Re: OT -- markksgggsh

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

"Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are there.
Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial' armies. If the
Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict. Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media driven)
climate is so negative.

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make the
WMDs disappear, too?

Quoted message said:

Afraid we're just going "less small" and it won't
be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

"Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are there.
Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial' armies. If the
Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict. Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media driven)
climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less small" and it won't
be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics meant
lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid of the
militias is felt..means less Americans get blown up also. I'll bet
commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be given a
free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what the
military is trained to do, afterall.

BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

"Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
small" and it won't be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

Quoted message said:

...means less Americans get blown up also. I'll
bet commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be
given a free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what
the military is trained to do, afterall.

Agree. I've heard some talk about revised rules of engagement but not sure
what that means.

Quoted message said:

BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Interesting opinion. (How dare you be/sound reasonable?)

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:28:56 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict.

It's not clear that withdrawing will cause more carnage than is going
to happen anyway. Why do you think it will? Though I will take
whatever response you give with a big grain of salt, since as a
supporter of the war you have demonstrated poorer judgement than a lot
of people, including me.

Quoted message said:

Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Yes, but what are possible new tactics? Adding 21,000 troops is not a
change in tactics -- it's not enough to make a difference. Adding
100,000 might be but I don't think that's possible.

Trying to engage Syria and Iran in a constuctive way is a change of
tactics. Bush won't go for that despite the ISG recccomendations.
Threatening Syria and Iran or even attacking them is sort of a change
of tactics -- for the worse.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:50:33 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
> then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
small" and it won't be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

Which is baloney.

Beyond that, do you think that with more media support (more than the
astonishingly uncritical views of the mainstream media in the run-up
to the war, with major columnists from key papers supporting the war,
editorial pages of papers like the Washington Post supporting the war,
etc) the reality on the ground would change. Or the US would be able
to field more troops than it currently can?

Beyond being an idiot in general, not recognizing that this debale is
100% of the fault of GWB and the Republican Leaership removes any
credibility you might have had.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
> then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
small" and it won't be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

What a pile of [censored]!

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:28:56 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict.

It's not clear that withdrawing will cause more carnage than is going
to happen anyway. Why do you think it will? Though I will take
whatever response you give with a big grain of salt, since as a
supporter of the war you have demonstrated poorer judgement than a lot
of people, including me.

Quoted message said:

Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Yes, but what are possible new tactics? Adding 21,000 troops is not a
change in tactics -- it's not enough to make a difference. Adding
100,000 might be but I don't think that's possible.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13483/1/TDS-Surge-Speech.wmv/
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:28:56 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Yes, but what are possible new tactics? Adding 21,000 troops is not a
change in tactics -- it's not enough to make a difference. Adding
100,000 might be but I don't think that's possible.

Trying to engage Syria and Iran in a constuctive way is a change of
tactics. Bush won't go for that despite the ISG recccomendations.
Threatening Syria and Iran or even attacking them is sort of a change
of tactics -- for the worse.

As someone mentioned, it's hard to see that US would have any other
choice than to stick close to the oil supply. You're spending big money
to build new military bases in Caucasus and Central Asia, fighting for
control over oil with the Russians. Giving up control over an
oil-producing country in mid-East is not an option for a society as
hooked on oil as you are. As long as the burials are handled quietly, I
suspect Joe average doesn't cast a doubt while turning his SUV to the
pump. Changing the infrastructure to support public transport isn't
feasible even in medium-term, since the current inflated housing prices
would have to plummet in almost every suburb and small town where you
cannot live without a car.

I'm sorry, you're in it for the very long term.

Jan

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

"Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are there.
Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial' armies. If the
Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict. Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media driven)
climate is so negative.

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make the
WMDs disappear, too?

No, but they haven't exactly put what was found on the front page either.

Like where, exactly, do you suppose Zawahiri's gang in Jordan got the tons of
chemical weapons they placed in Amman.

Ron

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
> then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
small" and it won't be enough.

I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.

Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

Quoted message said:

...means less Americans get blown up also. I'll
bet commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be
given a free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what
the military is trained to do, afterall.

Agree. I've heard some talk about revised rules of engagement but not sure
what that means.

Quoted message said:

BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Interesting opinion. (How dare you be/sound reasonable?)

Product of Vietnam and done lots of reading about it. Plus 20 years in
the USN didn't hurt, to see the real motivations behind the early
years, post WWII years. How the USSR's actions in Europe, helped lead
to Korea, and helped to form Eisenhower's and Kennedy's perception of
the 'world'. Vietnam was a mistake, but any president, faced with the
same situation, same history, would have gone down a similar path.

RonSonic said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are there.
> Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial' armies. If the
> Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict. Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media driven)
climate is so negative.

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make the
WMDs disappear, too?

No, but they haven't exactly put what was found on the front page either.

The major players in US media, such as the NYTimes, Washington post
and major networks had major stories on the exisitance of WMDs in
Iraq, supporting the US government contention. Until those
contentions were proven wrong. They played along and gave the US
government the benefit of the doubt. Now they're being neutral.

Quoted message said:

Like where, exactly, do you suppose Zawahiri's gang in Jordan got the tons of
chemical weapons they placed in Amman.

Yeah, and oddly somehow the details of that were censored out of the
presidents address the other night. Even my ISP cut that out of the
text at whitehouse.gov. The media sure is powerful.

Long-time war supporters like you have zero credibility right now. So
bleat about the media all you want - the reality is you've been wrong
and by passing the buck to media or criticizing people who criticized
the war earlier, you're demonstrating you still don't take
responsibility for your mistakes.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

RonSonic said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are there.
> Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial' armies. If the
> Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which will cause
immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to even longer-lasting
conflict. Continue as is, which is not working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media driven)
climate is so negative.

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make the
WMDs disappear, too?

No, but they haven't exactly put what was found on the front page either.

Let's be clear here: nothing was *ever* found that came even remotely
close to the WMD scenario painted by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and,
sad to say, Powell. Bushco has pretty much tacitly admitted as much by
changing the rationale for the illegal invasion of Iraq from "disarming
Saddam, whose WMDs present a clear and present danger to the US" to
"promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East".

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
>> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
>> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
>> then leave.
>
> Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
> will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
> even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
> Or change tactics.
>
> Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
> driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
> small" and it won't be enough.
>
> I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.
>
> Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

Quoted message said:

...means less Americans get blown up also. I'll
bet commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be
given a free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what
the military is trained to do, afterall.

Agree. I've heard some talk about revised rules of engagement but not sure
what that means.

Quoted message said:

BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Interesting opinion. (How dare you be/sound reasonable?)

Product of Vietnam and done lots of reading about it. Plus 20 years in
the USN didn't hurt, to see the real motivations behind the early
years, post WWII years. How the USSR's actions in Europe, helped lead
to Korea, and helped to form Eisenhower's and Kennedy's perception of
the 'world'. Vietnam was a mistake, but any president, faced with the
same situation, same history, would have gone down a similar path.

Right. Like the first Bush got us all bogged down in Iraq.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
>> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
>> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
>> then leave.
>
> Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
> will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
> even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
> Or change tactics.
>
> Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
> driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
> small" and it won't be enough.
>
> I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.
>
> Bill S.

Quoted message said:

What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

Quoted message said:

I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

Quoted message said:

...means less Americans get blown up also. I'll
bet commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be
given a free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what
the military is trained to do, afterall.

Agree. I've heard some talk about revised rules of engagement but not sure
what that means.

Quoted message said:

BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Interesting opinion. (How dare you be/sound reasonable?)

Product of Vietnam and done lots of reading about it. Plus 20 years in
the USN didn't hurt, to see the real motivations behind the early
years, post WWII years. How the USSR's actions in Europe, helped lead
to Korea, and helped to form Eisenhower's and Kennedy's perception of
the 'world'. Vietnam was a mistake, but any president, faced with the
same situation, same history, would have gone down a similar path.

