Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:16:42 GMT -5
deo-
And the position of "War Czar" was brought to you by...the Iraq Surrender Group!
Not pointing the finger at you here deo, but I'm constantly amused that the supporters of the ISG report criticize Bush if he does implement some of their findings and criticize Bush if he doesn't implement some of their findings. Seems to me a true agenda is revealed....
1)Not every attack by Japan was Pearl Harbor; not every attack by Germany was Barbarossa.
OK...you got me on Italy. Maybe Ethiopia?
2) Agreed- contrived, planned and executed under the watchful eye of Osama Bin Laden.
Quagmire = 58000 killed in 10 years = Vietnam.
Quagmire = 3500 killed in 4 years = Iraq?
(Quagmire = 400,000 killed in 4 years = WW2)
Using the term "quagmire" in regards to Iraq renders the word meaningless.
While I'm sorely tempted to respond with any number of Hillary or Monica jokes here, I will refrain.
I'd say that he certainly thought he did- witness his reaction to "The Path To 9/11". He and his attack dobs cannot and will not brook any besmirching of his 'legacy'.
You follow the roaches wherever they go and dispose of them by one means or another.
Oil.
Yeah I know that the case is argued that oil has really nothing to do with it- not sure I buy into that or not- but the presence in Iraq and, indeed, the entire region of petroleum products means we have far more of a national security interest being in Iraq than we did in the other places I mentioned.
Setting that aside, there are plenty of justification for our involvement in Iraq, as ennumerated in the Joint Declaration.
Agreed, but it seems that Bush has abdicated at least some of his role in appointing a "war czar". Absurd.
And the position of "War Czar" was brought to you by...the Iraq Surrender Group!
Not pointing the finger at you here deo, but I'm constantly amused that the supporters of the ISG report criticize Bush if he does implement some of their findings and criticize Bush if he doesn't implement some of their findings. Seems to me a true agenda is revealed....
That we weren't suggests one of two things:
1. The terrorists blew their wad with one attack, thus revealing limited capabilities.
2. The attack may have been contrived.
1. The terrorists blew their wad with one attack, thus revealing limited capabilities.
2. The attack may have been contrived.
1)Not every attack by Japan was Pearl Harbor; not every attack by Germany was Barbarossa.
OK...you got me on Italy. Maybe Ethiopia?
2) Agreed- contrived, planned and executed under the watchful eye of Osama Bin Laden.
I am far to busy comdemning Bush for getting us involved in a quagmire in Iraq. And, again, as for the borders..................
Quagmire = 58000 killed in 10 years = Vietnam.
Quagmire = 3500 killed in 4 years = Iraq?
(Quagmire = 400,000 killed in 4 years = WW2)
Using the term "quagmire" in regards to Iraq renders the word meaningless.
Did he ever really have the ball?
While I'm sorely tempted to respond with any number of Hillary or Monica jokes here, I will refrain.
I'd say that he certainly thought he did- witness his reaction to "The Path To 9/11". He and his attack dobs cannot and will not brook any besmirching of his 'legacy'.
We didn't need to go into Iraq in any event.
You follow the roaches wherever they go and dispose of them by one means or another.
Those places held just as much in the way of national interest as Iraq. ZERO.
Oil.
Yeah I know that the case is argued that oil has really nothing to do with it- not sure I buy into that or not- but the presence in Iraq and, indeed, the entire region of petroleum products means we have far more of a national security interest being in Iraq than we did in the other places I mentioned.
Setting that aside, there are plenty of justification for our involvement in Iraq, as ennumerated in the Joint Declaration.