Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThAnswr said:
It is very nice to think that we can just wipe the slate clean, pretend the past never happened, and just start looking to for "what do we do now"?

Here's your problem: to solve a problem, you have admit there was a problem. And no one in this administration is going to admit there is problem, there was a problem, and there's going to be a future problem.

There must be a half-dozen solutions of what we can do now that will go nowhere because this administration cannot admit a failure.

To reiterate, here's what I would do:

1) give the Iraqis 1 year to get their act together. Yes, the insurgency will use that one year, but so should the Iraqis. The Iraqis have to be made to understand that they have been given an opportunity few in Middle East ever get. Their fate is in their hand and if they squander that opportunity, they squandered themselves.

2) start airlifting Iraqis out of Iraq for basic training. It's obvious this "on-the-job-training" isn't working.

3) Indentify just who this insurgency is. Please, the idea that these are just "foreign fighters" is a crock. This is too well organized to be a group of Pakistani goat herders. It should be clear to anyone the insurgency is being fueled by the old Republican guard.

4) Secure the borders with Syria and Iran and that's going to require more troops.

I think that's good for a start. What do you think?
I'm not just saying that we should pretend nothing happened - if there was wrong doing, then yes, lets take a look at that (we could also look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident as well, but I digress). But the argument that says we shouldn't have gone to war because after the war we found out he didn't have the Weapons of Mass Destruction does not take into accout what the world believed before the war.

As for your points, I think there is something there that is worth discussion. I don't think we should go with number one, not just yet. Once we set a particular date, we become less flexible, and in this we need to be flexible.

I like number 2, but I don't see it ever happening, no matter who was in office. The Iraqi troops however, could use some training at some of our bases in the desert. We could send our trainers there to meet them.

As for number 3, I never got the impression they were "lone wolf's" or led by "Pakistani sheperds". They are part of a very serious terrorist outfit, one that wants to kill people to make them submit. Whether it's Al Queda or Zwhatshisname (however you spell his name, I'm not even going to try), although I don't think there are enough Old Guard to be doing it.

Regarding number 4, that is something we can definately agree on. As long as those borders are a sieve, they will keep getting more insurgents. I think it would be very difficult to do, but it would be worthwhile.
 
OK 'what' which world believed that Saddam had WMD's. USA, Britain and who else? Germany and France may have thought it possible but wanted to give Blix more time. In Blix's initial report it did not say he HAD or HAD NOT. It said, in paraphrase, that nothing found so far and that the documents requested from Saddam along with unsupervised interviews with scientists were not being immediatedly responded to. Saddam was dragging his feet on these 2 issues. Neither proves or disproves presence of WMD. But what would have happened if Blix was given an extra 3-6 months. Would the world had suffered? No evidence that anything adverse would have happened except for risk that nothing would be found and Bush would not have been able to justify invasion.

So given this 20/20 hindsight scenerio, Bush has nothing to lose and everything to gain by setting a withdrawal schedule over the next 12-18 months. However, if Bush were to do this he would look like he blinked and machoman cannot do that. He is leaving it to the next president to do the 'blinking'. Our troops will be there until at least 2007-2008 or beyond.
 
momof2inPA said:
Apparently the pro-War Republicans have fabricated some letter from an imaginary guy named "Mohammed (probably Mohammed Rove) from Iraq" about all the reasons Mrs. Shehan's son died legitimately. It was a War about WMD's not to save the Iraqis from an evil dictator. No WMD's, no legitimate War. Transparant posted it on the Conservative thread if anyone wants to take a look- and they make fun of Dan Rather's sources.

Plus, to even pretend that the Iraqi's are sitting over there grateful that we have bombed their country to smithereens, destroyed their way of life, and decimated their infrastructure is preposterous. My husband met an Iraqi man a few months ago who was in the U.S. to raise awareness of the jobless situation in Iraq describe how his dad suffered a heart attack in the evening and had no access to an ambulance and no ability to reach a hospital because of strict curfews. He watched his own father suffer for hours and die, whereas before we destroyed Iraq, he would have been treated in minutes.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that Saddam is no longer in power, but the vast majority of Iraqi's probably don't believe the price they have paid is worth getting rid of the guy, and Mrs. Shehan doesn't believe the price she and her son paid justifies the war for oil. I agree with her. Would you give up your kids to bring democracy to a country that had not attacked or threatened the U.S.? I wouldn't.


Excuse me??? Fabricated? Mohammed and his brother Omar are INDEED Iraqi's and Mohammed did write that letter. Who say's its fabricated - you? You have a view of Iraq from television and newspapers - those who've been there know it's quite different than that. Not that I rely on polls often - but the Bookings Insitute just released a recent poll on how Iraqi's feel - looks like the majority are quite optomistic to me

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

I've also got a stack of letters and emails from soldiers over there thanking me for the dozens and dozens of care packages I have sent - and they all say how much the Iraqi's appreciate them. Every single one.

