:47 ET by 1sttofightExactly, Very well said.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I am looking for my Marine Sgt. son to pull up in the driveway any minute. This will be the second time in 5 years he has been home for Christmas.
Semper Fi.
1sstofight Your son
December 20, 2006 - 13:54 ET by misterbill1sstofight Your son== when he gets home tell him that there are a lot of older veterans who are supremely proud of him and his brother Marines.
I did a few years in the Navy, but Semper Fi to your boy.
PS Merry Christmas to you and your family!
1stofight..Give your fine
December 20, 2006 - 14:46 ET by ww thumper1stofight..Give your fine son a Semper Fi from this old Air Force/USSO veteran. I am the brother of veterans, father of 2 Marines, and an Army troop. GOD bless you and yours. Warren.& Family ... :-) ...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS :-) WW
Thanks. Merry Christmas and
December 20, 2006 - 14:42 ET by mattmThanks. Merry Christmas and thank you, to you and yours.
Give him a big THANK YOU from
December 20, 2006 - 15:59 ET by CaringwhiteguyGive him a big THANK YOU from me.
Broom these news conference
December 20, 2006 - 13:43 ET by Red JeepBroom these news conferences with these morons. Have a computer/telecommunications conference with reporters from the small and large city newspapers in America.
With troop levels, I guess the left is moving the goal posts again. Too late to increase levels. Surrender and give up now.
The media today is not in t
December 20, 2006 - 13:50 ET by spiderdanThe media today is not in the news reporting business. They are in the news manufacturing business.
Many conspiracy theorists focus on their personal political adversaries, yet they would find hours of fantasy material begging their attention if they'd take a good look at the media. Imagine the production meetings of these "reporters/editors" including detailed methods of manipulating questions and answers to achieve a particular result suitable to the political agenda of those controlling that media extension.
These reporters aren't interested in facts or revelations. They are interested only in developing the report into something that only elevates their selfish internal interests.
The legitimate American journalist asks, "Mr. President, at this juncture, what must be done to win the war?". Heard anything like that from this bunch of minnows lately?
What you see coming from those shysters is editorial/political commentary. Legitimate Americans need to recognize this and react to these "reports" commensurately.
Bush Press Conference
December 20, 2006 - 13:58 ET by BlondeTalk about a creepy, leading politically charged question:
Sheryl Stolberg: "Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn’t sleep during the Vietnam war, questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can’t help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you could talk to us about that? Has it been a painful time?"
To which the President replied, as only he can when he is speaking from the heart, "No, what pains me is the death of each of our fine young men and women" (paraphrasing here). Then he went on to say how he spent time with the families of these soldiers.
I think George Bush's problem is that he is, at heart, a truly "nice guy", and just abhors the vitriol and game-playing that is the lifeblood of Washington.
Blonde."Mr. President,
December 20, 2006 - 14:04 ET by Jack BauerBlonde.
"Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn’t sleep during the Vietnam war
Wow. Finally someone in the media calls it Johnson's Vietnam.
She'll be in trouble tomorrow, everyone in the MSM has it drummed into them a Hack School that it's Nixon's Vietnam!
And depending on your timeframes, didn't the Vietnam War last at least 11 years. That's a long time between naps.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Geez, Jack,After our discussi
December 20, 2006 - 14:07 ET by BlondeGeez, Jack,
After our discussion the other day, I thought we concluded that it was Bush's Vietnam.
Oh, right, sorry....that was joe conservative.
I wish someone would have ask
December 20, 2006 - 14:02 ET by Agnostic frontI wish someone would have asked Bush exactly what he means by victory. Does it mean that all American troops are out of Iraq? If so, what level of stability is acceptable in order to declare victory? Bush may have clarified what he means by "victory" in the past, but I still don’t know what he means.
Why don't YOU tell us what v
December 20, 2006 - 14:28 ET by PeskyDaneWhy don't YOU tell us what victory means, Hawking?
Hawking
December 20, 2006 - 14:32 ET by BlondePesky,
Good one! Laughing.
