Iran’s Ahmadinejad to Visit Baghdad Mar2

“One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.”

No one in the West has the will or the fortitude to stop it, so unfortunately, it will continue.

“Why shouldn’t the Iranian government send its president ot Baghdad to celebrate this victory and alliance?” They have already sent him to the United States to thank the American leftists for their overwhelming support and the same knowledge that the American leftists sent to Hanoi: that America can never win as long as the American left supports our enemies.

What do “American Leftists” have to do with an Iraqi constitution that enshrines Islam law as supreme? Especially since American Conservatives were the ones who celebrated this same Constitution,when it was adopted, as clear evidence we were “turning the corner in Iraq”?

What do American Leftists have to do with an Iraqi central government, composed mostly of Shia Muslims, many of whom spent the past decades in Iran and ally themselves with their co-religionists in the Iranian government?

Or are we seeing the standard Conservative alibi for everything in play, again?

I see that my reply to pagar’s post was deleted. Even though I was not personallya busive. I just asked, again, how he managed to hold “American Leftists” accountable for the alliance and close bonds between the Shia government of Iraq and the Shia govenrment of Ian.

Your reply does not make any sense.

The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because the current government is composed mostly of Shia who spent their exile years in iran (except for theones who spent those years in London and Washington, lobbying the Neoconervatives of the American Enterprise institute).

Now that the Bush Administration has removed the Sunni government of Iraq, the two Shia governments are free to stay allied.

Please explain again exactly how that is all the “American leftist’s” fault when the Shia President of Iran goes to his good friend, the Shia President of Iraq to plan their future together.

Re: ““The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because” I can repeat i a 100 times in a 100 different ways but it always boils down to the same message. The “American leftists” have shown themselves able to destroy nations such as Vietnam who had no other protectors. Therefore, nations that should be firmly allied with the US are forced to hedge their bets by also trying to avoid being destroyed when the “American leftists” force the US to abandon them.”

In case you hadn’t noticed, Iraq has more than 100,000 American soldiers, and almost as many mercenaries in there protecting it. and John McCain promising they will be ther for 100 years.

Additionally President Bush has promised to sign agreements that lock America in for at least a decade, constructing $1 billion bases.

So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?

Some how, your saying that this is all “American leftists” fault does not make sense. And, were it not for the Conservative policy of 100% loyalty to all other Conservatives, no matter what, other posters here would point out how little sense your conclusion is.

“So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?”

IMO, it appears that someone on the left is upset, because the leader of Iraq might have done something that makes Pres Bush look bad. I would think that would actually make the left happy. Am I missing something?

Re: “And somehow it is bad that the US signs defense treaties with former enemies???? Or should they remain enemies?”

I don’t believe that is bad. I did not comment personally one way or the other regarding that event.

However I was commenting on the fact that the Shia government of Iraq was signing friendship agreements with the Shia government of Iran: The one Conservatives right here post continual comments about being a threat to the United States. This is the [Iraqi] government that the Bush Administration unconidtionally backs, with no conditions and no pressure to actually govern the country.

But pagar declares that this government’s signing hosting a state reception for the president of Iran, and singing a friednship agreement with him is all the fault of “American leftists”.

And every single Conservative here apparently agrees with that assesment.

And I assert that such a belief has no basis in fact and is nothing more than further evidence of irrational hatred and and irrational beliefs of American Conservatives.

Re: “Considering what Pager, my parents, and others like them went through in dealing with the American Left, I can fully understand why he is a tad miffed.”

I was not commenting on his attitude. Just the irratinoality of his reasoning. Having heard “let it go” from Conservatives so often regarding their past misdeeds, I am surprised that you, a loyal Conservative, use generation-old grudges as justification for the fanatical hatred that pagar has displayed (a hatred that Conservatives here incessently attribute to me).

Re: “the American Left have the same talking points and that after the same islamofascists reacted with jubilation and several renewed rocket/mortar attacks after the Democrat’s “non-binding” vote in the House almost 1 yr ago (after which I spent 4 months in Physical therapy for a busted shoulder thank you for nothing Mrs Pelosie and Mr. Murtha) ”

If you are attributing the mortar attack as the direct responsiblity of Speaker Pelosi for her words and actions, can I blame the entire Iraqi civil war on President Bush’s daring Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans with his “Bring it on!” boast in 2003? (Your answer will, of course, be “no”, since that would be holding a Conservative to the same standards you impose on others).

Re: “After seeing the “anti-war” left protest with multitudes of signs which declare they “support our troops when they shoot their officers” and signs/screamfests in support of the terrorists and “our mutineers”, I CAN assert that such a belief HAS a basis in fact and is a product of irrational hatred and irrational beliefs of American leftists.”