The Iraqi's are our allies in the war on terror - they have suffered many more casualties than we have - and despite of this...they still are optimistic.

Also - if you still think Mohammed and his brother are fakes - heres a Wall street journal piece about them - http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110006009
 
BuckNaked said:
The war on terror did begin on 9/11/01. Were you not aware of that? :confused3
We have rebranded. It is the global struggle against violent extremist and people who do not like us. You are not reading your talking points memos from the GOP.

Again, Bush is trying to confuse the public into believing that there is a connection between the war in Iraq and Sept. 11. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks against the US and neither Iraq nor Saddam were a danger to the US in any fashion. Bush keeps putting out these misleading statements that apparently work with Faux News viewers but luckily the rest of the country has caught on to the fact that Bush is a liar.
 

Professor Mouse said:
We have rebranded. It is the global struggle against violent extremist and people who do not like us. You are not reading your talking points memos from the GOP.

Again, Bush is trying to confuse the public into believing that there is a connection between the war in Iraq and Sept. 11. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks against the US and neither Iraq nor Saddam were a danger to the US in any fashion. Bush keeps putting out these misleading statements that apparently work with Faux News viewers but luckily the rest of the country has caught on to the fact that Bush is a liar.


Unlike you and the rest of the sycophants at DU, I don't get talking points from anyone. The President said that the war on terror started on 9/11, and that means that he's tying 9/11 to Iraq?
 
Here is something nice from Cindy Sheehan's posting on the Huffington website today. We Have the Power
Three active duty soldiers from Ft. Hood came to visit me and tell me that they really appreciated what I was doing and that if they were killed in the war, their moms would be doing the same thing. That made me feel so good after all of the negativity I had been hearing from the righties. I also got to hold a couple of toddlers on my lap while their mom or dad took pictures of us. I am honored that people have resonated with the action that I took to make our mission of ending the war a reality.
BTW, Brenda there is also another example of the right wingers attacking Cindy Sheehan on this post.
I am a continued thorn in the side of right-wing bloggers and right wing-nut "journalists." One man, Phil Hendry, called me an "ignorant cow." But you know what, the people who have come out from all over the country to give me a hug and support the cause of peace, overwhelms me so much, I don't have time to worry about the negativity and the hatred. The people who are slamming me have no idea about what it feels like to unjustly have a child killed in an insane war. Plus, they have no truth to fight truth with, so they fight truth with more lies and hate.
 
transparant said:
Excuse me??? Fabricated? Mohammed and his brother Omar are INDEED Iraqi's and Mohammed did write that letter. Who say's its fabricated - you? You have a view of Iraq from television and newspapers - those who've been there know it's quite different than that. Not that I rely on polls often - but the Bookings Insitute just released a recent poll on how Iraqi's feel - looks like the majority are quite optomistic to me
Also - if you still think Mohammed and his brother are fakes - heres a Wall street journal piece about them - .. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110006009

Hmm. Brothers from Iraq brought to visit the U.S. by a Republican Op-Ed Editor. Yeah, you can take their non-biased opinions to the bank. And get real, the U.S. military holds all the financial and safety cards in Iraq. It would take a brave soul to speak out against their invaders. The Iraqi's aren't in this with us, they are our victims; we bombed them mercilessly and killed their relatives who were forced to serve in Saddam's army. That's why they keep trying to blow up our soldiers. It's a no-win situation.

It's time to cut our losses and leave, except-- we need the oil, so we won't leave Iraq. And with the Chinese having a naval base in Iran, we will NEVER entirely leave Iraq.
 
Professor Mouse said:
Again, Bush is trying to confuse the public into believing that there is a connection between the war in Iraq and Sept. 11. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks against the US and neither Iraq nor Saddam were a danger to the US in any fashion. Bush keeps putting out these misleading statements that apparently work with Faux News viewers but luckily the rest of the country has caught on to the fact that Bush is a liar.
You know, I read what you quoted from the Presidents address today. Personally, I didn't see it as tying in the two. Right now the only one who keeps saying that there was a tie between them is you.
 
momof2inPA said:
Hmm. Brothers from Iraq brought to visit the U.S. by a Republican Op-Ed Editor. Yeah, you can take their non-biased opinions to the bank. And get real, the U.S. military holds all the financial and safety cards in Iraq. It would take a brave soul to speak out against their invaders. The Iraqi's aren't in this with us, they are our victims; we bombed them mercilessly and killed their relatives who were forced to serve in Saddam's army. That's why they keep trying to blow up our soldiers. It's a no-win situation.