Great to see you here, today.
Thanks, Blonde. As you can
December 20, 2006 - 14:47 ET by PeskyDaneThanks, Blonde. As you can tell by my next two posts, I'm really in a scrappy mood. But note how upset he gets when he thinks I've insulted his boyfriend, Carl.
Pesky
December 20, 2006 - 14:50 ET by BlondeGood for you, PD.
You're right. He should've said "semi, my ass".
Um, aren't you up a little late?
Yeah, way too late... but I c
December 20, 2006 - 15:10 ET by PeskyDaneYeah, way too late... but I couldn't resist pounding the snot out of Agnostic, and I wanted to get a few good ones in before his mom gets home and kicks him off the computer. He'll probably have to sign off soon - I hear it takes a few minutes to erase the internet history and delete all the cookies... you know, "those" cookies.
Pesky,I know about late...it
December 20, 2006 - 15:21 ET by BlondePesky,
I know about late...it takes me one day to fall back into my evil habits of sleep 'til noon, stay up until 5:00 a.m.
Looks like you jung's boyfriend has more to handle than he thought his little drive-by throw away post would get. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride.
You guys are really entertaining when you go at it.
then our job here is done :-)
December 20, 2006 - 15:40 ET by PeskyDaneI suppose it would be a moder
December 20, 2006 - 14:33 ET by Agnostic frontI suppose it would be a moderately peaceful Iraq, Jung. What precise level of instability is acceptable to declare victory is a mystery.
You're using a semi-famous sh
December 20, 2006 - 14:38 ET by PeskyDaneYou're using a semi-famous shrink as a basline for sardonic humor? This is what happens when one TRIES to be clever.
Semi your ass.
December 20, 2006 - 14:42 ET by Agnostic frontSemi your ass.
Having said that, I will reco
December 20, 2006 - 14:43 ET by PeskyDaneHaving said that, I will recognize that you did indeed answer my question. However, its only fair to disclose that I am actually over here and have a front row seat as to what is happening. With that in mind, do you really want to have this debate or would you rather admit that you've been adequately bitch-slapped and just leave it alone. I will warn you - you don't have the chops.
How about less murders per day than in California?
December 20, 2006 - 14:48 ET by acaiguanaHow about less murders per day than in California?
Or less rape - or less robbery - or fewer riots - ???
Duh
Victory would mean as Bush as stated about a thousand times for those who cannot seem to hear and comprehend;
1. An Iraqi government that is standing on its own.
2. An Iraqi government that controls its own security.
3. A recognition by the Terrorists (called by any name other than by the MSM) that they cannot overcome the people' will.
4. And obviously a greatly reduced role for the US Army and other military forces.
Why in the world would victory automatically require a complete withdrawel of US troops? Check out Germany, Bosnia, Korea, all the NATO countries and just for grins, Panama.
So, grabbing on the word 'victory' and trying to define it as absolute peace in Iraq is not only silly but also counter-productive to the goal of redefining the Middle East.
Did you think redefining the Middle East was going to be met with cheers and smiles from all the blood thirsty Terrorists that make their living off the conflict? What is it about the status quo ante that the Liberal Left loves so much?
Is it the continuing harrassment of Israel? Is the continuing sneak attack on an occasional American Embassy, Foreign Resort catering to Israelis or Americans? Is it the occasional attempt by verious countries in the Middle East to attack Israel? Maybe its the perpetual Civil War in Lebanon they love so much.
Where does the Left get this idea that Democracy isn't for everyone? Just can't work in an Arab country, huh? Those people don't deserve freedom do they? Just for you and the Liberal ilk defining victory to basically mean, run away and hide head in sand.
Victory means a stable Iraq government able to withstand threats from external and internal sources; a government run by law rather than the rule of Dictatorship; a government that fosters free enterprise and Democratic rule through the vote. A government that is not a persistent threat to anyone it decides to arbitrarily attack and occupy (Iraq/Kuwait, etc.).
