Big Effin' Mess
 

It didn't even occur to me that you would refer to people other than people that were speaking on behalf of the Bush administration.

Big Effin' Mess
 

I don't get how you can take words from "members of the Iraqi exile community" or even some lower level people in the admin and attribute it to the President, by we can't take stuff from the Dem anti-war guys and attribute it to Dems generally.

Big Effin' Mess
 

What about the Vice President?


(Videotape, March 16):

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244

Big Effin' Mess
 

And he was correct. Or, are the opinions of the eight thousand out-of-work Return Party members more important to you than the opinions of the millions of others?

Big Effin' Mess
 

Yes, that is what he said. However, it was undercut by things like this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkows...complished.jpg

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

And statements by the Vice President like:

Cheney, March 16, 2003: Now, 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. . . .

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

Big Effin' Mess
 

Or bilmore:

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...1000#post51000

Big Effin' Mess
 

From what I remember the war went pretty quicky. We are now in the occupation phase and dealing with an insurgency. An insurgency that has only killed 2000 people in three years (seven hundred people a year). We have had way more than a 1,000 people killed every year in California (and we are having the lowest murder rate since 1965) and three times that many deaths on our highways every year in California and these deaths serve absolutely no purpose. We are losing .0032 percent of our population every year due to this war. With numbers that low it is amazing that anyone refers to it as a war.

Big Effin' Mess
 

More bilmore, from 10/06/03:

"I'm thinking that the news that we start to hear over the next four or six months leans far more heavily towards the scenario I am positing than the negative one that seems prevelant now, but that's just my idea of an educated guess. Time will tell."

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...7808#post37808

Big Effin' Mess
 

Again, (I suspect you were typing as I was typing my last), we were greeted as liberators by the great mass of Iraqis - but you don't read about them in your chosen venues. We continue to fight a low-grade mop-up operation against that very small minority of Iraqis who want Saddam back, and against the Islamicists from the region who see this as an op to fight Americans. 2000 American deaths in 27 months? Much as I don't want to see that, that's hardly "significant American casualties" in the history of war.

The main battle to oust Saddam and his army was short and quick. The low-grade insurgency continues, and we're making great progress replacing us with Iraqi troops. As Bush said, this part of the operation is long and hard and frustrating. We're remaking a country. As far as American casualties from the takeover of a complete country, we're doing very well. (I expect someone to answer that I must be callous - don't those 2000 troops count? Let me anticipate and merely say now, fuck you.) In short, I see all those statements as having been proven mostly correct.

Ann Coulter
 

I did respond to your post. In fact, I directly quoted you. You said Murtha's comments (“We're done in Iraq and we should pull out in mid-December") should obviously be interpreted as:

It's bad enough that you think Murtha's comments reflect the above, but you also called anyone who DIDN'T read all that stuff into Murtha's comments "morons." Anyhow, don't worry, you are pretty much on ignore in my book. Not b/c of your politics, but because you are unfunny and your logic sucks.

Fine with me. Their graphics and schtick are far superior.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Wow! Aside from taking longer than I was thinking at the time (which I admitted in the post was a WAG), I was remarkably prescient. You should read my stuff with more respect!

Ann Coulter
 

Don't worry Diane, you're safe. these guys won't really put you on ignore- if they did they wouldn't be able to know when to PM Ty and claim one of your posts was offensive and needed the old delete treatment.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Are the flowers in Syria, too?

A Big Opportunity
 

The Baathist's party main goal was the unification of the Arab people. The Baathist party took over in Syria and Iraq and yet they were not even able to unite those two countrys. If the US invaded Syria and United it with Iraq the US would have done more for Arab nationalism than anyone including Nasser. I think we should do it.

A Big Opportunity
 

I have no doubt you do think that.

A Big Opportunity
 

if you understand his thinking so well, how come you're always not understanding his posts?

Ann Coulter
 

If you prick me, do I not bleed?

Big Effin' Mess
 

Hint: 1. How many troops are in Iraq? 2. How many people live in California?

If it's so safe there, I'm surprised more Young Republicans and College Republicans aren't signing up.

Ann Coulter
 

Dunno. We'll have to try. Step forward so that I may slay thee.

Ann Coulter
 

wear gloves and googles.

For the record
 

Heh. From a healthcare attorney ranting about medicare part D (and especially http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pdps on a relevant listserv:

Big Effin' Mess
 

I wasn't doing the referring, Spanky, I was just reporting some of the predictions that SHP may have been referring to when you said "cite."

S_A_M

P.S. This is really a small point, but don't you think that Cheney speaks for the administration?

P.P.S. Wrt Rumsfeld's six days/weeks/months quote -- I recall that he was talking about the conventional war -- which had begun. He was exactly right. While the invasion of Iraq was risky for any number of reasons, no one had any doubt that we'd win the fight.

However, no one in power seems to have anticipated the unconventional war to follow. They even denied it was an insurgency for several months.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Hell, Rumsfeld doesn't even want to call it an insurgency now.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Where did I do that, Hank?

SHP said he heard the predictions. Spanky says "cite". I sez, here are a few.

Its not ALL about Bush. Although the bastard did lie, and people died.

;)

S_A_M

Big Effin' Mess
 

I liked this part. Thank God for a professional military with officers and senior enlisted generally inculcated with democratic ideals and a respect for human rights:

"At another point in their news conference, Rumsfeld and Pace [Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], had an unusual exchange in which Rumsfeld corrected his senior military adviser, only to have Pace gently insist that it was the defense secretary who was wrong.

"A reporter asked Pace what U.S. commanders in Iraq are supposed to do if they find Iraqi forces abusing prisoners. Pace replied that if inhumane treatment is observed it is a service member's duty to stop it.

"'I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it — it's to report it,' Rumsfeld said, turning to Pace.