Actually, speaking of Vietnam, why did Bush deploy a carrier group with
Patriot air defense system to the Persian Gulf? I fail to see how
pertinent the Patriot air defense system is going to pacify Baghdad or
al-Anbar. And why did the US attack Iranian soil (consulates) in Iraq?
Smells like Gulf of Tonkin.

damyth said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
>>> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
>>> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's bunch,
>>> then leave.
>>
>> Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
>> will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
>> even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not working.
>> Or change tactics.
>>
>> Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
>> driven) climate is so negative. Afraid we're just going "less
>> small" and it won't be enough.
>>
>> I'm betting that Doughbrain won't call you crude names, at least.
>>
>> Bill S.

> What makes me angry, tactically, is that the Iraqi gov't dictates
> targets and tactics, at the objection of the military commanders. Al
> Sadr oughtt to be told, disarm or the bounty will be on you.

Agree.

> I think even the media would report 'happy, happy' if the tactics
> meant lots of violence, then not much as the results of getting rid
> of the militias is felt..

Disagree. The media is fully invested in the US defeat/failure template.

> ...means less Americans get blown up also. I'll
> bet commanders on the ground have adequate forces but need to be
> given a free hand to be able to 'kill people and break things', what
> the military is trained to do, afterall.

Agree. I've heard some talk about revised rules of engagement but not sure
what that means.

> BUT obvious mistake to go there in the first place but 'oldnews'..like
> escalating in Vietnam,. ANY President, faced with the same
> circumstances, probably would have done the something similar.

Interesting opinion. (How dare you be/sound reasonable?)

Product of Vietnam and done lots of reading about it. Plus 20 years in
the USN didn't hurt, to see the real motivations behind the early
years, post WWII years. How the USSR's actions in Europe, helped lead
to Korea, and helped to form Eisenhower's and Kennedy's perception of
the 'world'. Vietnam was a mistake, but any president, faced with the
same situation, same history, would have gone down a similar path.

Actually, speaking of Vietnam, why did Bush deploy a carrier group with
Patriot air defense system to the Persian Gulf?

IMO, it's an attempt to intimidate Iran and to comfort the state of
Israel.

Quoted message said:

I fail to see how
pertinent the Patriot air defense system is going to pacify Baghdad or
al-Anbar.

Right, it has *nothing* to do with Iraq.

Quoted message said:

And why did the US attack Iranian soil (consulates) in Iraq?
Smells like Gulf of Tonkin.

Are you saying we are trying to provoke the Iranians? I'm shocked,
shocked!!

RonSonic said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's
> bunch, then leave.

Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not
working. Or change tactics.

Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
driven) climate is so negative.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make
the WMDs disappear, too?

Quoted message said:

No, but they haven't exactly put what was found on the front page
either.

Plonked Ozark due to his abusiveness, but as usual he missed the point of
what was written. (I think he and JFT are long-separated brothers! LOL )

Hint: I was talking about what Bush can do NOW.

But your point is valid, too. The media has not reported what was found,
what is happening, and what is likely (sure) to happen. (Hell, they made it
sound like Saddam's execution was off-ing Mother Theresa.)

Quoted message said:

Like where, exactly, do you suppose Zawahiri's gang in Jordan got the
tons of chemical weapons they placed in Amman.

They don't care about minor details like that.

Bill Sornson said:

RonSonic said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> "Go big or go home". Look, not a fan of Bush or Iraq but we are
>> there. Disband, defeat, kill the Sunni and [censored] 'unofficial'
>> armies. If the Iraq gov't whines, like it has with Al Sadr's
>> bunch, then leave.
>
> Yup. Seems to me there were three options now. Withdraw, which
> will cause immediate chaos and carnage and casualties and lead to
> even longer-lasting conflict. Continue as is, which is not
> working. Or change tactics.
>
> Trouble with your "go big" thing is the current political (media
> driven) climate is so negative.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh yeah, "the media" made W's Iraq policy a failure. Did they make
the WMDs disappear, too?