But then, the word does have 7 letters. Maybe you should stick with six letter words.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Hey Ac, way to shove me aside
December 20, 2006 - 14:52 ET by PeskyDaneHey Ac, way to shove me aside, dude - LOL. I thought this was my fight... oh, well, shucks, i think he's picked up his skirts, kicked off his heels and has ran back to KOS.
Aw shucks, Pesky... Just shucks.
December 20, 2006 - 14:54 ET by acaiguanaAw shucks, Pesky... Just shucks.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
If the goal is to have Iraq s
December 20, 2006 - 14:55 ET by Agnostic frontIf the goal is to have Iraq stand up on its own, why do we have to be there? The will of the Iraqi people will be done at some point. If they choose to kill each other, what can we really do to stop it.
I do think that Democracy is possible in the middle east, I just think that if Muslim's vote, nine times out of ten, they essentially hand their democracy back. In other words, Muslim's prefer to be lead by a strong, religious based, hard ass government. Sorta like the Republicans.
Because there's more to it th
December 20, 2006 - 15:03 ET by PeskyDaneBecause there's more to it than that - we also want to ensure that no one is going to throw up a government that will once again funnel money to people that will fly planes into buildings. Also, us being here encourages all the terrorists from Africa and Asia to converge here and gleefuly throw themselves onto our bayonnets. An interesting, but not totally unexpected side effect.
So we want the Iraqi's to be
December 20, 2006 - 15:08 ET by Agnostic frontSo we want the Iraqi's to be able to have a democracy, as long as it is the correct kind of democracy, and they elct who want them to elect? Sorta like Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait, that's not a democracy, but they give us their oil, so we leave those despots alone.
It's called "American In
December 20, 2006 - 15:13 ET by PeskyDaneIt's called "American Interests." Ask your Social Studies teacher about it next year.
American Interests (noun):
December 20, 2006 - 15:45 ET by JasonCAmerican Interests (noun): As in, "Saddam's butchering of his own people was just fine by us when his actions were consistent with American Interests in the region."
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Pretty much, until the equati
December 20, 2006 - 16:00 ET by Dan The Man 2Pretty much, until the equation changed. The new ingredient was 911 and increased terrorism that reached the mainland USA.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Jason C, selfrighteousness is
December 20, 2006 - 17:08 ET by PeskyDaneJason C, selfrighteousness is a luxury we can ill afford. We are in this for Western Civilization. Care to climb on board?
Pesky Dane, self-righteousnes
December 20, 2006 - 17:20 ET by JasonCPesky Dane, self-righteousness is not something you should be accusing others of, considering your interactions with AF on this board.
Mine was only an attempt to convey a truism, which is relevant and deserves to be discussed, in a humorous manner.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
If that is a truism, please c
December 20, 2006 - 17:24 ET by BDIf that is a truism, please cease caring about casualties in a supposed Civil War in Iraq.
JasonC, the statement stands.
December 20, 2006 - 17:37 ET by PeskyDaneJasonC, the statement stands. You've been called on it, so deal with it. If you don't like what I said to Agnostic, then tuck your skirt into your hose, take off your pumps and run over to KOS with him.
I'll ask you again - is Western Civilization something worth preserving? It would be wonderful for the United States to have limitless resources and be able to deal with every single human rights violation on the globe. That's just not reality. We have to pick the battlefields - one may not agree with where we are currently engaging our enemy - but this is the front we've opened up. And rather successfully if one dispassionately examines the data instead of worshiping at thte altar of Little Katie.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend!
December 20, 2006 - 17:43 ET by BarberianHad we taken JasonC's aloof stance in 1941, the atrocities would be mounting exponetialy and we would be speaking German.
I keep waiting for him to say
December 20, 2006 - 17:51 ET by PeskyDaneI keep waiting for him to say something stupid like "Explain how being in Iraq preserves Western Civilization." (Oh please, oh please!)
Its 1:50 am over here, and I promised someone else that I would be going to bed, but this thread has been way to interesting.
1:50 am
December 20, 2006 - 17:57 ET by Barberian1:50 am, Sounds like your in my stomping grounds!
