News-Record.com

The democrats seem hell bent on giving their komrades in Iraq a date certain the surrender will take effect. (surprise, surprise)

Perhaps Bush would like the insurgents to think the US will not surrender? Hmmm, the nerve!

Now they have their Burka clad speakerette doing her 'suck up to Syria' tour to falsely state Israel's position.
And these people wonder why it only took a couple of months for their ratings to tank.

Perhaps Paul, he cares more about his legacy than he does for the troops in the field. He doesn't want to be the one that "lost Iraq" even though indisputably he is.

Komrades, Meow? I didn't know there were Soviet Commies in Iraq .. the things one learns in this blog!!

by the way ... the world is still waiting for clarification on the terms "surrender" and "victory" ... can you help? We've asked many times ....

actually, I just figured it out .. REALLY!

Surrender: Anything done by Limp Wristed Democratic Party Komrades.

Victory: Anything done by Moral Republican Party Patriots

Mr. Manzi, if anyone could figure out the supposed logic used by the occupant of the People's House, that would be reason to fund stem cell research!

As can be see, there is no rhyme, reason, nor logic behind what has been done over the past 6+ years. My only question now is; "Is it 2009 yet?"

Shalom

Silly JDR, didn't you listen to Esteemed leader Bush speak the other day? He said that doing anything other than leaving before the "job was done" would be defeat.

If we don't finish the mission, the job's not done and we lose, which is what the DemoncRats want.

How can I say that any simpler?

cRock-o-...feller, evidently your memory fails you. I've posted this before, only to have you ask again to "define victory". I think you either don't like the defination or you think it impossible to achieve. Anyway here it is yet again:

"Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."

You will disagree I'm sure, but please refrain from the BS of "waiting for clarification", it has been defined. Over and over.

The writer makes it sounds like a lack of vetoes is a bad thing.

I disagree.

First, Bush was dealing with a Republican controlled Congress during his first 6 years. That makes it much easier to not veto. It may even show that he was effective at communicating with his colleagues in such a matter that a veto was never necessary.

Dealing with a democratic controlled congress is naturally going to make that a little harder. It makes sense that he would use his veto power more.

I'll admit it is unusual for a president to be so limited in the use of vetoes, though.

As for the other points, they've been rehashed a zillion times with little results so I'll abstain.

My apologies, Neo - you're right my memory is as short as ... we won't go there.

=

So let's discuss ... would you say we met the "Short term Victory .. say mid 2005? I would say so .. too bad we didn't start leaving then, say after Saddam was captured, etc ...

OR

Are you saying we need to stay through the Medium term?

According to the Administration, Iraq is NOW taking the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, and a fully constitutional government in place (I think). clearly they are not on their way to achieving full economic potential.

OR

Are you suggesting we need to stay through the Longer term - I guess that's forever? Is the Longer term actually achievable in our lifetime.

==

These are sincere questions, Neo.

NP - IF Bush, dealing with a Republican Congress, showed effective communication in such manner that vetoes were never necessary ...

Then all the BDS angst needs to be directly equally at the entire Republican Party, and perhaps they use the color Red to express shares hands in the Blood-stained Federal Budget.

Agree?

Tell me again .. Republican means fiscal responsibility ... something like that .. maybe it's only a relative term.

Neo .. I would certainly support and pray for achieving those definitions of "Victory".

I guess I'm really asking ..

1) Do you really think all three are realistic? Can you provide an example where that has ever been achieved?
2) Are our troups to stay until all three are achieved?

... of course you'll say "GERMANY, 1945" - if you don't I just did.

for fun - I looked this up:

On V-E Day, Eisenhower had sixty-one U.S. divisions, 1,622,000 men, in Germany, and a total force in Europe numbering 3,077,000

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_ch18.htm

AREA: total: 357,021 sq km: slightly smaller than Montana

IRAQ:

AREA: total: 437,072 sq km

===

I'm sure you agree on this too: TOO FEW TROUPS - then, now, EVER -- to get the job done.

My point - assuming we're on the same page .. what the hell are we doing going into battel with perhaps 1/10th the count needed to truly do the job? I mean Custer would have won if he'd had 10 tomes the troups .. but he didn't.

Just wanted to mention that the Iraqi Parliament has made NO progress on the political issues they were supposed to be addressing while we sent more US troops to die there.
Wonder why those who made such a to-do about a thirty-year-old Newsweeek "science" article aren't having much to say about the lead story in this week's edition on the "surge" and how well our troops are doing?
Which is to say that we haven't even got stage one of our great victory into the bottom line yet.
What was that definition of "fanatic" again?

James,

In answer to your question from above:

Yes, I do agree.

Agreed cRock-o-...feller. This is what you end up with (Iraq) when you have a commander in chief who tries to fight a politically correct war. Soldiers in a war zone where there is no distinguishable difference between friend and enemy being charged with murder should they react a millisecond too soon.

Iraq and Afghanistan should be little more than ash heaps by now.

Capn' Planet, you can argue IF victory is being achieved, but the question was WHAT is victory. I have heard this BS question asked several hundred times. The answer is on the internet to anyone who wishes to know what 'victory in Iraq' means. Problem is, they don't want to know, they'd rather blame Bush for not defining it.

On the veto issue, during two terms in office President Clinton vetoed 37 bills. Of these, Congress attempted to override 13. Only two were overridden. Even with a GOP controlled Congress, there was not a majority that would/could override legislation during the Clinton years.