If you are holding us all accountable for these few demonstrations, can I hold you responsible when your thought-leader Ann Coulter calls for the assasination of Democratic politicians? (Your answer will be, “of course not” because then YOU would be held up to the same standards you are imposing on me.

Re: “And Iraq has conditions they must meet.”

They are conditions with no deadlines, as President Bush and Conservatives everywhere have amply demonstrated. Which means they are no conditions at all.

Re: “Turning to domestic policies, We have a million or more inconvenient, innocent children killed every year for the past 35 years because of the American left. ”

That is completely off topic. Had I made such a post, I would be threatened with having my posts deleted. Of course pagar, being a loyal Conservative, will have no such standard applied.

Re: “We have seen a 5 year old child, Mother dead from the struggle to get him to America to escape slavery, pulled from his bed at the point of a weapon, to be handed back to an evil Castro, by the American Left.”

Another off topic. Will pagar be held accountable? Of course not.

Re: “We have seen a totally helpless woman, charged with no crime, pulled from her loving parents arms, put under armed guard to prevent food or water from being given to her; take 13 days to die-her death celebrated as some great victory by the American left.”

Third off-topic. Any consequence? Nope! Free passes all around!

The fact that Conservatives will not hold one of their own to sthe standards they apply to others is Standard Operating Procedures that Conseervatives apply to their own every single time, without exception. As amply demonstrated right here and now.

Steve,

Where to start with your post…….

On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.

BTW Steve, you may have missed that I have responded to other commenters about over the top remarks from conservatives. But you seem to miss those in your cries of “persecution” in between your bouts of projectionism and spoon fed propaganda.

Now to be fair, which is not a requirement in reality last time I checked, Steve, You are also off topic AGAIN with your repeated cries of persecution and ‘woes to Steve’.

As for the rest of your post.

Having heard “let it go” from Conservatives so often regarding their past misdeeds, I am surprised that you, a loyal Conservative, use generation-old grudges as justification for the fanatical hatred that pagar has displayed

First, Pager is not fanatical. I could more easily attribute fanaticism to you and your daily “conservatives this that and the next” tired and predictable screeds. Second, This is a generation-old “grudge” because it continues on from the same people (Clark, Fonda, Kerry, etc) on the left today. Now they act even more in the open and receive more media adoration. Nothing has changed except that the funding for these “anti-war” groups no longer comes from the USSR, but from Move-on and Soros. Third, where have your heard “let it go” from anyone here? I have never heard it. All I see and hear is conservatives being blamed for everything under the sun. Hillary Clinton lets info out on Obama and conservatives are blamed for it. Newt Gingrich’s cell is illegally recorded and “wither on the vine” is twisted to not mean the reformation of a corrupt tax system, but conservatives wanting old people to starve. The only “let it go” I see here is you stating to the effect “let it go” for leftist “anti-war” protester’s words/actions/influence and deeds of leftist leaders in their recent past.

So on this I call “Steve projectionism” again.

If you are attributing the mortar attack as the direct responsiblity of Speaker Pelosi for her words and actions, can I blame the entire Iraqi civil war on President Bush’s daring Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans with his “Bring it on!” boast in 2003?

Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech. Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Those that were Iraqi were either Saddam’s thugs or Iranian backed Shia. The terrorists do not quote our President, the DO quote our congressmen and women in their jubilations. Go to MEMRI and see for yourself. I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.

If you are holding us all accountable for these few demonstrations, can I hold you responsible when your thought-leader Ann Coulter calls for the assasination of Democratic politicians?

This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. You make “points” in the fashion of “so how long ago did you stop beating your wife” and wonder why people get exasperated with your inanity!

“FEW demonstrations”??!!?? You do not get out much do you? They may be the same groups paying people to protest, but they go on and on. Considering Howard Dean showed up at a few Move-on/ANSWER protests, along with other Democratic leaders and groups showing up in them, what exactly are the rest of us supposed to think about the power and influence these “few” have over the rest of the left? Websites like zombietime.com… have multiple photo and video records of what these protesters are stating and who is supporting them.

Also, I was not aware I had a “thought-leader” nor was I aware Ann Coulter was it. Thank you. I will report back to my nearest university for ‘re-education’ in proper leftist “thought”. I have heard a few snippets of her quotes, but I also heard her rebuttals to the soundbytes. Considering your falling for the “100 years war” BS and highly dubious “mercenary” numbers in Iraq, I have to wonder who your “thought-leaders” are and how brainwashed you have become. Now I will have to go read everything Ann Coulter said for the past few years as I do not read her columns. If she said it, then she was wrong. I prefer to let the left scream about “making conservatives pay” and other open threats they make. I believe I even stated that in a rebuttal to a passing right-wing poster here a couple of times.

Re: “On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.”

That is a flat out lie. I made no such complaint about the position pagar took. Only that it was off-topic, something verboten to non-Conservatives on this site.