Pesky, first of all, I woul
December 20, 2006 - 18:14 ET by JasonCPesky, first of all, I wouldn't be caught dead at Kos. From what I understand it's full of liberals who use the sort of tactics you do. You go to town on Agnostic about how he must work all manner of McJobs, refer to him as a 6th-grader, mock him for invoking Jung (who is no slouch in the cultural criticism department), then when called upon your behavior, you elaborately imply that I'm womanly. I wonder what Blonde thinks of the implication that being effeminate = being weak-minded and crying at the first sign of conflict.
Anyway, you are right that we can't rush to the aid of every marginalized society in the world. But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein is our monster. You guys can pick on Carter and Clinton all you want for enabling some unsavory characters, but you can't pick and choose. We built up and supported Saddam when it was politically expedient (need I remind you of the infamous shot of Rumsfeld, on behalf of the Reagan adminsitration, warmly shaking the dictator's hand?). Now, I am not using this fact to impugn the Bush administration per se, and it would not be all that relevant if not for the fact that the war was sold primarily on three arguments:
1. Saddam was somehow, tangentially, directly or indirectly, involved with 9/11 (untrue).
2. Saddam had WMD (iffy, at best).
3. Saddam brutalized his people (very true, but the oft-cited instances took place in the aforementioned early 80's).
What really bothers me is the contingent of people who think that the war is wrong NOW, because they think we are losing or bogged down or whatever it is they're being told. Whether the war is going well or not at this point does not in any way affect my conviction that the war was as wrong when we took Baghdad as it is now.
Alright Pesky Dane, explain to me why Iraq, specifically, is more important in preserving Western Civilization than the handful of other nations that threaten our values? North Korea anyone?
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
JasonC,I won't attempt to exp
December 20, 2006 - 19:02 ET by BlondeJasonC,
I won't attempt to explain the importance of Iraq in preserving Western Civilization, since that is obviously something PeskyDane wishes to explain himself.
There are several other points in your post though, which I will address.
The realpolitic of our relationship with Iraq is complicated. If you will recall, we had a little dustup with Iran in 1979, lasting 444 days, which involved hostages and totally inept leadership by Jimmy Carter. Reagan was able to manage the release of the hostages on his inauguration day, as he scared the living daylights out of the Iranians. To further that end, we allied ourselves with Iraq (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), hence the picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein.
As we know, nothing stays the same. Saddam invaded Kuwait, concluded by Gulf War I. (I'll not even go into my estimation of the conduct of the so-called end of that conflict). Saddam's regime was under so-called sanctions, no-fly provisions, etc., all supposedly enforeced by the U.N. As unsupervised children are apt to do, Saddam cheated, (Oil for food) lied, and escalated his defiance of the U.N regulations. Weapons Inspectors were denied access. U.N. resolutions were passed. We invaded Iraq. The former relationship of the Reagan administration with Iraq, twenty three years before we went into Iraq, is really a non-starter. Things change...it happens.
I must disagree with your #1. The invasion of Iraq was never "sold" by claiming Iraq was in some way responsible for 9-11. Intelligence at the time indicated WMD's, and there have been WMD's found in Iraq. Just not the big "sexy" WMD's (nukes and sophisticated bio weapons). As far as Saddam brutalizing his population, it's a fact, but again, I question whether it was one of the "selling points" for going into Iraq.
What you didn't say, is that it was incumbent upon the U.S. to ensure that Saddam, in the biggest, baddest, most belligerent nation state in the Middle East, needed to be eliminated (IMO, should have been done the first time around). As an object lesson. (Defanged Khadaffi rather well). Which is why it would be idiotic to weaken our resolve, and which is why it is so treasonous of the media to keep pushing cut and run. Further, it would be disastrous to leave Iraq in any manner other than total success, as another object lesson to Iran. Or we'll surely have to deal with them later.
You say you were against the war prior to its start, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. And I can see you're wise enough to find the queasiness of cut-and-run crowd to be disturbing. Good for you.
