… because “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” is all part of the master plan over there in Iraq.
And doesn’t “have enough troops” over in Iraq as an alternative to all that indiscriminate slaughter kind of sound like support of the Surge plan which was in full swing at the time he said this back in August of ‘07?
For the Surge before he was against it... or do we have it backwards? Like it matters with this guy.
H/T: Hot Air
Monday, October 6, 2008
A very Kerry moment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Why is this so hard for the Neo-Cons to master? The rest of America already has command of these facts:
1) There was no reason to have a war in Iraq in the first place.
2) Afghanistan was a justifiable war.
3) The war in Iraq took much-needed resources from the effort in Afghanistan.
4) Lack of focus in the Afghan and Pakistan northwest frontier tribal region has allowed Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations to push back into Afghanistan, make significant inroads into the greater portion of Pakistan, allowed them to attack interests in Europ and Africa, and even start up training camps in South America. In short, they are proliferating.
Obama is making sense. More troops on the ground and the resources to go with them gives Afghanistan the breathing space to become peaceful and prosper. Both our own military and the Afghan government have acknowledged that Afghan civilians have taken unnecessary casualties from the air -- casualties that most likely would have been avoided if more face-to-face connections via greater troop presence.
But through the simpleton filter of neo-conservatism, even such basic nuances are invariably dismissed and a "We can take care of this whole business by dropping an A-bomb" mentality become frighteningly prevalent.
- Shank Piston Palin Eyeing His Namesake on the Ballot and His Neighbor's Fallout Shelter Across the Street
Mongo,
My bad. In my haste to post I neglected to notice Suit was talking about Afghanistan.
Gaffetastic! I've successfully demonstrated I've got the chops to be Suit's running mate.
What, then, shall be my punishment? I throw myself upon the mercy of the commenters.
I would take issue with Mr. Lloyd's 1) reason. There was plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq. WMD? Had 'em. (I'm sure Mr. Lloyd would forget about the Kurds)
Broke terms of surrender? So why do we have terms of surrender if we are never going to enforce them?
The hideous treatment by Sadam of his own people? I bet Mr. Lloyd supported the Bosnian intervention.
Neo-Libs, always choosing to get a command of the facts by starting off with a mistruth.
'Dawg
Mr. Lloyd, be sure to come back with something un-witty and sarcastic. I'm sure you won't disapoint.
No. No. Nothing to joke about when it comes to war.
The complete opposite. I'm deadly serious.
You can sit there and try to pretend that the infamous "may come in the form of a mushroom cloud" soundbite really meant that what we were worried about was nerve agent. But if that's the WMD's Dubya was talking about, then of course we must invade the Smiths of 123 Main Street, Anytown USA. Why? Because you can pretty much get that deadly potent combination from any number of household products.
Now if it were the poor Kurdish citizens of Iraq that we were worried about, why didn't we go right out of the gate to help them in 1991? Hell, where are the military invasions and occupations for any of two dozen other countries where the crimes against their own citizens are just as, if not moreso, insidious as they were in Iraq? Care to draw up occupation plans for Darfur?
Why, then, Iraq? Well most likely because a certain VP and his friends had a lot to gain financially by letting this seven year gravy train called Operation Iraqi Freedom roll through a country that had that certain financial cherry: oil.
But back to your initial thought: If you can't admit the truth that there was no WMD threat in the spirit of how Pres. Bush presented it to the American people, then there really is not much hope for you to contribute effectively to a solution to the problem created by the Bush regime.
And that is substantially the reason why you'll find Obama residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in about four months.
- Shank HUSSEIN! Piston Palin
Mongo,
Hussein was indeed putting feelers out there for enriched uranium... while he may not have actually purchased any from Niger, no one has been able to effectively refute the intelligence that he was "window shopping".
And with Achmenijad next door to him, for how much longer do you think he would allow his dormant WMD program to exist in that state... if, indeed, it was dormant.
An arms race between Saddam and Mahmoud? Now there's something we can all get behind.
I've been consistent from Day 1 in my line of reasoning of "why wait?" for Saddam to get his hands on the bomb/WMD.
Now we are dealing with just one loon in the Middle East instead of two.
I believe this will be my last comment on this topic as the thread was supposed to be about me and my punishment. Me, Dammit! Me!
Mongo,
Although I disagree, its good to see you be serious, instead of unwitty sarcastic. Your meaning and state of your mind directing your comments are better defined. But do you think your comments get serious attention whey you amend them with "the simpleton filter of neo-conservatism"? Dont you hate it when Rush Limbaugh does it to the left? It diminishes serious discussion.
Bush (GWH) was damned if he went in and exceeded the UN authority and damned now by the likes of you for not doing it. I happen to agree with you, he should have finished the job, or it should have been done at the first moment of uncompliance.
C'mon to compare local yucks with the unbridled attempts of Sadam with Iraq's national resources. Please, find an error in my spelling or something more relivint.
I have seen documentation of the likes of Howard Dean advocating the invasion of Iraq during the Clinton admin. Albright 1998, Clinton remarks to the Joint Chiefs, Feb 1998, H. Dean "international outlaw" "He will rebuild" Sandy Berger,
Pelosi, "certainly has chem and bio" 2002 Rockefeller, "Unmistakeable evidence of nuke,bio" remarks on the floor Oct 10th 2002.
ect,,ect,,ect.
That being said, it takes a lot of wind out of your sails when you make the point we should be aware of profits made by contractors. Profits by contractors should be scoured for impropriety.
But how can we take you seriously when the #1 argument is not supported by your own?
I think our efforts SHOULD have been payed for. But the rant of blood for oil precludes holding the new government accountable. I would like to see this change.
Wishing I could do the link with a "here"
'Dawg
At Ease. Dean, this is about Me n Mr Lloyd. I still have to deal with his intelligent answer on the secessionist comment in your archives.
It's OK, 'Dawg. It's my fault for throwing jokes out there that are geared to my fellow "elites". I'll find some comedy more to your grade level. Try this one on:
What building has the most stories?
A library!
Oh, wait a sec. A library? See, 'Dawg, a library is this building with books. Books are... oh, never mind. If I have to explain it, then it probably wasn't that funny to begin with.
- Shank Piston Palin Plays The Laugh Factory Tuesday Nights
BwDean, You are absolved for not hearing the topic at hand in Barack's remarks, as I know how loud it can be 'round the ol' shipyard.
- Shank Piston Palin Remembering His NASSCO Hardhat Fondly... And The By-The-Book Roach Coach Vendor Lady Not So Fondly
Post a Comment