So, you didn't think Pelosi would try for a pull-out of Iraq?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sorry for your recent head injury. I diidn't know about it until now.

Cheap insults is all you got? I thought you could do better. Go listen to Rush some more. Go now and listen!

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's public denial vs. private admission. Did you read the Downing Street Memo. I know I did, coming from the country who was tasked with doing Bush's dirty work in 'cooking the books' to justify it.

Then there's the matter of the Dodgy Dossier. Sorry mate - this stuff isn't made up, its there in black and white. I and a good number of people I know were never EVER convinced that the WMD "imminent" threat argument was a big bunch of horse's #######.

That still does not refute that the dems wanted to get Sadam before Bush was elected. Are you saying that as Govener of Texas he had the power to deceive the world? Wow! I didn't know he had that kind of juice!!

I don't care about the Dems. I care about Bush wanting to go to war in Iraq regardless of any actual threat, links to Al Qaeda, or involvement in 9/11.

He seemed to be under the impression that 9/11 gave him the justification to do whatever he liked under the umbrella of national security - when no credible threat existed from that country.

It just goes to show that the likes of George W Bush are the worst sort of people to have around in positions of power in a time of national tragedy.

I don't think it's apples to apples though. The question your asking now is "What would we have accomplished with a victory?", or more precisely, "What would we have accomplished for the U.S with a victory?" because assuming we stayed there, we would have eventually defeated Communism in Vietnam, but we wouldn't have defeated Communism itself- Communism was apparantly on it's way to doing that for us.

It wasn't just about Vietnam - it was the entire region. Hence I mentioned the small matter of the Cambodian Incursion for one thing.

In 1968, the Khmer Rouge forces launched a national insurgency across Cambodia. Though North Vietnam had not been informed of the decision, its forces provided shelter and weapons to the Khmer Rouge after the insurgency started. Vietnamese support for the insurgency made it impossible for the Cambodian military to effectively counter it. For the next two years the insurgency grew as Sihanouk did very little to stop it. As the insurgency grew stronger, the party finally openly declared itself to be the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK).

The political appeal of the Khmer Rouge was increased as a result of the situation created by the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970. Premier Lon Nol, with the support of the National Assembly, deposed Sihanouk. Sihanouk, in exile in Beijing, made an alliance with the Khmer Rouge and became the nominal head of a Khmer Rouge-dominated government-in-exile (known by its French acronym, GRUNK) backed by the People's Republic of China. Sihanouk's popular support in rural Cambodia allowed the Khmer Rouge to extend its power and influence to the point that by 1973 it exercised de facto control over the majority of Cambodian territory, although only a minority of its population. Many people in Cambodia who helped the Khmer Rouge against the Lon Nol government thought they were fighting for the restoration of Sihanouk.

When the U.S. Congress suspended aid to Cambodia in 1973, the Khmer Rouge made sweeping gains in the country. By 1975, with the Lon Nol government running out of ammunition, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the government would collapse. On April 17, 1975 the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh.

The Vietnam War indirectly aided the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia - who made Saddam Hussein look like a big girls blouse. We're talking mountains of skulls here...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What would we have accomplished? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell, but that wasn't the question, was it?

It sort of is since I brought it up in the context of the recent Iraq debate. Because it stands to reason that we'e not gonna accomplish a first damn thing over there either. We'll just keep on wasting lives until we come to our senses. I, for one, hope that this will happen sooner rather than later...

I don't think it's apples to apples though. The question your asking now is "What would we have accomplished with a victory?", or more precisely, "What would we have accomplished for the U.S with a victory?" because assuming we stayed there, we would have eventually defeated Communism in Vietnam, but we wouldn't have defeated Communism itself- Communism was apparantly on it's way to doing that for us.

In the case of winning in Iraq- I think there are some serious gains to be made for us there if we can somehow pull this off. A flourishing democractic ally right smack in the middle of all that could serve as an example that freedom from Tyranny is possible in the Middle East- not to mention the tactical advantage we would have in a war with Iran.

Not sure but I bet something along those lines of "if we can somehow pull this off" was the rationale back then for "staying the course" and "getting the job done", wasn't it? You said what now? The "job" eventually sort got itself done? It's quite plausible that it would also have gotten itself done without needlessly sacrificing tens of thousands of our young and a multiple of theirs. I guess you see where I'm going with this...

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

1) Bush clearly lied. That's long been established. About the Saddam / Al-Qaeda link, for example. About the effect that the Iraq war has on our national security. Do I need to continue?

2) No Dem ever favored, pushed, pursued or otherwise encouraged a misguided, ill-planned, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate adventure the kind of which Bush broke lose. That's the reality. There's a difference between promoting regime change and illegally attacking a country. Not that I'd expect you to understand that but your denial doesn't make that difference go away. Not in the real world it doesn't. It seems that now that the huge ** up that Bush and his crooks ahave created is plain obvious, you Bushies don't want to stand up for that ####### no more. So you try to go around and spread the blame. Ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You really do have a convinent memory don't you?

