"Some men see things as they are and ask why...

[fastfish 0]

As the ever predictable mainstream media declares defeat and failure for American foreign policy in shrill headlines of rank partisanship, the war we are fighting is clearly being won. While the process and the progress is not instant coffee, Iraq now has an elected, constitutional government in place that has pledged itself to national unity. This is a major victory unto itself when we consider the massive effort the enemy has undertaken to stop this achievement.

 

In Iran, their drive for a nuclear weapon is being challenged by the whole world as the U.S. again provides the needed leadership. The radical Islamists in Iraq and Iran's Ayatollahs share a 12th century vision of the world they want imposed on the entire Middle East. A world based on their religion, interpreted by them, for their benefit and to the exclusion of all non-Muslims. But there is another future that can be achieved. A new Mid-East based on tolerance and respect for all faiths, living in peace. That is the vision of our President. The jihadists and the Ayatollahs hate President Bush for even speaking of this kind of Mid-East future. And in a baffling fit of incongruity, American liberals hate him for it too.

 

To explain his views on fighting for a brave, new Mid-East, George W. Bush easily could use the words liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy liked to use to explain his views on America's social changes in 1968: "Some men see things as they are and ask why...I dream things that have never been and ask why not?"

[Siouxsie 1]

are you making fun of dubya ? LOL

[MDC 7,678]

Uh considering Bush was wrong about WMD, the strength of the insurgency, the length of the conflict, the cost, ideal troop strength, and just about everything else in the war in Iraq, I have a hard time picturing him as some kind of high minded visionary.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I dream of Jeannie.

[fastfish 0]

Uh considering Bush was wrong about WMD, the strength of the insurgency, the length of the conflict, the cost, ideal troop strength, and just about everything else in the war in Iraq, I have a hard time picturing him as some kind of high minded visionary.

 

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) left millions dead and ended in a stalemate. US forces ended the reign of terror known as Saddam in 17 DAYS.

 

But because the rebuilding of a dysfuntional nation after 35 years of despotism takes longer than armchair know-nothings think and because some who do know better have a political ax to grind for reasons all their own...Bush is villified in the media.... and lib lemmings repeat the mantra of so-called failure daily, making stupidity a contagious disease.

 

Mistakes in war are the norm...study the disasters of WWII (Iwo-Jima to name just one, Tarawa to name another) and you'll find that military planning is just that..a plan. Once the fighting starts, all sorts of unknown hell breaks loose. That is when you adapt and overcome....not quit and point fingers.

[hoytdwow 202]

Mistakes in my posts about war are the norm...

[fastfish 0]

 

hoydeboy making my case about a know-nothing lib lemming with each post

[MDC 7,678]

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) left millions dead and ended in a stalemate. US forces ended the reign of terror known as Saddam in 17 DAYS.

 

But because the rebuilding of a dysfuntional nation after 35 years of despotism takes longer than armchair know-nothings think and because some who do know better have a political ax to grind for reasons all their own...Bush is villified in the media.... and lib lemmings repeat the mantra of so-called failure daily, making stupidity a contagious disease.

 

Mistakes in war are the norm...study the disasters of WWII (Iwo-Jima to name just one, Tarawa to name another) and you'll find that military planning is just that..a plan. Once the fighting starts, all sorts of unknown hell breaks loose. That is when you adapt and overcome....not quit and point fingers.

 

I'm not ready to quit. I just think it's funny to portray Bush as some kind of visionary, when we now know exactly how wrong about Iraq he's been from the start. If Bush knew that the conflict in Iraq would turn out this way, he wouldn't have been making predictions about a $50B six-month war and dressing up in his Air Force costume to declare the "Mission Accomplished."

[hoytdwow 202]

"Some men see things as they are and ask why..., I hire speech writers to come up with empty platitudes that have never been and ask why not?"

[fastfish 0]

I'm not ready to quit. I just think it's funny to portray Bush as some kind of visionary, when we now know exactly how wrong about Iraq he's been from the start. If Bush knew that the conflict in Iraq would turn out this way, he wouldn't have been making predictions about a $50B six-month war and dressing up in his Air Force costume to declare the "Mission Accomplished."

