The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

By Wagenvoord

Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

By Case Wagenvoord

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may

be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could shove

the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is that

they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that

the Democrats betrayed the troops."

Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and

that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them

of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat

to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment

money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to war with the

equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to

unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every

vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

And you dare accuse us of not supporting the troops!

You have allowed a cabal of bilious old men, who are nothing more than

Pollyannas with PMS, to hijack our foreign policy so they could pursue their

demented fantasies of power and world domination. In doing so, they have

violate every precept that has made this country a beacon of decency and

freedom to the world.

And you dare accuse us of disloyalty!

You have degraded and shamed our brave men and women in uniform by sending

them off on an ill-fated war of aggression that violates international law

just to enrich your wealthy cronies. The shedding of their blood to improve

the corporate bottom line is a shameful act driven not by patriotism, but by

ego, greed and stupidity.

Your accusations ring hollow, Mr. President. We stand firm in our commitment

to end the military disaster you have visited upon the land. We will fund no

more madness; we will fund no more slaughter; we will fund no more pipe

dreams.

Okay, maybe they might want to tone it down a bit, but the above shows that

it would not be that difficult to kick the sand right back into Bush's face.

The reason the Democrats won't do this has to be more than mere timidity.

Contrary to appearances, the United States Congress is not an elected body;

it is a corporation. Its shareholders are the corporate benefactors who fund

reelection campaigns. A majority shareholder in this corporation is the

Military-Industrial Complex.

To the Military-Industrial Complex, peace is not a profit center. Their

survival and health depends upon war, or the threat of war. Iraq is their

hen that is laying golden eggs at a prodigious rate. The first rule of the

Complex is that you don't make chicken soup out of the hen. This means the

main thrusts of this Congress has been to keep the war going as long as

possible. It was an embarrassment when the Democrats took over the Congress

with the expectation that they were going to end the war. Fortunately, Reid

and Pelosi came to the rescue and have been heroic in their efforts to keep

the war in good running order.

Tragically, it does not make any difference who wins the 2008 election, nor

would it make any difference if the Democrats achieved a veto-proof majority

in Congress. As long as their majority shareholder wants this war to

continue, it will, and the public be damned.

(Note: The thurst of the Democratic rebuttal was suggested by Drew Weston,

author of The Political Brain, when I hear him speak at the Daily Kos

convention last August.)

_______

Case Wagenvoord

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson

"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> By Wagenvoord

>

> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>

>

> By Case Wagenvoord

>

> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

> may

> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>

> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>

> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

> shove

> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

> that

> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

> that

> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>

> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and

> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them

> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>

> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat

> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

you, they will do one of two things. One, they will attack every other

country, and if they are successful, they will soon be in control over these

countries, leaving the US isolated and alone. They would first start by

taking over the entire middle east, and then they have control over most of

the oil in the world today. "If" they can get Russia to be on their side,

they will control even more of the oil. Then they would start gobbling up

every other country. Or, if say China knows the US will not take ANY

pre-emptive action against them, they will build up their nuclear arsenal,

then launch a massive first strike, hoping they can knock the US out of the

box on the first strike, then they win.

> > By Case Wagenvoord

>

> > Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

> > Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

> > may

> > be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>

> > Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

> > defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

> > political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>

> > This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

> > shove

> > the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

> > said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

> > that

> > they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

> > that

> > the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>

> > Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and

> > that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them

> > of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

> > Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>

> > Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

> > troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat

> > to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

> > nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> > been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

> > combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>

> Here is how the President should reply. �If; you establish a policy where

> your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

> you, they will do one of two things. �One, they will attack every other

> country, and if they are successful, they will soon be in control over these

> countries, leaving the US isolated and alone. �They would first start by

> taking over the entire middle east, and then they have control over most of

> the oil in the world today. �"If" they can get Russia to be on their side,

> they will control even more of the oil. Then they would start gobbling up

> every other country. �Or, if say China knows the US will not take ANY

> pre-emptive action against them, they will build up their nuclear arsenal,

> then launch a massive first strike, hoping they can knock the US out of the

> box on the first strike, then they win.-

That's even nuttier than the old domino theory.

Bret Cahill

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

news:47b4f0d7$0$17354$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

> "Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>>

>>

>> By Case Wagenvoord

>>

>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

>> may

>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>>

>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>>

>> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

>> shove

>> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

>> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

>> that

>> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

>> that

>> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>>

>> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war,

>> and

>> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused

>> them

>> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

>> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>>

>> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

>> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real

>> threat

>> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

>> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

>> has

>> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

>> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>

> Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

> your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

> you,

They'd know they were dealing with a country that actually obeys the Law of

Nations

"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:47b4f2dd$0$26246$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>

> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

> news:47b4f0d7$0$17354$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>

>> "Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>>

>>> By Wagenvoord

>>>

>>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>>>

>>>

>>> By Case Wagenvoord

>>>

>>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

>>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

>>> may

>>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>>>

>>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

>>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

>>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>>>

>>> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

>>> shove

>>> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

>>> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

>>> that

>>> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

>>> that

>>> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>>>

>>> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war,

>>> and

>>> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused

>>> them

>>> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a

>>> robust

>>> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>>>

>>> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

>>> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real

>>> threat

>>> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by

>>> another

>>> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

>>> has

>>> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

>>> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>>

>> Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

>> your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

>> you,

>

> They'd know they were dealing with a country that actually obeys the Law

> of Nations

>

You won't have a country, if they succeed.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> By Wagenvoord

>

> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> been unforgivable.)