"Replied the general: 'If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.'"

S_A_M

Big Effin' Mess
 

How many times does he have to explain this? He wasn't under oath, and so HE DID NOT LIE!! So long as he did not lie, and more people die in car accidents in California than servicemen and women die in Iraq, and Joe Lieberman, the MNF web site and the Washington Times say everything in Iraq is fine, that constitutes proof positive that Saddam Hussein's WMDs are presently being hidden in Syria and guarded by children, who would greet our soldiers with garlands of flowers if we ever invaded.

And even if he did lie, it's okay - Presidents lie about national security matters all the time. Otherwise, we'd be speaking a strange melange of Russian, Chinese, Japanese and German. So just be grateful for the freedoms you still have and stop hating America.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Good to see you coming over to our side, SHP.

Wilkomen.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Pansy-asses. If only the confederacy had won the War of Northern Agression, our good ole boys would be handling Iraqis like...

Oh, wait. I guess we have been.

Most Foolish War since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C Sent His Legions into Germany
 

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

-- Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Most Foolish War since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C Sent His Legions into Germany
 

While not the best article I've read, that one is interesting. My guess is that civil war is virtually inevitable in Iraq; instead of Vietnam, I would suggest that Iraq is comparable to the old Soviet Union or Yugoslavia - countries where ethnic pressures ultimately must boil up and split up the country, and where only a strong, dictatorial government can hold the country together. Of course, Bush would prefer that this not happen on his watch.

Instead of a full withdrawl, why not try to manage the division of the country now? An announced notion that Iraq is to be governed by the Iraqis, and perhaps a bit of encouragement to some third country floating the idea of a plebiscite on unity, followed by a UN peacekeeping force to supervise the election (the fact that the first election wasn't an excuse to disengage and turn the job over to the UN was a foreign policy misstep in my mind, resulting from the devaluing of traditional diplomatic channels when the US wanted to initiate the war). Then we disengage and let the country do what it will, knowing that at least the Kurds will be sitting on a large portion of the total oil reserve, and they seem to appreciate everything we've done to strengthen their hand.

Ann Coulter
 

Actually, yes it was. PM me if you need an explanation.

Big Effin' Mess
 

Actually the reenlistment rates are pretty high. If things are going so poorly, and the troop morale is so low why are so many signing on for another tour of duty?

Actually the Young Republican leadership in the Silicon Valley has been devasted by the war. Everyone signed up or was already in the reserves. One of my old business parters and his best friend (both ex young Republican presidents) just signed up and they are both 35.

Most Foolish War since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C Sent His Legions into Germany
 

We can always count on you for thoughtful cites. Your reading list must be carefully and tightly honed to only the most important sources. I found this section particularly thoughtful and persuasive.

Quick question before I sign off- were you one of the ones who told Penske he is a clown?

• For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

Big Effin' Mess
 

No one on this board has ever said this. How can you expect to even participate in a discussion when something has been repeated at least thirty times and you still don't understand it. Not that you will get it is this time, but we are not saying it wasn't a lie because he was not under oath. I will say it again, for the umteenth time in the forlorn hope that you might grasp this not so difficult concept this time: WE ARE SAYING IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT UNDER OATH. WE ARE SAYING HE DID NOT LIE BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THERE WERE WMDS IN IRAQ AND FOR A LIE TO BE A LIE IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL. A LIE UNDER OATH IS STILL A LIE AND NO CONSERVATIVE ON THIS BOARD HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

Big Effin' Mess
 

I'm sorry, I was so pleased to see SHP coming over that I failed to ensure that I'd mastered the finer point.

Yes, Bush did not lie. He may be stupid, he may be blind (or choose to be blind), he may not make a reasonable investigation into his sources, he may not use his considerable resources to do anything other than confirm his own prejudices, but the man did not lie.

George W. is as honest as that good boy of the South, George W[ashington]; if he chopped down the cherry tree, boy, he's going to tell you he chopped down the cherry tree.

Now, what cherry tree was that?

Most Foolish War since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C Sent His Legions into Germany
 

Although I agree that splitting up Iraq may not be a bad idea, I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that the split up of Iraq is inevitable. The insurgency is just not supported. How do I know? They told no one to vote and everyone did, including the Sunnis. For anyone to make any predictions about Iraq until we see the results of the December election is ridiculous.

No one knows the future and to make any firm conclusions before the elections is ludicrous. We should stay the course until the election and hope that all the negative predictions from the liberals don't become selfulfilling (like they want them to be).

In addition, that guys statement that Bush and friend should be put on trial just shows how ridiculous his thinking is. If he really is on the reading list, I doubt it will be for much longer. Or maybe he is used as an exmple of what not to do. I personally would have no problem being put "on trial" for deposing the butcher of Bagdad.

Big Effin' Mess
 

If the evidence was so overwhelming that Saddam did not have WMDs and Bush just overlooked it, why was our military so paranoid about a WMD attack during the war? The military has their own intelligence services. They get the same stuff the President gets.

Big Effin' Mess
 

the reasonable people: Bush believed Iraq had WMD.
the insane: some general told him just before his speech that we've been looking for 10 years (since 92) and haven't found any.

the reasonable people: Clinton said Sadaam had WMD.
the insane: Yes, but he blew them all up when we bombed Iraq in 1997.

in sum- Their logic--

We've not found them even though we've looked since '92= they aren't there

and

Clinton's bomb destroyed them all in '97= the general was wrong?

I just don't get how any of these guys can get paid for legal work.

Big Effin' Mess
 

I only looked at the base of the trunk of the tree, where I was applying the axe. So I really didn't know I had chopped down a cherry tree. It could have been any kind of tree. Or, a mummified elephant leg, really.

Big Effin' Mess
 

You did not chop down that plant.....cherry tree.