It's time to cut our losses and leave, except-- we need the oil, so we won't leave Iraq. And with the Chinese having a naval base in Iran, we will NEVER entirely leave Iraq.
Yep, it's all about the oil. I just so enjoy driving now that gas is less than $1.00 per gallon. :rolleyes1
 
momof2inPA said:
Hmm. Brothers from Iraq brought to visit the U.S. by a Republican Op-Ed Editor. Yeah, you can take their non-biased opinions to the bank. And get real, the U.S. military holds all the financial and safety cards in Iraq. It would take a brave soul to speak out against their invaders. The Iraqi's aren't in this with us, they are our victims; we bombed them mercilessly and killed their relatives who were forced to serve in Saddam's army. That's why they keep trying to blow up our soldiers. It's a no-win situation.

It's time to cut our losses and leave, except-- we need the oil, so we won't leave Iraq. And with the Chinese having a naval base in Iran, we will NEVER entirely leave Iraq.


Non biased opinions? THEY LIVED IN IRAQ FOR 35 YEARS! Why is their opinion biased? Your posts prove to me that you are quite the victim of OUR biased media. Oh yeah...btw - how can you compare the opinion of an Iraqi to the Dan Rather situation? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
What the Heck said:
Yep, it's all about the oil. I just so enjoy driving now that gas is less than $1.00 per gallon. :rolleyes1

Right. Do you think the increased demand in China and India has nothing to do with the price of oil on the world market? And do you think we and the English will have more or less access to Arab oil if we leave Iraq? You're naive if you think we're there on a humanitarian mission.
 
transparant said:
Non biased opinions? THEY LIVED IN IRAQ FOR 35 YEARS!

And now they're living under U.S. occupation. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya.

I believe the Iraqi that my husband talked to face-to-face, in a private setting, with nothing to gain by telling the truth.

I also believe that some people are better off since the U.S. took over, but overall the country is a dangerous mess.
 
momof2inPA said:
And now they're living under U.S. occupation. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya.

I believe the Iraqi that my husband talked to face-to-face, in a private setting, with nothing to gain by telling the truth.

I also believe that some people are better off since the U.S. took over, but overall the country is a dangerous mess.

It's a darn shame I can't share all of these emails and letters with you - it would be a real eye opener. According to those that are there right now and get to experience working and gaining relationships with Iraqi's and their families - not one of them has an "America Sucks" attitude.

I'm not going to take the word of *1* Iraqi as the gospel. I'm not sure whether or not you've read about the ongoing project that I've been doing to support the troops - but I have gotten quite a lot of letters from our servicemen from all over Iraq and they pretty much all have the same thing to say about how the Iraqi's feel about us - and ALL of it is very good. Thank you - but I'll trust the word of our military servicemen that experience things first hand rather than the crap the media continually spews day after day.
 
What the Heck said:
You know, I read what you quoted from the Presidents address today. Personally, I didn't see it as tying in the two. Right now the only one who keeps saying that there was a tie between them is you.
Whenever Bush is desparate, he brings up and tries to link the war in Iraq with September 11. If you mention the two concepts together enough times, you can get someone who gets their news from Faux News to believe that there is a link between Iraq and September 11. Again, luckily, most Americans have realized that there is no link between the September 11 and Bush's war in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan's protest is having the desired effect as evidenced by the GOP attempts to smear her. Smearing Cindy Sheehan
As a matter of politics, Sheehan's stand is brilliant. Bush's chief political asset is his embrace of the troops and their families; the longer he refuses to meet with Sheehan, the more unconcerned -- and even callous -- Bush risks looking to the public. And by providing a genuine news event in the hot, sleepy confines of Crawford, she's gotten far more media attention than she garnered as the star of a MoveOn ad. She's been profiled in dozens of papers and hailed in a New York Times editorial. Consequently, she's also been smeared by the right. Pundits have pointed out Sheehan's apparent inconsistencies -- in the past, she said that she believed Bush cares about the troops who've died, and she spoke warmly of a brief visit with the president after Casey's death that she now recalls as insincere and impersonal. All this week Matt Drudge has hammered on Sheehan, publicizing criticism by some of her family members, who say they support Bush and the war. On the Tuesday edition of his show, Fox host Bill O'Reilly said Sheehan's behavior "borders on treasonous."

Conservatives have assailed Sheehan for her association with Michael Moore (she has been blogging on Moore's Web site) and the antiwar group Code Pink. Some depict her as the left's dupe, but Sheehan insists she came up with the idea for the Crawford visit on her own. In a telephone conversation with Salon on Friday afternoon, Sheehan explained her inconsistencies and defended her association with Moore and others on the left. Just before the call, Bush's motorcade sped by "Camp Casey," which is what Sheehan calls the protest stand she's erected in her son's memory. The cars didn't even slow down.
Cindy Sheehan has (a) provided a human face for the US victims of the Iraq war and (b) is asking the questions that the GOP can not answer such as why is this a nobel war (when it is based on lies)? When the right wing goes all out to attack you, you know that you are doing something right. In this case however, attacking a grieving widow is not a smart political move.
 