Re: “Al-Zawahiri: Democrats have failed to bring any substantial change to America’s Iraq policy [AP]”

Flat out wrong. Had Democrats not taken control of Congress in 2006 we would still have Donald Rumsfeld running the Iraqi occupation into the ground, and thousands more would be dying and we would be hearing, still, that “we are turning the corner in Iraq”.

Now we are “only” at the level of violence of 2005 (and nowhere near the levels when President Bush dared insurgents to kill American, a challenge to which they responded quite well).

Re:”Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.”

Flat out lie.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html

from the September 27, 2005 edition

Iraq’s foreign fighters: few but deadly
A new report says foreigners make up 4 to 10 percent of Iraq’s 30,000 insurgents.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CAIRO – Much of the US effort in Iraq in recent months has been aimed at stopping the inflow of foreign jihadis. US warplanes have blown up bridges to deny insurgent infiltration routes, troops have occupied small towns thought to be crossing points for foreigners into bigger cities, and spy drones continuously buzz the Syrian border.

Even if the US can seal Iraq’s borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country’s insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country’s combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.

Re: “I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.”

How could that be when the occupation was managed by the DoD, under Donald Rumsfeld?

Re: “This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. ”

I have never seen you, or any other Conservative here say one word of criticism of Ann Coulter, and her comments about killing those with whom she disagrees: Other than your post right now.

Re: “Zombietime”.

I had never heard of this site before you plugged it in your post. Since thise is where you get all your information about those with whom you disagree, I can predict that you will love Ann Coulter’s stuff.

Re: “Al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail. ”

Since al Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the Bush Administratio is bleeding America in Iraq, I would say that this is a pretty accurate overall assesment. Exactly how is President Bush going to keep his promise to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” in Iraq? Or are Conservatives required to pretend he never made that promise to America? Or that President Bush never said this only seven months after the September 11 attacks:

http://www.depresident.com/bushisms.asp

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002

The state of the “search” for bin laden

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7185592/

LONDON – Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.

In cae you want to pretend that President Bush never made the “Dead or Alive” promise:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/14/bush-binladen.htm

Re: “Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech.”

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F07%2F02%2Fsprj.nitop.bush%2F

There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there [Iraq}. My answer is, bring ‘em on.”

George W. Bush
July 3, 2003.

(That’s all I have time for now. But I predict another Conservative stream of venom, along with complete pretence that the information I posted does not exist.)

So obviously I did not make Steve happy by telling Pager to remain on topic…. I will have to find time to feel bad about that.

And if you want venom Steve, look in a mirror as you type.

From your own “political humor” link:

“Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice,” Bush said. “There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ‘em on.”

U.S. forces, he added, are “plenty tough” to deal with any security threats.

And yes we are plenty tough to deal with the threats even with all the lawfare out there against us. AQ made Iraq its choice of battle and lost and they even admitted it this year. I am very happy to have had my part in giving them that loss, as I have also helped give them loss after loss in Afghanistan less directly. I do believe our President was referring to Bin Laden’s assertions that the US would run after a few casualties as we did in Somalia. I suggest you research Bin Laden’s mid 1990s fatwa against America where he states such.

All Zombietime does is post pictures and videos of the “anti-war” groups. If this bothers you, join the list of leftists and Islamists who want to shut that site down.

As for the rest of Steve’s usual non-responses, Scott said it very well.

Sorry that my post to Pager was not enough for your feelings. What should we do oh all knowing lord and hater of “conservatives” since this is obviously your website?

Steve,

I wish I could drag you into the briefings which refute you, but all I can say is your links are dated and maybe something after the Pakistanis began their offensive in those high mountains might clear you up.

And just to piss you off, I will not hold our President accountable for capturing a man given to us on a silver platter 10 years ago. He is not an all knowing military genius like you and the left wing.

I am with Scott. I am not going to vote Bush for President this year. You convinced me Steve.

REad this book and you will know that the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban, over oil of course, right up until the attacks.

You must be joking. “Forbidden Truth?”….sigh, poor poor Steve. So lost in your quest to do the bidding of your masters you have lost all ability of any cognitive reasoning.

That book was written by two French men who had to apologize in the Economist, The Times of London, and The Financial Times, for its many lies and mistakes.

We, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, are the authors of Forbidden Truth, a book circulated widely since it was first published in the autumn of 2001. I, Jean Charles-Brisard, am also the author of a Report entitled Terrorism Financing published in December 2002.

The Book and the Report contain very serious and highly defamatory allegations about Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Sheikh Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz, alleging support for terrorism through their businesses, families and charities, and directly. As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your families, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false.