As to your question of Pesky's skirt and stocking comment, I thought it was pretty funny, actually. I'm afraid you've been painted with the same brush as most of the rest of the liberals here, so you'll probably continue to get the same treatment. I know that you're not a bomb thrower, and I wouldn't go at you that way, but you'll just have to keep presenting clear and cogent arguments (as you've done) to prove to everyone else that your not a Kos-lib.
As for AF, he got exactly what he deserved. He's done it before, I'm sure he'll do it again, so too bad for him.
Blonde, thanks for the thou
December 20, 2006 - 19:16 ET by JasonCBlonde, thanks for the thoughtful response and kind remarks. Maybe I did overreact to Pesky's treatment of Agnostic....have you seen the johnbo/BigTimer/TruthMonger battle royale that's going on right now? Some of the dirtiest fighting I've ever seen here, on all sides.
I think you make good points across the board, but I have to take issue with your phrase: "Reagan was able to manage the release of the hostages on his inauguration day." I mean, like their thought process was "oh no, Reagan's running the show, we better let the hostages go before him, Hulk Hogan, and Rambo come and put their collective boot is our a$$"? Look, Carter may have been inept, but it was not Reagan's hard-line stance that got those hostages freed the DAY he was inaugurated.
As the Onion headline put it: "Hostages Released: Reagan Urges American People Not to Put Two and Two Together."
Anyway, I gotta run, dinner's on. Good night and Merry Christmas all.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
...hey man, Johnbo's a total
December 20, 2006 - 19:28 ET by TruthMonger...hey man, Johnbo's a total leftard completely off the deep end...so whattya expect...?
Merry Christmas to you and yo
December 20, 2006 - 19:32 ET by bigtimerMerry Christmas to you and yours JasonC....and many many more!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
I'm sure you really mean sort of like Janet Reno's Waco.
December 20, 2006 - 15:17 ET by acaiguanaI'm sure you really mean sort of like Janet Reno's Waco.
Right?
Kill the children to save them. Sorta like LBJ and his War on Poverty, ruin millions of lives in the name of saving them? Or which other sort of snobbish Liberal attitude would you like to take toward a Democracy in the Middle East.
I missed the memo. Where did we dictate to the Iraqis who they had to elect and where did it say we had some sort of 'correct' Democracy in mind?
My memo says, Democracy, e.g. a freely elected government.
When you get right down to it, that is the problem in Iraq. They freely elected a government that was split along sectarian lines. Had we dictated any form of government to them we surely would have written out political parties based on religion.
Your comments and arguments are pretty shallow here. Why not go over to one of the really nutty conspiracy sites where you'll be appreciated.
I'm done now, Pesky. Just can't let this absolute negative person ruin my clear thinking today.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Ac, I just love this guy's 6t
December 20, 2006 - 15:24 ET by PeskyDaneAc, I just love this guy's 6th grade arguments. Just one 3 foot arc softball after another. As soon as he mentions the Family Saud, you know we're dealing with someone at a primary school level of reasoning. I probably would have left him alone if he hadn't mentioned Carl Jung in a happless effort to appear sophisticated.
Ac, I just love this guy's 6t
December 20, 2006 - 15:24 ET by PeskyDaneAc, I just love this guy's 6th grade arguments. Just one 3 foot arc softball after another. As soon as he mentions the Family Saud, you know we're dealing with someone at a primary school level of reasoning. I probably would have left him alone if he hadn't mentioned Carl Jung in a happless effort to appear sophisticated.
Okay, Mr. Genius. Explain to
December 20, 2006 - 15:41 ET by Agnostic frontOkay, Mr. Genius. Explain to me how Iraq was more dangerous to "American Ineterets" than Saudi Arabia when 15 out of the 19 highjackers were Saudi's. How many were Iraqi? Oh, that's right: None. How many times did Saddam or Iraq (or Iraqi people) attack the U.S.? Oh, that's right: None, again. So what the Christ are we doing there in the first place? This a little off-track, becuase the issue is victory, since our supremely well-educated and qualified leaders have inadvertantly gotten us in to this quagmire (yes I said it) in the first place.
