The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite. From where did you hear these predictions. All I remember is them saying it was going to be difficult and you could not put a schedule on these things.

Depends on who the "them" is Spanky.

Such predictions came from Richard Perle and certain members of his wing of the neocons. Achmed Chalabi was another source for such predictions, which were credulously repeated and reported by some in the MSM -- including (I think) Judy Miller at the NYT.

S_A_M

eta: For example, here is a link to a transcript of a Seminar on Iraq at the National Press Club in D.C. on March 17, 2003. The speakers included many members of the Iraqi exile community and Perle.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/664

One of the speakers began his response to the first question -- which was about VP Cheney's statement on March 16, 2003 that the Iraqi people would greet U.S. forces as "liberators" -- thusly:

"I most certainly do agree with that. As I told the President on January 10th, I think they will be greeted with sweets and flowers in the first months and simply have very, very little doubts that that is the case. . . ."

I expect you can unearth similar items.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say you go to a psychic, and the psychic channels Himmler- you would charge the psychic with war crimes?

Has he traveled overseas to meet with jihadist groups?

S_A_M

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite. From where did you hear these predictions. All I remember is them saying it was going to be difficult and you could not put a schedule on these things.

This is from an editorial, but it should be easy enough for you to look up the actual quotes:

I heard the Vice President say that the war would be over in "weeks rather than months."

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say there was "no question" that American troops would be "welcomed": "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

I heard the Vice President say: "The Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

I heard the Vice President say: "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0416-20.htm

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say you go to a psychic, and the psychic channels Himmler- you would charge the psychic with war crimes?

Do we need to do an exorcism? Try eating nothing but bacon for a week and see if it passes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite. From where did you hear these predictions. All I remember is them saying it was going to be difficult and you could not put a schedule on these things.

You know, I finally tired of continually citing the pre-invasion Bush speech transcript in which he stated repeatedly that this was not going to be quick, and that it would take a long, hard effort, and that he wanted everyone to know this up front and not be pushing for easy and fast solutions.

Still, even now, people magically "remember" him saying it would be a walk in the park.

At some point, you simply tire of the disingenuousness. It's no longer debate. It's "no, your bedtime has always been nine, and I'm not going to tell you again."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Depends on who the "them" is Spanky.

Such predictions came from Richard Perle and certain members of his wing of the neocons. Achmed Chalabi was another source for such predictions, which were credulously repeated and reported by some in the MSM -- including (I think) Judy Miller at the NYT.

S_A_M

eta: For example, here is a link to a transcript of a Seminar on Iraq at the National Press Club in D.C. on March 17, 2003. The speakers included many members of the Iraqi exile community and Perle.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/664

One of the speakers began his response to the first question -- which was about VP Cheney's statement on March 16, 2003 that the Iraqi people would greet U.S. forces as "liberators" -- thusly:

"I most certainly do agree with that. As I told the President on January 10th, I think they will be greeted with sweets and flowers in the first months and simply have very, very little doubts that that is the case. . . ."

I expect you can unearth similar items.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Depends on who the "them" is Spanky.

Such predictions came from Richard Perle and certain members of his wing of the neocons. Achmed Chalabi was another source for such predictions, which were credulously repeated and reported by some in the MSM -- including (I think) Judy Miller at the NYT.

S_A_M

eta: For example, here is a link to a transcript of a Seminar on Iraq at the National Press Club in D.C. on March 17, 2003. The speakers included many members of the Iraqi exile community and Perle.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/664

One of the speakers began his response to the first question -- which was about VP Cheney's statement on March 16, 2003 that the Iraqi people would greet U.S. forces as "liberators" -- thusly:

"I most certainly do agree with that. As I told the President on January 10th, I think they will be greeted with sweets and flowers in the first months and simply have very, very little doubts that that is the case. . . ."

I expect you can unearth similar items.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators

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?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
You know, I finally tired of continually citing the pre-invasion Bush speech transcript in which he stated repeatedly that this was not going to be quick, and that it would take a long, hard effort, and that he wanted everyone to know this up front and not be pushing for easy and fast solutions.

Still, even now, people magically "remember" him saying it would be a walk in the park.

At some point, you simply tire of the disingenuousness. It's no longer debate. It's "no, your bedtime has always been nine, and I'm not going to tell you again."

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



"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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
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?

Or bilmore:

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers.

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This is from an editorial, but it should be easy enough for you to look up the actual quotes:

I heard the Vice President say that the war would be over in "weeks rather than months."

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

I heard Donald Rumsfeld say there was "no question" that American troops would be "welcomed": "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

I heard the Vice President say: "The Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

I heard the Vice President say: "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0416-20.htm

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or bilmore:

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers.

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

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, that is what he said. However, it was undercut by things like this:



"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

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.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you can't be bothered to actually read my posts and respond to what I am saying, then shut the fuck up or put me on ignore.

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:

“having a feeling that we should start trying (not try, but START trying) to extricate troops from Iraq”?

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.

You...can join Penske and Hank in the shitcan of people

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