BuckNaked said:
Unlike you and the rest of the sycophants at DU, I don't get talking points from anyone. The President said that the war on terror started on 9/11, and that means that he's tying 9/11 to Iraq?
Brenda, it was your bosses in the Pentagon who came up with the new name for the struggle against people who do not like us or whatever the US is now calling the mess in Iraq. Someone Tell the President the War Is Over
Mr. Bush's top war strategists, starting with Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, have of late tried to rebrand the war in Iraq as what the defense secretary calls "a global struggle against violent extremism." A struggle is what you have with your landlord. When the war's über-managers start using euphemisms for a conflict this lethal, it's a clear sign that the battle to keep the Iraq war afloat with the American public is lost.
You should be listening to Rummy and Meyers.
 
Here is a great editoral that Cindy Sheehan wrote. Why I'm camping out in Crawford, Texas
Iwill never, ever forget the night of April 4, 2004, when I found out that my son Casey had been killed in Iraq.

I will also never forget the day when we buried my sweet boy, my oldest son. If I live to be a very old lady and forget everything else, I will never forget when the general handed me the folded flag that had lain on Casey's coffin, as his brother and sisters, standing behind me, sobbed.

I think of Casey every day as I wait outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, determined to meet with him.

I want to let the president know that I feel he recklessly endangered the life of my son by sending our troops to attack and occupy a country that was no imminent threat to the United States.

And I want to let him know that millions of Americans believe that the best thing we can do - for our own security, for our soldiers and for the Iraqi people - is to bring the U.S. troops home from Iraq now.

Just because it's too late for Casey and the Sheehan family, why would we want another innocent life taken in the name of this ever-changing and unwinnable mission in Iraq?

I did get to meet with Bush two and a half months after my son was killed, but I never got to say any of these things to him. I was in deep shock and grief at the time, and all I wanted to do was to show him pictures of Casey and tell him what a wonderful man our son was.

But today, things are very different. My shock has worn off, and now I've got a lot of anger along with my grief.

I'm angry because every reason the Bush administration gave for the invasion of Iraq has been shown to be false.

The 9-11 commission's report concluded there was no link between Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The weapons inspectors gave up searching for weapons of mass destruction and wrote in the Duelfer report that there were none to be found.

From the Downing Street memo, we learned that the Bush administration "fixed" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

And after every supposed milestone in Iraq - the capture of Saddam Hussein, the transition to Iraqi rule and most recently the Iraq election - things just don't get better. U.S. soldiers and Iraqis continue to be killed in greater and greater numbers, the cost of the war skyrockets and there's no end in sight.

After 30 U.S. troops were killed in one week recently, the president reiterated his pledge to complete the mission of our fallen soldiers. But that mission originally was to protect the U.S. from a lethal attack by Hussein - with weapons it turns out he did not have.

Anyway, I don't want the president to use Casey's memory to justify continuing this war, which will end up only needlessly killing more wonderful young men like him.

Many people have been streaming in to Crawford to support my vigil and convince the president to listen to the people who want an end to this war. We are camping out in a drainage ditch, in 100-degree weather, but it's worth it.

If and when I do meet with the president this time, it will be for all of the Gold Star Families for Peace who lost children in this war, for all of the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who are grieving and who want to tell the president to end this devastating war.

No one else, not one more mom, should have to lose her son in Iraq.
Again, Bush lied to justify the war in Iraq. The war was based on lies and now that these lies have been uncovered, people are unhappy.
 
Just in case anyone needs help in following the Professor, there was a new plan of action designed for the war on terror, but it was signed back in March. It was in US News & World Report this month - "The Pentagon document identifies the 'primary enemy' as 'extremist Sunni and Shia movements that exploit Islam for political ends' and that form part of a 'global web of enemy networks.' Recognizing that al Qaeda's influence has spread, the United States is now targeting some two dozen groups--a significant change from the early focus on just al Qaeda and its leadership."

Other nations like the UK and Germany call it what it is, "Islamic extremism" and Muslims themselves call it "political Islam", but whatever...it's not the war in Iraq that has been renamed.
 
Exactly, Teejay...Kyle also seems to be under the impression that Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers send all of us in the military e-mails telling us what we're supposed to say and talk about each day. :rotfl:
 
sure, and next you'll be saying you don't wake up to Rush radio and the Free Republic every morning either. :p

More about the USNWR article, it begins: "On March 3, with little fanfare, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, signed a comprehensive new plan for the war on terrorism." The NYT catches on five months later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top