Quoted message said:

No, but they haven't exactly put what was found on the front page
either.

Plonked Ozark due to his abusiveness, but as usual he missed the point of
what was written. (I think he and JFT are long-separated brothers! LOL )

Can't resist the insults, can ya, putz?

Quoted message said:

Hint: I was talking about what Bush can do NOW.

But your point is valid, too. The media has not reported what was found,

And if the kind of WMDs that Bushco was talking about *were* ever
found, Bushco would have plastered the evidence everywhere (Bully
Pulpit and all that). But they just slinked away and changed the
subject? Ever wonder why?

Quoted message said:

what is happening, and what is likely (sure) to happen. (Hell, they made it
sound like Saddam's execution was off-ing Mother Theresa.)

Saddam was an SOB (but no worse than our pal in Pakistan, who gave the
North Koreans the tech to make nukes), but he should have been tried in
the world court. Not in an Iraqi kangaroo court. All we managed to do
was to make the SOB a martyr/hero in some circles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like where, exactly, do you suppose Zawahiri's gang in Jordan got the
tons of chemical weapons they placed in Amman.

They don't care about minor details like that.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

The major players in US media, such as the NYTimes, Washington post
and major networks had major stories on the exisitance of WMDs in
Iraq, supporting the US government contention. Until those
contentions were proven wrong. They played along and gave the US
government the benefit of the doubt. Now they're being neutral.

As a very far right conservative, I was against the war from the get go.
My confusion is what most people skip over - this WMD business. Back in
Bush 41 times, the WMD feared was the SCUD missile which could hit
Israel. To me, that was a problem for the Israelites and not me yet even
the far left press like the NYT seemed to go along that if such weapons
existed, then war was justified. Why?

You guys who are now really more anti-Bush than anything else, jump on
he, Rice, Rummy, Powell for having 'lied' about the WMD business. If all
sorts of caches of something WERE found, would you be happy about the
war? If not, then shut up about Bush lying because it's a moot point if
he did know or if he was fooled by crappy intel.

This Iraq business is already worse than Vietnam simply because it's
made us, the only superpower left, adrift in a world equally gone
adrift. Whatever was left of the US's moral superiority, either
externally or internally perceived, is now lost.

-paul

Paul Cassel said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

The major players in US media, such as the NYTimes, Washington post
and major networks had major stories on the exisitance of WMDs in
Iraq, supporting the US government contention. Until those
contentions were proven wrong. They played along and gave the US
government the benefit of the doubt. Now they're being neutral.

As a very far right conservative, I was against the war from the get go.
My confusion is what most people skip over - this WMD business. Back in
Bush 41 times, the WMD feared was the SCUD missile which could hit
Israel. To me, that was a problem for the Israelites and not me yet even
the far left press like the NYT seemed to go along that if such weapons
existed, then war was justified. Why?

You are forgetting the initial excuse for Gulf War I :Saddam's invasion
of Kuwait. (Now is a good time to Google "April Glaspie" to learn how
devious the US can be).

Quoted message said:

You guys who are now really more anti-Bush than anything else, jump on
he, Rice, Rummy, Powell for having 'lied' about the WMD business. If all
sorts of caches of something WERE found, would you be happy about the
war?

Not "happy", but at least there would have been at least some
justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and the
"Coalition of the Coerced".

Of course, the post-invasion screwups and bungling would still have
left a mess.

Quoted message said:

If not, then shut up about Bush lying because it's a moot point if
he did know or if he was fooled by crappy intel.

"The buck stops here." - Harry S. Truman

Quoted message said:

This Iraq business is already worse than Vietnam simply because it's
made us, the only superpower left, adrift in a world equally gone
adrift. Whatever was left of the US's moral superiority, either
externally or internally perceived, is now lost.

And that's the fault of the liberal media and the left wingers????

Quoted message said:

-paul