The allegations were based on information which we have now been able to establish has been largely withdrawn or refuted in the intervening years since Forbidden Truth was first published, and to our knowledge has never been verified. We did not anticipate at the time the Book and the Report were written that the information which we relied upon would later be withdrawn or refuted. Notwithstanding research into terrorism financing, we have learnt nothing since the publication of the Book and the Report which suggests there is any evidence supporting the allegations. We therefore now unreservedly withdraw all of the allegations about you both in the Book and the Report and confirm that we will never repeat them.

We appreciate the very serious damage that has been caused to your reputations by these allegations. We also accept that the allegations caused you and your family very great distress. For all of this we are truly sorry.

Corn notes the many lies and shoddy work of the book you hold so dear:

Within a matter of pages, I was stunned. The book was almost entirely unsourced. It contained multiple factual mistakes. (It claimed George Bush was once “in charge” of Harken Energy; he was not. It maintained George Bush I was a “leading investor” in the Carlyle Group, an investment firm. No, he was a paid advisor. It described Tom Simons as US ambassador to Pakistan in 2000. He had left the post two years previously.) More important, it presented suggestive innuendo rather than clear and irrefutable evidence. It referred to “policy-makers” and “officials” without naming them; it depicted policy decisions in vague terms, without supplying specifics. The authors conveyed no sense that they had interviewed any single player in their tale. (There were not even anonymous sources. After a while, I prayed to encounter “a State Department official who asked not to be named” or a “Western diplomat who requested anonymity.”) This will sound like hyperbole, but I have rarely seen such shoddy and lazy journalism.

The book sidestepped toward its highly provocative assertion. But here is the essence of their argument about September 11:

“From February 5 to August 2, 2001, the United States engaged in private and risky discussions with the Taliban concerning geostrategic oil interests…. The suicide attacks of September 11 were the outcome of this initiative.”

Ponder that statement. The authors are saying that negotiations–which they portray as secret talks between Washington and Kabul–led to the strikes of September 11. That would mean US Administration officials– mainly from the Bush White House but also, it seems, from the Clinton White House–share blame for the attacks, that the United States, via these talks, needlessly provoked Osama bin Laden and his crew. This is hot stuff: The Bush Administration, driven by its fealty to Big Oil, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Such an unsettling challenge to the traditional view requires a heavy amount of persuasion and proof. But the authors commit two fundamental errors. They make an utterly illogical case and in those few instances when they bother to cite sources, they misrepresent the material. Much of the book cannot be evaluated, because the authors assert, rather than document–and they supply little reason why a reader should trust them. Brisard and Dasquié never establish the foundations of their argument–in particular, that there were secret negotiations between the United States and the Taliban. They refer to various international and bilateral conversations–many of which were public matters–and cast all of that as under-the-table diplomacy. The “secret negotiations” held under the authority of Kofi Annan’s representative (that Brisard mentions in his letter above) could be read about in reports found on the United Nations website. And when Brisard darkly refers to conversations between Washington and the Taliban regarding the extradition of bin Laden–conversations that he and his co-author do not fully describe–the question for him is, So what? After the bombing of two US embassies in Africa, shouldn’t Washington have pressed the Taliban to turn over bin Laden? After all, in other sections of the book, the authors claim Washington was not sufficiently forceful in its pursuit of bin Laden.

A careful reader might discern that Brisard does not directly confront the case I made against his book. In the translation I read, he and Dasquié claim that the United States and its allies, as part of their secret machinations, plotted to return the exiled king of Afghanistan to power and that the “secret talks” culminated with the United States in July 2001 threatening the Taliban with a military strike. To prove the first of these two points, the authors cite a UN report. But that nonsecret report only says that Annan’s special representative on Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell, met with the former king to discuss bringing together in-country and exiled Afghans for an effort to settle peacefully the political and military strife within Afghanistan. There is no indication that either the UN or the United States were arranging the king’s restoration. The authors, with little evidence in hand, defame a laudable UN initiative and grossly misrepresent one of its documents.

By the way, in the same part of the book, the authors report that on June 1, 2001, “a secret meeting took place on the subject of Afghanistan. It was attended by Condoleezza Rice, Christina Rocca [a US State Department official], and Francesc Vendrell, as well as British observers.” The source for this? The aforementioned UN report. But if you download this report from the web–as I did–you will find that the document (a routine report submitted by Annan) clearly notes that Vendrell met with Rocca “as well as other senior officials in the State Department and in the National Security Council” on this day. That is, there was nothing “secret” about the session. The authors, though, go out of their way to render a meeting acknowledged by the UN as something clandestine–and without revealing what horrible things were supposedly said during the gathering. This is their MO. Turn public meetings into secret plot-fests. Hint, nod and wink. Assert, rather than confirm. Characterize, instead of quote directly. They weave a web of deceit out of thin (at best) material.

The authors have lost every libel action filed against them and Mr. Brisard’s congressional testimony had to be retracted. Hell, the man even lied about working at the United Nations.