Bush didn't lie. The country wanted hawks and the dems made noises like hawks.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want. You can deniy what the dems say all you want. You can lie to yourself all you want. It ain't working, though. Ain't working.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1) Bush clearly lied. That's long been established. About the Saddam / Al-Qaeda link, for example. About the effect that the Iraq war has on our national security. Do I need to continue?

2) No Dem ever favored, pushed, pursued or otherwise encouraged a misguided, ill-planned, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate adventure the kind of which Bush broke lose. That's the reality. There's a difference between promoting regime change and illegally attacking a country. Not that I'd expect you to understand that but your denial doesn't make that difference go away. Not in the real world it doesn't. It seems that now that the huge ** up that Bush and his crooks ahave created is plain obvious, you Bushies don't want to stand up for that ####### no more. So you try to go around and spread the blame. Ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You really do have a convinent memory don't you?

Bush didn't lie. The country wanted hawks and the dems made noises like hawks.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want. You can deniy what the dems say all you want. You can lie to yourself all you want. It ain't working, though. Ain't working.

Bush did lie - according to GWB's closest ally, the British Government. They just ran out of excuses to cover it up.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

1) Bush clearly lied. That's long been established. About the Saddam / Al-Qaeda link, for example. About the effect that the Iraq war has on our national security. Do I need to continue?

2) No Dem ever favored, pushed, pursued or otherwise encouraged a misguided, ill-planned, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate adventure the kind of which Bush broke lose. That's the reality. There's a difference between promoting regime change and illegally attacking a country. Not that I'd expect you to understand that but your denial doesn't make that difference go away. Not in the real world it doesn't. It seems that now that the huge ** up that Bush and his crooks ahave created is plain obvious, you Bushies don't want to stand up for that ####### no more. So you try to go around and spread the blame. Ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You really do have a convinent memory don't you?

Bush didn't lie. The country wanted hawks and the dems made noises like hawks.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want. You can deniy what the dems say all you want. You can lie to yourself all you want. It ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You read up on what was the basis for Bush claiming that Saddam's regime provided explosives and biological weapons training to Al-Qaeda. Come back and tell me the source for Bush's claims on just this one. Then I debate you on whether I have a convenient memory or whether Bush lied to Congress, the nation and the world. Until then, you're just blabbering Rush's #######.

[garya505 2]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled. Pull your head out. You're the one who seems to be forgetting the "minor details" here. The U.N. drafted numerous resolutions demanding Sadam give up his weapons of mass destruction. Every member nation in the U.N. security council believed he had them or why would they keep drafting resolutions tellin him to give them up. Bill Clinton came out and said he had them. John Kerry came out and said he had them and he's a member of the senate intelligence committee.

Most likely the WMDs were moved to Syria long before we got there. Saddam had plenty of time to do that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled. Pull your head out. You're the one who seems to be forgetting the "minor details" here. The U.N. drafted numerous resolutions demanding Sadam give up his weapons of mass destruction. Every member nation in the U.N. security council believed he had them or why would they keep drafting resolutions tellin him to give them up. Bill Clinton came out and said he had them. John Kerry came out and said he had them and he's a member of the senate intelligence committee.

Most likely the WMDs were moved to Syria long before we got there. Saddam had plenty of time to do that.

Speculation and wishful thinking is a beautiful thing isn't it?

[GaryC 7]

You read up on what was the basis for Bush claiming that Saddam's regime provided explosives and biological weapons training to Al-Qaeda. Come back and tell me the source for Bush's claims on just this one. Then I debate you on whether I have a convenient memory or whether Bush lied to Congress, the nation and the world. Until then, you're just blabbering Rush's #######.

Wow! Your hatred for Bush goes right to the bone doesn't it? I am sure that you still think that Bush stole the election in 2000 and you have been begging for a way to get him ever since. Face it. You give Bush way to much credit and power. He didn't and couldn't decieve the entire world. Everyone thought he had WMD's because Sadam wanted everyone to think he had them. He hoped that if he made everyone think he had them Bush wouldn't come in and get him. But your blind hatred is simply amazing. Now go back and keep blabbering Soros #######.

[garya505 2]

So, to get back on the topic here, to those who didn't like my definitions of "winning" and "losing", what is your definition?

Or is all you can come up with is clever one-line shots at my definitions?

[dalegg 143]

Most likely the WMDs were moved to Syria long before we got there. Saddam had plenty of time to do that.

If that happened, that would have to be considered a complete failure also. This talk of the WMD moving to Syria surfaced almost immediately so it's a good guess our Military also thought of that before the invasion. It seems to me that WMD in the hands of a country we were actually monitoring would not be good, but it would be better than having them in the hands of someone we have no ties to, and who would be more likely to use them against one of our allies.

[Dean iWait 0]

I'm sorry for your recent head injury. I diidn't know about it until now.

Cheap insults is all you got? I thought you could do better. Go listen to Rush some more. Go now and listen!

It's awesome how you take people's words out of context. I thought you could do better. Makes for great left wing spin though so i understand why you stoop so low. You should surf on over to moveon.org or the daily kos. Surf now and read!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

1) Bush clearly lied. That's long been established. About the Saddam / Al-Qaeda link, for example. About the effect that the Iraq war has on our national security. Do I need to continue?