Have a nice holiday. (Not a Meryy Christmas) I actually have work to do now.
How many times did Italy and
December 20, 2006 - 15:44 ET by bassndudeHow many times did Italy and Germany attack the US prior to the war?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Actually Hussein did keep att
December 20, 2006 - 16:06 ET by TruthMongerActually Hussein did keep attacking us, right? Our "no-fly zone" patrols were constantly being shot at, I believe...? Is this correct?
That is correct Truth.Save a
December 20, 2006 - 17:15 ET by bassndudeThat is correct Truth.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
...And were these Saudi hijac
December 20, 2006 - 17:38 ET by TruthMonger...And were these Saudi hijackers RUNNING THE GD SAUDI GOVERNMENT like Hussein was running his?
...and had the Saudi's just VIOLATED ALMOST 20 UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS?
...AND EXPELLED UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS?
...AND WERE THEY GIVEN 14 MONTHS TO AVOID THE WAR BY JUST LETTING THE INSPECTORS BACK IN, AND YET REFUSED TO DO SO?
...AND HAD THE SAUDI'S JUST RECENTLY INVADED THEIR KUWAIT NEIGHBORS?
...AND WERE THE SAUDI'S RUNNING THEIR CITIZENS THROUGH A HUMAN SHREDDING MACHINE LIKE HUSSEIN...?
...DID THEY GAS A FEW THOUSAND OF THEIR KIRD CITIZENS LIKE HUSSEIN DID...?
...AND DID THE SECURITY AGENCIES OF SEVERAL NATIONS ACCUSE THE SAUDI'S OF DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION AND TRAINING TERRORISTS LIKE HUSSEIN WAS...
...AND FURTHERMORE DID THESE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR ACTION IN SAUDI ARABIA LIKE THEY DID FOR IRAQ:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
...IS THAT CORRECT, BASS? Yes, I can see why libs might be wondering WTF were doing in Iraq...
Work to do? That's rich.Af,
December 20, 2006 - 15:57 ET by Dave RWork to do? That's rich.
Af,
I posted this elsewhere today, but it wound up being for a dump & run troll. I think it applies to you and your ilk as well:
Given the miserable failures of the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations, you as members of the Marxist/Leninist party should be real careful who you point to as being incompetent.
Bill Clinton giving missile technology to the Chicoms and nuclear technology to the N. Koreans as well as the Iranians is about to turn around and bite this world squarely in the ass. Iran is now saying they are going to begin sharing their nuclear know-how with their "friends" in the region.
At the end of the day, all you terrorist enablers and appeasers, along with your fellow cowardly friends in the DumbMass Media are really going to accomplish is ensuring that the coming global conflict is going to be far, far more widespread and much more deadly than it needs to be. Hitler could have been stopped early on, with very little bloodshed. Because of people like you, many millions died. It didn't have to be that way.
They day is coming, and I believe very soon, when people will look back on the number of our brave soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and will consider it a bargain.
Maybe when we lose an American city you head-up-your-ass liberals will finally figure out what we are facing. Although, given the fact that most of you are Marxist/Leninists to the bone, you probably won't even care. After all, your favorite form of government has been the most murderous the world has yet seen, so what's a few hundred thousand dead Americans if it furthers the cause, eh, comrade?
Ah, the old "have to g
December 20, 2006 - 16:02 ET by Uncle JohnAh, the old "have to get back to work" = "I'm losing the argument" dodge. Break time at the Quicki-Mart must be over.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Oooh la, la, Uncle John.Serio
December 20, 2006 - 16:08 ET by BlondeOooh la, la, Uncle John.
Seriously laughing out loud.
Touche!
But wait, aren't all libera
December 20, 2006 - 16:11 ET by JasonCBut wait, aren't all liberals just class warriors who ride around in limos drinking Cristal and doing blow off a Park Avenue hooker's ass in between DNC fundraisers?