 

libs think only they can be visionaries....another example of the moral superiority complex that blue state folks love to pretend........ and red state folks love to vote against each and every election year

[phillybear 366]

Do chickens have large talons?

[fastfish 0]

"Some men see things as they are and ask why..., I hire speech writers to come up with empty platitudes that have never been and ask why not?"

 

 

Some men see things as they are and say 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say 'why not?' -

 

George Bernard Shaw

 

(quit playin' on the computer and go back to class hoydeboy...you really do know very little)

[MDC 7,678]

libs think only they can be visionaries....another example of the moral superiority complex that blue state folks love to pretend........ and red state folks love to vote against each and every election year

 

It's not that I think Republicans are incapable of being visionaries. It's that the Bush administration has so completely botched the war in Iraq in nearly every way -- from prewar intelligence right through the military execution and post-war planning. These guys ignored their own advisors when it came to troop levels, the length/cost of the war, the threat of WMD, the strength of the insurgency, etc. and now I'm supposed to believe that there's some kind of secret grand plan?

 

I'm sure Bush did think that Iraq would welcome us with rose petals and open arms, and that the rest of the middle east would see how wonderful democratic freedom is and convert one by one to a more civilized way of life. In fact, that's exactly the line of pillowtalk that Chalabi gave the White House before the war. It's not that I doubt Bush's vision. It's that even if his vision were realistic, Bush lacks the skill to carry it out.

[footballpowers 0]

Fartfish Fartfish he's our girl

if can't do it RP will give it a whirl

 

RP, RP he's our man,

if he can't do it gocolts can

 

gocolts, gocolts he's our leader,

he's the one the sucks our peter

 

 

 

goooo idiots

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

And sadly, another cheerleader post for Bush backfires.

[mighty_thor 115]

"I served with Robert Kennedy, I knew Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was a friend of mine. Dubya, You are No Robert Kennedy."

 

ETA- Kennedy was actually quoting George Bernard Shaw who was the originator of the line.

[fastfish 0]

It's not that I think Republicans are incapable of being visionaries. It's that the Bush administration has so completely botched the war in Iraq in nearly every way -- from prewar intelligence right through the military execution and post-war planning. These guys ignored their own advisors when it came to troop levels, the length/cost of the war, the threat of WMD, the strength of the insurgency, etc. and now I'm supposed to believe that there's some kind of secret grand plan?

 

I'm sure Bush did think that Iraq would welcome us with rose petals and open arms, and that the rest of the middle east would see how wonderful democratic freedom is and convert one by one to a more civilized way of life. In fact, that's exactly the line of pillowtalk that Chalabi gave the White House before the war. It's not that I doubt Bush's vision. It's that even if his vision were realistic, Bush lacks the skill to carry it out.

 

 

Botched in every way? Then why is Iraq now a sovereign nation with an elected constitutional government?

 

You can't help repeating what is not true can you? (Mass Media programing is strong with this one)

[MDC 7,678]

Botched in every way? Then why is Iraq now a sovereign nation with an elected constitutional government?

 

You can't help repeating what is not true can you? (Mass Media programing is strong with this one)

 

The primary goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD and the White House estimated that the war would take about six months at a cost of roughly $50 billion. Based on that track record I'd say Bush has all the vision of Mr. Magoo.

[footballpowers 0]

The primary goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD and the White House estimated that the war would take about six months at a cost of roughly $50 billion. Based on that track record I'd say Bush has all the vision of Mr. Magoo.

 

 

Hey, what do you have against Mr. Magoo???

[hoytdwow 202]

Some men see things as they are and say 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say 'why not?' -

 

George Bernard Shaw

 

(quit playin' on the computer and go back to class hoydeboy...you really do know very little)

 

George Bernard Shaw was a Socialist.

[fastfish 0]

The primary goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD and the White House estimated that the war would take about six months at a cost of roughly $50 billion. Based on that track record I'd say Bush has all the vision of Mr. Magoo.