And this is the kind of stuff you buy into?

Why am I not surprised, it actually speaks volumes about your character.

As for Clinton and bin-Laden….lets listen to Billy in his own words:

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got – uh – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

The 9/11 Commission told us that they couldn’t find any evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered up Osama, but Bill admitted there was an offer but felt legally constrained to do anything. The Commission even admitted they never watched the video of Clintons statements in 2002 but came to their conclusion anyway…..sure thing.

Yeah, but he does provide us with an example of the typical DummiesU aficionado. I also have to agree with Word that it brings out the best in a lot of you guys as you destroy him with facts, which he sidesteps and changes the subject. It’s actually quite amusing….

Its quite telling that you didn’t even read Scott’s comment that completely refuted your assertion the Bush “let” Osama to get away. Quite telling.

Bill Clinton tried, but failed to capture a man who, neither he, nor any Conservative, knew to be the monsterous threat he was.

Sigh….So his declaration of war, the Cole, the Kenyan bombings, Khobar Towers, WTC I didn’t tell Clinton that he was a “monstrous threat?” His own words prove you wrong:

Well, it’s interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them.

You don’t become “obsessed” with one man and use your countries resources to get that man unless you know the man is a “monstrous threat.”

Do you even know anything about the subject matter at hand or do just go around the web finding a few links…reading a synopsis on the material, and then use it?

This is off topic but since I do not think Steve has seen the post and since he complains about alleged double standards and persecution, he needs to click on this link.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/13/a-sentence-that-fit-the-crime/#comment-22867#comment-22803#comment-22809

Someone posted as Steve and I noticed the email/IP/and writing style was different (a really different for the IP from Amsterdam). I noted such in the comment responses under it.

I wanted to say that so everyone knew it appears Steve did not make the statement attributed to him.

You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.

Re: “You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.”

You are correct. I did not even know this post existed (as I did not read that thread).
Thank you for sticking up for me (honest, no sarcasm).

And thank you Curt for tossing in a gratitous insult, even for a thread I have never even read, let alone posted.

Thank you for sticking up for me (honest, no sarcasm).

You are welcome.

Philly Steve wrote:

And what, pray tell, was George W. Bush doing trhrough the Summer of 2001? Or does he get the automatic Conservative FREE PASS that all Republican Presidents get?

Chris reminds Philly Steve what he should already know:

As for the Whitehouse, with the recounts, lawsuits and pettyness of congressional politics there were few appointments allowed, little in the way of transition teams, and a general stall of government.

You already know all this, Steve; you just don’t like listening:

Carl Levin understood that no president could govern effectively without putting his own highly skilled political appointees into key government positions. Although their numbers were small – the congressional “Plum Book” that was published every time a new president came into office listed just 7,000 in the year 2000 – they were critical. These were the men and women who gave direction to the unwieldy federal bureaucracy. Effective political appointees were essential for any president to transform his political vision into action. Without them, a president was like a cork bobbing in the ocean, swept by the wind and the currents.

Levin and other top Democrats in the U.S. Senate were determined to prevent George W. Bush from getting the people he wanted into positions of power. Since all top nominees had to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, that gave the Democrats – who held a 50-49-1 majority once Vermont Republican James Jeffords quit the Republican party unexpectedly in May 2001 – powerful tools.

Senate confirmation has always been a contentious process. Since the Nixon years, Senators Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden have held conservative judges hostage to a litmus test on abortion and other left-wing causes. But at the start of the Bush administration, the Democrats took aim not at judges (that would come later) but at the president’s counter-terrorism and national security team.

For nearly seven months, Levin and this Democratic teammates prevented confirmation hearings of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s top advisor’s – Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary of Defense of International Security Programs J.D. Crouch, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman. “While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs – a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaeda,” wrote J. Michale Waller, a defense and intelligence policy specialist at the Institute of World Politics.

The joke around the building was that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the only political appointees who had cleared the Senate, “it was Home Alone 3,” one appointee said.

The sabotage continued via Clinton “holdovers,” people such as Peter F. Verga, Clinton’s deputy undersecretary of defense for policy integration, a major intelligence post. While “Verga made himself useful to the Rumsfeld team, he beavered to curry favor at the top, in part by snipping and playing bureaucratic games to make life difficult for the incoming defense policy team, Waller wrote.

Ken deGraffenreid was the administration’s pick to replace Verga. A former White House hand from the Nixon days, he had been writing about intelligence reform for years, so Rumsfeld decided to give him an opportunity to put his theories to work. By the time his appointment finally cleared the Senate, it was already July. But even then, the bureaucratic fencing continued.

“Verga just stayed in place,” deGraffenreid recalls. “I arrived – I had put my company out of business – and this guy wouldn’t leave his job. He had big office and I was put in the back room, next to the refrigerator, the copying machine, and the coffee-maker.”