The GOP controlled Congress of the first six years of the Bush Fiasco was nothing more than a rubber-stamping group. Look at one of NC's own illustrious senators, Giddy Dole! Need I say more?

Shalom

A question for you cRock-o-...feller: What's your take on the Queen's visit to Syria?

Well I'm not really up on Syria .. but in admitted ignorance - I don't see them as an "Immediate Threat to the USA". Yea they support Hezbollah - so that puts them in bed with "Terrorists" ... but only as far as Israel is concerned. Last I checked, Israel was not a US state, but I'm sure there are many that disagree with that assertion.

I think the following summarizes my thoughts about Syria:

"Damascus differentiates between the Sunni Muslim fundamentalists of al-Qaeda and groups it sees as national liberation movements, such as Hezbollah and Palestinian groups."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9368/

==

Of course you asked about Pelosi.

Let me start by saying I don't like her style which seems a pushy bitch in the pattern of that bastard Delay. Peas in a pod I prefer to piss upon (I love alliteration).

Thinking aloud:

Bush is doing nothing I can tell about Syria 'cept ignoring it which might be the since I'm guessing - hoping - his plate is really full with bigger matters.

Is she undermining the President? The fuss Bush & Co, are making only contributes to any undermine. Other Senate & Rep' have visited Damascus as recently as December with little national attention.

So the fuss seems Much ado about Nothin' - especially considering she has no power to do anything beyond photo op's - which is probably the whole idea.

The only thing she has to gain is exposure for her probable 2012 run for the White House.

Hezbollah documents have stated that they want to expand their operation to the United States and people have been arrested in this country for raising funds for them. I also thought that the threat to any of our allies was a threat to us?

"This is what you end up with (Iraq) when you have a commander in chief who tries to fight a politically correct war."

Why then, does Bush not support our troops? Why is he getting in the way of victory?

Bugger:

If you read those documents well, you'll see their motive is to stop America from helping Israel - whom they see as an illegitimate occupying force.

They are Shi'a like our friends in Iran .. and just to complicate things .. like the Majority of Iraqi including the Iraqi government that American soldiers are dieing in order to setup as the Party in Power.

fun huh?

Denzien:

For 4 years those opposed to going into Iraq in the first place were told to sit down and shut up. We were told repeatedly the Leaders of this Country knew exactly what they were doing - that we needed stay the hell out of their way. NOW those same folks are saying this war was never properly conducted, that it was foolishly run politically .. and of course the Lame Stream media is the real reason we're in the current pickle jar.

heeerrrreeee come the commies!

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP, USA), known originally as the Revolutionary Union, is a Maoist-oriented communist party formed in 1975 in the United States. The RCP states that U.S. imperialism will never peacefully change and that the only way for the oppressed masses to ever liberate themselves is through waging a people's war and building a new socialist society on the ashes of capitalism.

The RCP, USA was formed out of the Bay Area Revolutionary Union (BARU) and collectives that had been rooted in the Revolutionary Youth Movement II (RYM II) faction of the Students for a Democratic Society after the latter fell apart in 1969. There were also discussions with several other Marxist-Leninist formations in the short-lived National Liaison Committee. The party is led by its elected National Chairman and primary theoretical spokesperson, Bob Avakian. It is one of the few surviving direct descendants of the New Left of the 1960s and 70s. It is by far the biggest, most active, and most widely-recognized group in the U.S. that identifies itself as Maoist.

More generally, RCP members and supporters have been active in the groups Refuse and Resist (founded by C. Clark Kissinger) and the October 22 Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation. More recently, RCP members were the forefront in establishing the anti-war group Not in Our Name and World Can't Wait: Drive Out the Bush Regime. Other initiated organizations have included La Resistencia and No Business As Usual. The RCP is said by critics to be the behind the scenes leader of all these organizations.

greensboro, april 21st. sweet.

A LTE - Published in December:

==

Accountability is a rhetorical standard for the self-righteous. Be responsible for deeds and statements or be disgraced and dismissed.

For this reason, your paper should no longer publish columns from Charles Krauthammer. His Nov. 20 column, "U.S. goal in Iraq may be unattainable," spoke of unachievable goals; the root problem, he and others now say, is the political culture of Iraq.

Reading without background, one could conclude Krauthammer and company had long studied Iraq’s fractured religious reality and issued multiple warnings about its missing political history. In fact Krauthammer signed with the New American Century [.org] neocons, who after gaining power in 2001, rapidly took to action their exact 1998 advice to Clinton: the President must take "necessary steps", to remove Hussein.

Mission Accomplished in May 2003, Krauthammer wanted the Islamic radicals to know the Pentagon was in charge. By December, he was thumbing his nose at quagmire visions of Vietnam. As recently as March 2006, he declared private militias a relatively narrow problem.

America is now in real danger with no great options. Krauthammer and company had five years of carte blanche; the current flip-flops placing them somewhere between disingenuous and recovering myopics. Honorable men would dismiss themselves, disgraced.

"For 4 years those opposed to going into Iraq in the first place were told to sit down and shut up. We were told repeatedly the Leaders of this Country knew exactly what they were doing - that we needed stay the hell out of their way. NOW those same folks are saying this war was never properly conducted, that it was foolishly run politically .. and of course the Lame Stream media is the real reason we're in the current pickle jar."

I'm sorry that you can't see that the lack of progress and victory in Iraq is all your fault.