 

There was no such estimate..no time frame was ever put on the mission and neither was a dollar amount.

 

good grief...try to think beyond a CNN false report will ya?

[Evil number 0]

Comparing Bush to RFK is hilarious. They are complete opposites. Bush stands for big business. Kennedy stood for the working poor. Bush is an anti-intellectual..it sometimes looks like he actually works on perpetuating that image. RFK was an intellectual who loved to quote Tennyson, Shakespeare, etc., Kennedy traveled through the poorest parts of the country talking to the most poverty stricken people in the country and stating how America must help these people. Bush ignored pleas from Hurricane Katrina victims and stated how FEMA director Brown is doing a great job. Bush started an unjustified war in Iraq. Kennedy ran for president promising to end the Vietnam war.

[MDC 7,678]

There was no such estimate..no time frame was ever put on the mission and neither was a dollar amount.

 

good grief...try to think beyond a CNN false report will ya?

 

Lawrence B. Lindsay was director of the National Economic Council (2001-2002), referred to informally as White House Economic Adviser. He played a leading role in formulating President George W. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut plan. Later he was involved in a dispute about the projected cost of the Iraq war and was subsequently fired by President Bush. He left on the same day as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, December 6, 2002.

 

On September 15, 2002 in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion. This lower figure was endorsed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

As of December 2005 the cost to the U.S. taxpayer exceeds $220 billion and continues to climb.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lindsay

 

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

 

March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

[SUXBNME 1,586]

Some men see things as they are and say 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say 'why not?' -

 

George Bernard Shaw

 

(quit playin' on the computer and go back to class hoydeboy...you really do know very little)

 

 

 

[Snuff 10]

How do you Bush haters feel about Bush stating yesterday that there were mistakes made in the war? I used to see the likes of you people stating things such as "if Bush would only admit blah blah blah....".

Well, he has, and naturally, nothing is heard from you. Typical......

[MDC 7,678]

How do you Bush haters feel about Bush stating yesterday that there were mistakes made in the war?

 

I feel like it'd mean more if Bush held himself or anyone in the admin responsible for those mistakes, like for example Rumsfeld, or if Bush had admit those mistakes before his poll numbers were in the sh1tter and he had no choice. The last few years, the only people on earth who didn't know Bush made mistakes in the war were in the White House. So congratulations for finally catching on.

[Snuff 10]

I feel like it'd mean more if Bush held himself or anyone in the admin responsible for those mistakes, like for example Rumsfeld, or if Bush had admit those mistakes before his poll numbers were in the sh1tter and he had no choice. The last few years, the only people on earth who didn't know Bush made mistakes in the war were in the White House. So congratulations for finally catching on.

 

Of course.....

[MDC 7,678]

Of course.....

 

Notice how the reply is about me and my motives, and doesn't speak to the substance of what I said at all. This is the ONLY card that Bush followers have to play anymore.

[hoytdwow 202]

How do you Bush haters feel about Bush stating yesterday that there were mistakes made in the war? I used to see the likes of you people stating things such as "if Bush would only admit blah blah blah....".

Well, he has, and naturally, nothing is heard from you. Typical......

I think it's great that he admitted mistakes. Now if he'd just quit making them.

[Snuff 10]

Notice how the reply is about me and my motives, and doesn't speak to the substance of what I said at all. This is the ONLY card that Bush followers have to play anymore.

 

And the only card you play is stating the same exact thing each and every day about your feelings for Bush. Hey, guess what? We get it. You don't like him. We got it after the first 10 times. Neato.

[fastfish 0]

MDC..you poor MSM robot...finding some quotes answering a question about how long to take down Saddam (it was 17 DAYS) and trying to pawn that off as Bush saying we'd be in Iraq 6 months tops and spend $50b tops is a load of BS and you know it (or do you? )

 

Lawrence B. Lindsay, director of the National Economic Council (2001-2002) was and is a nobody in this debate...his guess at costs never spoke for Bush.