That wasn’t the worst, deGraffenreid said. “I’m an old Navy pilot. I’ve lived in a hangar, so that part didn’t bother me. But then I went to Doug [Feith], and to use an old Navy term, I said, ‘What the f—?” Verga had used the six months he was alone in his office with only Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz above him to ingratiate himself with his new bosses. “He made them feel they owed him something, so they kept him in place,” deGraffenreid said.

It reminded him of Cook County, Illinois, where he had grown up. “If you wanted your street paved, you went to Mayor Daley. The Pentagon in July 2001 was like Cook Country in 1962. The Clintonistas were the Mayor Daley who ran the place. It took me six months to get rid of the son of a bitch,” he said of Verga. “I’m not sure that Rumsfeld and his undersecretaries ever recovered from that situation.”

Feith’s reputation as someone who refused to confront the partisan Democrats in the bureaucracy who was undercutting his own employees became legendary over the next five years. “They asked us to stick out our necks for this president,” another appointee who worked with Feith told me in confidence. “And then they chopped them off.”

While any new administration needs the benefit of experience of career diplomats, military officers, and intelligence experts, since the September 11 attacks these positions became critical in a way that only happens in times of war.

Richard Clarke was just the sort of person a new administration would want to have around as it crafted its approach to the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda. As counterterrorism “czar” during most of the eight Clinton years, he arguably knew more about al-Qaeda then any other American official.

But as Clarke’s strident and highly personal denunciation of the president and his top advisor’s during his March 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission showed, that experience could become a double-edged sword. Clarke’s self-serving account of how the Bush team failed to grapple with the al-Qaeda threat during the first eight months in office conveniently left out the failures of eight years of the Clinton administration, when the United States was attacked five times by al-Qaeda and did almost nothing in response. Clarke also neglected to mention in his public testimony that until just two months before the September 11 attacks, “nearly all the senior counterterrorism and intelligence officials on duty at the time were holdovers from the Clinton administration,” Waller noted.

“We were really quite taken aback by Clarke’s public testimony,” 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman told me the day after Clarke appeared before the Commission. “It differed dramatically with the fifteen hours of detailed, dispassionate testimony he gave in closed session, which was much more of an indictment of the eight Clinton years then the eight months of Bush. There was just a lot more policy to criticize. There wasn’t a lot of policy to criticize under Bush because the administration didn’t have its people in place for most of the eight months. Hell hath no fury like a bureaucratic scorned.” Lehman believed Clarke was bitter because the Bush White House hadn’t recognized his talents and given him the same power he had under Clinton, when he was treated as a member of the cabinet.

Yes Steve, I blame 98% of the war and previous multiple Islamic terror attacks targeting us and our allies (and even the Russians, Chinese, etc) to radical militant Islamists bent on restoring a Caliphate and destroying us infidels (including you) in “Dar al Hab”.

Re: “Steve manages to ignore 3 full pages of things done in 01
“…not able to do much in summer of 01…”

typical. Glad I didn’t post the other 3/4 of what was done.”

I didn’t ignore it. Didn’t you read my post? I was agreeing with you. George w. Bush is not accountable for anything. Nothing is his fault. It’s all someone else’s fault (Bill Clinton). George W. Bush is never accountable. Someone else always is.

Your point was well made, to the point and, since it was willing to hold George W. Bush accountable, an opening for me to state something similar.

President Clinton was almost entirely focused on American issues of a domestic nature (”It’s the economy, stupid”). As a result we did, in my opinion, achieve quite a lot of good in some domestic areas during his term. I know that some of President Clinton’s “accomplishments” in my eyes are failure in yours. But then I do value a balanced federal budget, even if it means a tax hike: Which was achieved. The percentage of Americans falling below the poverty line did drop, to about 23% in his term. Not perfection, but an accomplishment.

On the negative side, President Clinton’s failure to take any strong actions internationally allowed problems to fester. For example the presence of American troops on Saudi soil was one of the chief reasons Osama bin laden gave for his September 11 attacks. Had President Clinton realized what an affront many Muslims took to non-Muslims troops stationed in the home of Mecca, he might (or might not) have taken the political heat for solving that problem. President Bush did address that problem when his Administration announced the closing of the formal base in 2002, removing one of the “sticks” in the eyes of Muslims.

My ire at Conservatives is when they defend George W. Bush with “mistakes were made’ comments, as though a botched occupation that is costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was excusable. My level of rhetoric rises with the level of equanimity displayed by those on the other side.

Your willingness to acknowledge the cost of the botched occupation encouraged me to acknowledge that “Saint Bill” was certainly less that I had hoped, and much less than someone of his political skills should have been.

Enjoy your weekend.