2) No Dem ever favored, pushed, pursued or otherwise encouraged a misguided, ill-planned, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate adventure the kind of which Bush broke lose. That's the reality. There's a difference between promoting regime change and illegally attacking a country. Not that I'd expect you to understand that but your denial doesn't make that difference go away. Not in the real world it doesn't. It seems that now that the huge ** up that Bush and his crooks ahave created is plain obvious, you Bushies don't want to stand up for that ####### no more. So you try to go around and spread the blame. Ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You really do have a convinent memory don't you?

Bush didn't lie. The country wanted hawks and the dems made noises like hawks.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want. You can deniy what the dems say all you want. You can lie to yourself all you want. It ain't working, though. Ain't working.

You read up on what was the basis for Bush claiming that Saddam's regime provided explosives and biological weapons training to Al-Qaeda. Come back and tell me the source for Bush's claims on just this one. Then I debate you on whether I have a convenient memory or whether Bush lied to Congress, the nation and the world. Until then, you're just blabbering Rush's #######.

Bush in Cincinnati on Oct 7, 2002 (interesting timing): "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

In February 2003 (days prior to the illegal attack), the President said, "Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

These claims were based on testimony obtained from Senior Al-Qaida operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in February of 2002. Interestingly, the Defense Intelligence Agency had this to say about the thug's statements back in February of 2002:

This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.

DIA Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee dated October 26, 2005

So, the President was given the above quoted assessment in February of 2002. And yet, 7-8 months later, after having been provided with this analysis, Bush keeps on claiming that which the intelligence community told him was not only unreliable but actually highly unlikely to be true.

Just so we are clear on what this means: The President chose to take the word of the enemy over the analysis and advice of the DIA. Why? Well, the former got him closer to the war he wanted, the latter would have been a partial blow to his fabricated case. Bottom line, he wasn't provided bad intelligence there (a claim he keeps on making), he was provided good intelligence and simply chose to ignore it.

It's intersting how some people still find that methodology acceptable and keep defending the undefendable - that George W Bush lied this country into an illegal, unneccessary and costly war and destabilized an entire world region in the process.

He knowingly sold as fact that which he knew to be unreliable at best. Then he pointed and continues to point the finger at the very intelligence community that gave him accurate information which he chose to ignore. How is that not lying?

I'm sorry for your recent head injury. I diidn't know about it until now.

Cheap insults is all you got? I thought you could do better. Go listen to Rush some more. Go now and listen!

It's awesome how you take people's words out of context. I thought you could do better. Makes for great left wing spin though so i understand why you stoop so low. You should surf on over to moveon.org or the daily kos. Surf now and read!

Context? What context? Can you point to the context you are referring to?

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, to get back on the topic here, to those who didn't like my definitions of "winning" and "losing", what is your definition?

Or is all you can come up with is clever one-line shots at my definitions?

Like I said - you broke it, you bought it. I'd rather we make the best of it - but the reality is that to do so will require the presence of US troops for many many years - if not decades. Rumsfeld either knowingly lied or exhibited gross incompetence when he suggested we'd be in and out of there within a couple of years. They under-estimated the sectarian tensions, they underestimated the strength and tenacity of the opposition; and they opened the door to the very people who we are supposed to be fighting. If Saddam Hussein didn't have links to Al Qaeda before, the remnants of his regime as well as various other affiliated groups certainly do now.

How can we win? At this point who knows?

Its a mess - of catastrophic proportions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You read up on what was the basis for Bush claiming that Saddam's regime provided explosives and biological weapons training to Al-Qaeda. Come back and tell me the source for Bush's claims on just this one. Then I debate you on whether I have a convenient memory or whether Bush lied to Congress, the nation and the world. Until then, you're just blabbering Rush's #######.

Wow! Your hatred for Bush goes right to the bone doesn't it? I am sure that you still think that Bush stole the election in 2000 and you have been begging for a way to get him ever since. Face it. You give Bush way to much credit and power. He didn't and couldn't decieve the entire world. Everyone thought he had WMD's because Sadam wanted everyone to think he had them. He hoped that if he made everyone think he had them Bush wouldn't come in and get him. But your blind hatred is simply amazing. Now go back and keep blabbering Soros #######.

Why do you avoid the question at hand? Scared of the truth?

Most likely the WMDs were moved to Syria long before we got there. Saddam had plenty of time to do that.

If that happened, that would have to be considered a complete failure also. This talk of the WMD moving to Syria surfaced almost immediately so it's a good guess our Military also thought of that before the invasion. It seems to me that WMD in the hands of a country we were actually monitoring would not be good, but it would be better than having them in the hands of someone we have no ties to, and who would be more likely to use them against one of our allies.

Yeah, really! I remember the satellite images of a couple of lonely trucks in the Iraqi desert. The supposed mobile weapons labs. But his entire arsenal of WMD's that he was ready to utilize against the US was moved to Syria and nobody noticed. Great theory indeed...

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004