 

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

 

March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

 

again...both men referring to taking down Saddam...and both right. It did go quickly and we were greeted as liberators as people spit on Saddam posters and tore down his statues...and Saddam's forces did step aside as Cheney said they would.

 

What you are trying so desperately to prove is that the subsequent insurgency was Bush's fault...and many things might have been done differently AFTER the surprise of owning Iraq in 17 DAYS....but the case can also be made that the insurgency was inevitable as Al-Queda moved it's resources into play and the Saddam loyalists recovered themselves and saw they were OUT of power.

 

there was no "official" estimate of time or costs of occupying Iraq...not ever...no politician would dare make such predictions. But of course, in your mind, Bush did. And "your mind" has been invaded by mass media. See a doctor and maybe there is a cure for your "extreme brainwash syndrome"

[MDC 7,678]

And the only card you play is stating the same exact thing each and every day about your feelings for Bush. Hey, guess what? We get it. You don't like him. We got it after the first 10 times. Neato.

 

You know what? I'm going to keep posting whatever the hell I want, and if it pisses you off that's just an added benefit. You're always welcome to ignore me. It's not like I ever say anything to you unless it's a reply.

[Snuff 10]

You know what? I'm going to keep posting whatever the hell I want, and if it pisses you off that's just an added benefit. You're always welcome to ignore me. It's not like I ever say anything to you unless it's a reply.

 

LOL, you're too much.

Good Lord....

[MDC 7,678]

MDC..you poor MSM robot...finding some quotes answering a question about how long to take down Saddam (it was 17 DAYS) and trying to pawn that off as Bush saying we'd be in Iraq 6 months tops and spend $50b tops is a load of BS and you know it (or do you? )

 

Lawrence B. Lindsay, director of the National Economic Council (2001-2002) was and is a nobody in this debate...his guess at costs never spoke for Bush.

 

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

 

March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

 

again...both men referring to taking down Saddam...and both right. It did go quiclky and we were greeted as liberators as people spit on Saddam posters and tore down his statues...and Saddam's forces did step aside as Cheney said they would.

 

What you are trying so desperately to prove is that the subsequent insurgency was Bush's fault...and many things might have been done differently AFTER the surprise of owning Iraq in 17 DAYS....but the case can also be made that the insurgency was inevitable as Al-Queda moved it's resources into play and the Saddam loyalists recovered themselves and saw they were OUT of power.

 

there was no "official" estimate of time or costs of occupying Iraq...not ever...no politician would dare make such predictions. But of course, in your mind, Bush did. And "your mind" has been invaded by mass media. See a doctor and maybe there is a cure for your "extreme brainwash syndrome"

 

Wow, your post is so full of spin that I'm going to have to take a Dramamine.

 

I noticed you didn't post the part where Rumsfeld endorsed the $50-$60B estimate on the cost of the war, so I'll just assume you were owned and know it. As for the length of the conflict, what makes you think they were referring only to the initial invasion? Rumsfeld called the insurgency "a few dead enders," Cheney predicted we'd be greeted as liberators and you might recall the President wearing an air force costume while he announced the "mission accomplished." Find me ONE prewar quote from the White House suggesting we'd be fighting an insurgency for years.

 

I don't even think you believe what you're saying.

[fastfish 0]

The primary goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD and the White House estimated that the war would take about six months at a cost of roughly $50 billion. Based on that track record I'd say Bush has all the vision of Mr. Magoo.

 

I don't see any Rummy quotes where he said how much Iraq would finally cost...do you have one? Then stop pawning off these cut and paste tidbits as proof of what was never said. (MDC is on something but I doubt it's Dramamine.)

 

The mission of taking down Saddam was accomplised...why does our Commander-In-Chief landing on a carrier returning from war to congratulate the sailors upset you still? Mass Media does like to bash that fine American moment but you should really thank god for those men and the 17 DAY mission to take down Saddam that they so skillfully accomplished.. Was it all just "too military" for you and the libs?

 

(I always enjoy it when losers trot out the "owned" canard...since the facts don't jibe with their view, they now seek to "own" the debate by declaring themselves right.)