Re: “The war in Iraq has not cost trillions-that number (as is the case with any number vaunted by an opponent of the war) is a combination of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terror ops around the world, ”

A reasonable point, and I don’t want my overall evaluation of the occupation (as opposed to the military invasion and current military activities) to be hampered on how many dollars have been spent here or there. Let it be said, for my part, that a great deal of the money and lives being spent now are not being spent on improving the situation in Iraq, but essentially making up for previous political blunders after the initial invasion was successful. (Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule).

Re: “Re the idea of a military debacle in Iraq. Please point me to a military defeat in Iraq, and lacking one…there is no military debacle. ”

Agreed. The debacle was entirely political. On that point we agree completely.

Re: “Botched occupation. You still declare that with no real understanding of what botched means”

“Botched” means plane loads of currency, $ billions worth, shipped to Baghdad. All of it disappears after the planes land and no one can account for where it was even dispersed after the planes were unloaded (and I’m not talking about the money spent in the streets to pay for work done in cash. We would at least see the money sent to various military or reconstruction units. The money just “vanished”).

That, in my mind, constitutes “Botched”. But neither you, nor any other Conservative I have ever read, will even admit it happened, let alone that anything was wrong with it. Most of the time Conservatives just shrug and say, “oh well…” and defend it.

If you cannot admit that results such as that constitute “botched”, then you still agree with Dick Cheney that Donald Rumsfeld was the greatest Secretary of Defense in history.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06312951

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

If you read the Reuters story, it is apparent that we may have actually financed our own insurgency. Does that sound “botched” to you?

(excerpt)
“Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll.

“I have no knowledge of monies being diverted. I would certainly be concerned if I thought they were,” Bremer said. He pointed out that the problem of fake names on the payroll existed before the U.S.-led invasion.”

When I read alibis for this kind of incompetence (especially Bremmer using the legalese “I have no knowledge…” line), and recall that Medals of Freedom were handed out for this sort of “management”, then I do become irate. My only question is why aren’t you? Soldiers are now earning other medals… sometimes posthumously, to undo the damage these incompetents created.

On the military side, recall that many of the soldiers who might have helped secure the weapons depots that were left unguarded after the occupation of Baghdad, were sitting on ships off the coast of Turkey: All because the Bush Administration forgot to get Turkey’s permission for them to cross Turkish soil, before the war began. Remember when President Bush, at the last minute, promised Turkey $20 billion for them to cross, and was turned down because his team had not bothered to lay the diplomatic groundwork? Was that just another “oops”?

If a Democratic President had presided over this, Conservatives would be screaming. But as far as I can see, criticism is muted. Limited to “political mistakes were made”. Why aren’t you jumping up and down, demanding Donald Rumsfeld’s head on a pike, the way you would if a Democratic Secretary of Defense had presided over these types of political decisions?

Re: “Curious, ya think President Clinton’s invasion of Haiti was peaceful because of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy, the presence of the 82nd airborne in the air with USMC on the coast, or a planeload of money sans receipt?”

How many American soldiers died in Haiti this week?

I’m not trying to paint any kind of perfection picture of Democratic presidents or their actions. That appears to be the standard Conservative alibi for George W. Bush: That if any Democrat, any time, any where, did anything wrong, then George W. Bush gets a free pass because at least one Democrat was worse. Is that the Conservative standard? That President Bush be no worse in any area that the worst somewhere else? OK. I’ll concede that George W. Bush is only the second-worst president at most (but not all) of the initiatves of his Presidency. Does that get him off the hook and a place on Mount Rushmore?

I still assert that the occupation (not the invasion) of Iraq was mismanaged for political (not military) purposes. If Conservatives want to let President Bush’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld off the hook by saying it was all President Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell’s fault, then go ahead. But who is the person who is, in his own words, “The Decider”? And, when someone stands up and claims that responsibility, does one not also claim accountability? Or as I see repeatedly here, is it always “someone else’s fault” (whether the CIA is the alibi, or the State Department is the alibi, or the US Congress’s, that passed the resolutions and funding, fault. I always hear why it is “someone else’s fault”.

As an analogy:
When the raid on David Koresh’s compound went south in the first months of Bill Clinton’s presidency, even though the process had begun during George H. W. Bush’s presidency, Janet Reno “took responsiblity”. But Conservatives everywhere (and we will see their posts after this comment) to this day also blame Bill Clinton. Why do those same Conservatives always support George W. “The Decider” Bush’s passing the buck to his subordinates on the occupation of Iraq?

And ,please don’t post any of those “Bush Derangement Syndrome” claims against my comments. When a Conservative is capable of saying Hillary Clinton’s name without literally frothing at the mouth, then those “pots” can make accusations against my “kettle”.