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
As much fun as that sounds
December 20, 2006 - 16:16 ET by Uncle JohnAs much fun as that sounds like, no. I'm sure plenty of them are in their 30s and live in Mom & Dad's basement. It takes all kinds. What it doesn't take is a village.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Limo Libs
December 20, 2006 - 16:17 ET by BlondeWell, yes and no JasonC.
There are certainly the limo liberals, as you've so aptly described above.
Then there are the gimme libs....they want it all, and they want it now (reminds me of a blonde joke "I'm blonde, and I'm beautiful, and I'm going to New York first class, because I deserve it!!!"). But of course, the gimme libs want someone else to pay for it.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Blonde! An
December 20, 2006 - 16:19 ET by JasonCMerry Christmas Blonde! And Uncle, I have no problem with the village idea if it's meant literally, involving a concerted effort on the part of a close-knit community, as opposed to taxes being dumped into do-nothing programs.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Agnostic at work... "You
December 20, 2006 - 16:53 ET by PeskyDaneAgnostic at work... "You want a Belgian tea biscut with the double latte grande? Hey that's a good book... have you read her latest on the socialist-international treatment of gender neutral indemification? You can find over the Lesbian Studies section."
Ok, that's it. Now I'm going to hell.
PD,I don't know about the Bel
December 20, 2006 - 17:06 ET by Dave RPD,
I don't know about the Belgian tea biscuit and the double latte grande, I'm thinking "would you like fries with that?" would be more like it.
I don't know - ran into a lot
December 20, 2006 - 17:11 ET by PeskyDaneI don't know - ran into a lot of these types when I would hang out at the Georgia Tech B&N when assigned to First Army HQ. I tend to think that these Docker and Van Heusen types would rather starve - LOL.
The GT B&N, that's in Mid
December 20, 2006 - 17:32 ET by Dave RThe GT B&N, that's in Midtown. Guess that explains the lesbian studies part.
I'm dy'n over here...
December 20, 2006 - 17:44 ET by PeskyDaneI'm dy'n over here...
Breaks over!
December 20, 2006 - 16:32 ET by BarberianBreaks over and he's waiting for that call from Glenn Beck for another intelectual round of "moron trivia"! He's hoping to score BIG this time!
You are looking at the curren
December 20, 2006 - 16:13 ET by BDYou are looking at the current strategy in the GWOT as a law enforcement issue rather than a global strategic issue. That being, a nation hurt us, therefore it must be tried and punished.
Strategy does not work that way. Troops and force are employed in such a manner as to effect an enemies center of gravity and cause a desired outcome.
For instance, during WWII, French Morrocco had done nothing to the US, but it was the site of the first US invasion as the allies attempted to gain a foothold in North Africa. The French troops who fought the US had not been the ones who bombed Pearl Harbor, yet they were vanquished following fierce fighting by the US and British forces in the Torch landings. Under your theorem posted above, this invasion would never have taken place, and in fact, since Germany had done nothing to the US, we never would have stepped foot in the European Theater of Operations.
In my opinion, the way to do this in this case is to change the culture in the Middle east to effectively lure it from the threat of Islamic Fascism. We plan to use democracy as our tool to effect his change. Iraq is a suitable location to perform this change as our first location as it has a highly educated population and is even more centrally located in the Arabic world.
When Iraq finally stabilizes, you will see a slow creeping of democracy into the rest of the region, much like it did in eastern europe after 1990.
Is that good enough for you?
BD,I sincerely hope you are r
December 20, 2006 - 16:40 ET by Dave RBD,
I sincerely hope you are right, but given the current state of media coverage of all this, along with the number of fires (Our own borders, NK, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia etc....etc.) simultaneously popping up in this world, are raising my pessimism to a truly depressing level. It seem as though things are rapidly spinning out of control. I know there are things being done at the intelligence and diplomatic level that we aren't hearing about, but that doesn't make me feel any better at the moment.
I want to believe that this nation still has the will to prevail in all this, but I sometimes feel we are rapidly losing our way.
I hope I'm wrong.