 

hey MDC... YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. There was NO estimate of time or money to make Iraq sovereign...NONE...NOT EVER. Your 6 months, $50b turn-key numbers, that you keep saying Bush said, is FALSE..it's something you saw on CNN but it was a LIE.

 

Are we clear on that yet?

[MDC 7,678]

I don't see any Rummy quotes where he said how much Iraq would finally cost...do you have one? Then stop pawning off these cut and paste tidbits as proof of what was never said. (MDC is on something but I doubt it's Dramamine.)

 

The mission of taking down Saddam was accomplised...why does our Commander-In-Chief landing on a carrier returning from war to congratulate the sailors upset you still? Mass Media does like to bash that fine American moment but you should really thank god for those men and the 17 DAY mission to take down Saddam that they so skillfully accomplished.. Was it all just "too military" for you and the libs?

 

(I always enjoy it when losers trot out the "owned" canard...since the facts don't jibe with their view, they now seek to "own" the debate by declaring themselves right.)

 

hey MDC... YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. There was NO estimate of time or money to make Iraq sovereign...NONE...NOT EVER. Your 6 months, $50b turn-key numbers, that you keep saying Bush said, is FALSE..it's something you saw on CNN but it was a LIE.

 

Are we clear on that yet?

 

Anyone who does a few Google searches will find Rumsfeld's $50B estimate on the cost of the war. Here's another one:

 

In September 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey projected that the "upper bound" of Iraqi war costs would total between 1 percent and 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or somewhere between $100 and $200 billion. But this was just one estimate. White House budget director Mitch Daniels called Lindsey's figures "very high." Several months later, in January 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reported that OMB estimates placed the cost of war under $50 billion, and he suggested that some of these costs might be carried by other countries.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3992

 

That's from the Cato Institute. I guess they're a bunch of loony libs now huh?

 

So now you're going to claim that it's all just some wild media conspiracy that strangely involves sources from the left, right AND the middle, and that they all just made it up. Why would I even argue with that? It's like trying to explain to an Islamic terrorist why blowing people up is wrong.

[hoytdwow 202]

hey MDC... YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. There was NO estimate of time or money to make Iraq sovereign...NONE...NOT EVER. Your 6 months, $50b turn-key numbers, that you keep saying Bush said, is FALSE..it's something you saw on CNN but it was a LIE.

No SHOUTING. It’s rude and annoying. Typing in ALL CAPS may result in your post being deleted. Same applies for AlTeRnAcApS. Please keep in mind that the reason you are posting is so that others can read what you have written. Therefore, we ask our members not to use excessively formatted text and to keep fonts to a reasonable size that are easy to read.

[Fumbleweed 554]

Why is the Iraq war an "all or nothing" proposition with so many people.

 

We have done some things well.....other things, we have not done well.

 

Anyone who says that it has been a total disaster OR a total success to me reeks of partisanship.

[footballpowers 0]

Why is the Iraq war an "all or nothing" proposition with so many people.

 

We have done some things well.....other things, we have not done well.

 

Anyone who says that it has been a total disaster OR a total success to me reeks of partisanship.

 

 

Can you give me an example of what has gone well? The only thing I can think of is that we got Sadam out. IMO at the cost of 10's of thousands of lives (mostly innocent lives) and considering there are still mass suicide bombers and it has become a haven for terrorists (that were never there when Sadam was in power). I just think one positive does not equal so many negatives.

[Fumbleweed 554]

Can you give me an example of what has gone well? The only thing I can think of is that we got Sadam out. IMO at the cost of 10's of thousands of lives (mostly innocent lives) and considering there are still mass suicide bombers and it has become a haven for terrorists (that were never there when Sadam was in power). I just think one positive does not equal so many negatives.

 

A government is in the process of being established there. They had elections. Are those not good things?

 

If it were not a haven for terrorists, the terrorists would be somewhere else. Terror is a huge problem in the world today. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, it would still be a huge problem.

 

Hey, the war was a tough call and I'm still not sure we did the right thing....but to say we're botching everything up is just pure partisanship. How the heck do you know that to be the case??