We are spending thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a dozen places. From my liberal favorites to conservative favorites (we could build another “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska every two or three days for what we are now spending). Had the Bush Administration (whereever the buck lands) just listened to those who warned against not going in cheap, we might actually have achieved Donald Rumsfeld’s six months heavy involvement, with reduced presence now (long the lines of the Balkans). But we did go in cheap, which was not a decision made by Liberals. It was made by the Bush Administration. And we are spending billions and Americans are now giving their lives to make up for those decisions.

You bet I’m mad about those lives being spent because Donald Rumsfeld was so arrogant. You bet I want to see him keel hauled in every public forum for this. He is, at least, still alive and has all his limbs and body parts. A lot of people do not, solely because of him. And “The Decider” took no action to remove this man until the day after election day 2006. For three-and-a-half years we heard “we are turning the corner” spin. For keeping that blatantly incompetent Secretary in place, at the cost of thousands of lives, I hold George W. Bush accountable. Don’t you?

Steve,

The frothing at the mouth I see is mostly from you. It was not Bush Sr that violated Posse Commatatus and ordered US tanks to Waco. President Bush has ever ordered me to fire on my own people.

Again, your style of writing is akin to the “so have you stopped beating your wife yet”.

I do not hate Hillary Clinton, but do not wish to see her or Obama President. It would be nice if you on the left would corrall your “anti-war” activist so we unarmed Soldiers and Service Members will not be attacked in recruiting stations and our own driveways. It would also be nice if universities protected conservative points of view like they protect leftist and not allow leftists to ‘crash’ conservative events.

You are right, I will not vote for Bush either. I do hold him accountable for not emptying out the DOS of Clinton appointees and underlings one of whom, even in 2007 in front of myself and two other officers at MNSTC-I HQ, Camp Phoenix, gleefully stated his “mission” was to sabotage all of our efforts. And you sound JUST like him.

As for your idiotic “conservative favorites” BS, I am sure you in your blind hate, failed to see the outrage from the right. That is also one of the issues we had with President Bush. Not only did he allow many leftist expansions of government through (even assisted in creating them), he also did not rally the republicans to drastically reduce spending and pork. Conservatives did not vote for congressmen in 2006, yet voted on conservative issues in their states. The issues, for the most part, won handily. Maybe the RNC has not learned that lesson, but I do not wish to teach them it with a Socialist Democrat in power.

My “conservative favorites” includes slashing civilain government, a “no pork” law (fat chance), implementing true immigration reform (we can even pattern ours off Mexico’s laws) and NOT amnesty, expanding our natural resource drilling/mining and refining capabilities while working to move forward technologically, ending welfare through better education and a change of culture from an entitlement/slave/dependent mentality to a producer/rights/responsibility mentality, and defending our nation both culturally and physically.

Would you like to reduce it so zero? And have an entirely military government?

No Steve, I am not a socialist. Really, your statement there was asinine even for your typical drivel. I would like government greatly reduced to the minimum needed for the nation. Also, if the government was reduced to “zero” there would BE no military as our Constitution puts the military under civilian control. All there would be is armed civilian militias and armed individuals (per the 2nd Ammendment) not under government control.

Again, that outlandish asinine statement was idiotic even for you.

The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.

Re: “Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.”

I have never called for the death of anyone. To even imply so is to be a liar.

Re: “We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration”

Convenient that you are not willing to admit that we might be dealing with any aftermaths of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Does that have anything to do with the (R) after their names?

Re: “Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.”

Something I beleive every single Conservative here would do in a heartbeat, solely for the sake of retaining George W. Bush in office.

Revisiting Philly Steve’s periodic piping about President Bush leaving the next president to “clean up his mess” as if wars are waged with expiration dates attached to them, here’s a juicy tidbit from the 2002 SotU Address:

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch

Re: “You are presupposing what conservatives think.”

I was not calling for his death, which is what you lied about when you accused me of wishing so.

No, Steve. I was using YOUR WORDS, not mine; just turning them around on you, to point out the ridiculousness of your constant sweeping, broad generalizations and caricatures of “conservatives according to the fantasy world of Philly Steve”.

Re: “Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations.”

I was commenting ont he fac that we had Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (R), Reagan (R) and Bush I (R), and you chose, for some “unknown” reaso to choose the single (D) in that series.

You fail to comprehend the substance of the rebuttals to your original argument and do nothing but fish for ways to “save face”, Steve.

My bad, I did not read back enough. My apologies as it seems it was a typo.

I get a bit annoyed when people make sweeping generalizations about what I think or would do and I let it goad me. I am a Republican who is not too disappointed with the party because I have rarely had much respect for the party. When they fell in behind Reagan or Newt I was with them as I am strongly conservative but the Republican leadership rarely is. When Reagan was elected I thought it a disaster, but the speed with with he restored America from the Carter debacle showed what a great man he was. He was the first politician to earn my personal admiration and respect for his intelligence and character.