Dave:You must learn to take t
December 20, 2006 - 17:09 ET by BDDave:
You must learn to take the long view. Our casualty levels in Iraq are low by any standard, and only noticeable as they are trumpeted by the media as a tool to effect policy.
In my opinion, if we made a single mistake in this Global War on Terror to this point, it is was in backing down from our concept of setting up an office in the DOD to fight the information war in the press. When the press found out we were setting up such a shop, they raised holy hell stating that dissemination of the good news on the war was THEIR JOB.
By backing-down at such an early stage in the war, it insures that the view presented to the American People is singularly focused by a liberal elite such as we have now.
Virtually every person visiting the US troops in Iraq state in their notes that our morale is high and the troops are dedicated tothe mission knowing that it can be accomplished.
So why is it that press reports otherwise?
I believe the media, aside fr
December 21, 2006 - 10:06 ET by Dave RI believe the media, aside from just damaging Mr. Bush, want us to leave Iraq so that it further diminishes this country in the eyes of the world, particularly our allies. As they did in the Vietnam days, they are doing their best to sway public opinion against us being there, and are trying to demoralize the troops at the same time.
North Vietnam was never a direct threat to us. Nuclear-armed 7th century illiterate mullahs are a direct threat to not just us, but western civilation as a whole.
The Islamic fascists despise western society and wish to see it, if not out-right destroyed, severely diminished. So do many in the MSM. I believe the media is essentially taking their side because they share in this goal.
Leave it to a leftist like yo
December 20, 2006 - 16:15 ET by bigtimerLeave it to a leftist like you Af to say not to have a Merry Xmas....you people are so pathetic....I almost feel sorry for you, but I guess God will have to do that, tough job someone has to do it.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Ok, you get to work fella.
December 20, 2006 - 16:41 ET by PeskyDaneOk, you get to work fella. Serve a few more lattes over at Borders, then log back on and read this. I'm going to break it down to your level, even though I've already read a good number of posts that explain this to you. There are/were a number of hostile regimes funneling money to terrorist organizations. Iraq was one of them. There are reams of documents that have confirmed this. Out of a number of areas where we could have brought the fight to the enemy, our military planners chose Iraq (along with Afghanistan and the horn of Africa). We could have chosen Syria, Iran, or N. Korea, or any number of hostile countries. The decision was made to open up the front on the war against Islamic Facism THERE. One is of course free to dissagree with this, as you no doubt do. Al Quaida is an INTERNATIONAL organization. You put forth an old argument that has been trampled so many times I feel I'm going to put everyone else to sleep here. To the best of my knowledge, Crown Prince Abudullah did not funnel money to the highjackers. Furthermore, to attack a stable country like Saudi Arabia, which sits on some 25% of world oil reserves was viewed as contrary to the interests of the United States. Is doing something that is in your country's interest so hateful to you?
BTW, Merry Christmas. Sorry you don't celebrate. You're missing out on a lot.
Get a grip Agnostic front. Ge
December 20, 2006 - 15:24 ET by bassndudeGet a grip Agnostic front. Germany was unstable for 5 years after the war was over. And we are still there, today. In the mid and later 70's, while I was stationed there, we were used in police actions such as road blocks and the such during the bader minehoff days, and street patrols at night. This was 30 years after the war. You really need to study up on the military and its functions, before, during and after wars. I mean, sence it is obvious you were never in the military, you should study up on it some before engaging in such discussions.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Imagine
December 20, 2006 - 15:05 ET by Mr. BishopImagine for a moment, the hundreds of thousands of lives, that could have been spared during the Civil War, if there was no Civil War. If the French (God forbid) had been more involved in post-American Revolution times, it is possible that the practice of slavery, would have been disolved prior to the time of the Civil War. I am not saying this would have been likely, only that it was possible (since the French did not like slavery at this point). Again, considering this, for the moment, if we were to leave before the Iraqi people could defend themselves from outside enemies, and internal enemies, then all the work that our 3000+ dead soldiers have worked for, will have been for nothing.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"