>

You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>

> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment

> money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to war with the

> equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to

> unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every

> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

>

Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

> And you dare accuse us of not supporting the troops!

>

> You have allowed a cabal of bilious old men, who are nothing more than

> Pollyannas with PMS, to hijack our foreign policy so they could pursue their

> demented fantasies of power and world domination.

>

You are such a kook.

--

"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their

nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in

because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my

appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no

single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?

Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your

Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a

bitch got over the wall."

-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>

>

> Gandalf Grey wrote:

>>

>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> been unforgivable.)

>>

> You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>

>

>>

>> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

>> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

>> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

>> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

>> armored up?

>>

> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

Sheesh.......

Mitchell Holman

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today

will last five days, five weeks or five months, but

it won't last any longer than that."

Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

On Feb 15, 9:09�am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:

> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >> By Wagenvoord

>

> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> >> been unforgivable.)

>

> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>

> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

> >> armored up?

>

> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>

> � � �Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>

> � � �Sheesh.......

>

> � � � Mitchell Holman

>

> "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today

> will last five days, five weeks or five months, but

> it won't last any longer than that."

> Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002.

There was a Bushie on MSNBC's Morning Joe, this morning, claiming that

Clinton left the borderline-retard with a recession in 2000. I

remember the economy being very good when Clinton left.

I was astounded, once again, by the boldface LIES these people can

come up with to TRY to protect the Borderline-Retard's legacy.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>>

> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it

> had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a

> military programme they didn't want to cut?

Please explain how Bill Clinton and Al Gore were able to cut military programs. After you fail at that, name some military programs

cut by Clinton-Gore. List them here ==>

Mitchell Holman wrote:

>

> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>

> >

> >

> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

> >>

> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

> >>

> >> By Wagenvoord

> >>

> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> >> been unforgivable.)

> >>

> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

> >

> >

> >>

> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

> >> armored up?

> >>

> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>

> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>

The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

have.

--

"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their

nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in

because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my

appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no

single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?

Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your

Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a

bitch got over the wall."

-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>

>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>>

>> >

>> >

>> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>> >>

>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>> >>

>> >> By Wagenvoord

>> >>

>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> >> been unforgivable.)

>> >>

>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care.

>> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on

>> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an

>> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil.

>> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>> >

>> >

>> >>

>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army

>> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men

>> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How

>> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq

>> >> been properly armored up?

>> >>

>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because

>> > it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met

>> > a military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to

>> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with

>> > what you don't have.

>>

>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>>

> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

> have.

The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple.

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message

news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net...

> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>

>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

>>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>>>

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>>> >>

>>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>> >>

>>> >> By Wagenvoord

>>> >>

>>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>>> >> been unforgivable.)

>>> >>

>>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care.

>>> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on

>>> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an

>>> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil.

>>> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >>

>>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army

>>> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men

>>> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How

>>> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq

>>> >> been properly armored up?

>>> >>

>>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because

>>> > it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met

>>> > a military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to

>>> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with

>>> > what you don't have.

>>>

>>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

>>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

>>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>>>

>> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

>> have.

>

> The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a threat to

> the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple.

Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back up his

claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." Notably, you may have to go

to war with what you have, but in accordance with Article VI of the United

States Constitution, you do not go to war whenever you want.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:41:50 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"

<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>

>

>Gandalf Grey wrote:

>>

>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> been unforgivable.)

>>

>You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

>pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

>it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

>ideas,

The problem with trying to win clashes of ideas with guns is that guns

shoot bullets, not memes.

On Feb 14, 6:22 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

>

> news:47b4f0d7$0$17354$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

>

>

>

>

> > "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >> By Wagenvoord

>

> >> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>

> >> By Case Wagenvoord

>

> >> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

> >> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

> >> may

> >> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>

> >> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

> >> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

> >> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>

> >> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

> >> shove

> >> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

> >> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

> >> that

> >> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

> >> that

> >> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>

> >> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war,

> >> and

> >> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused

> >> them

> >> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

> >> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>

> >> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

> >> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real

> >> threat

> >> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

> >> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

> >> has

> >> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

> >> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>

> > Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

> > your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

> > you,

>

> They'd know they were dealing with a country that actually obeys the Law of

> Nations

What is the Law of Nations? Which nations obey it?

On Feb 14, 8:08 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:47b4f2dd$0$26246$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>

>

>

>

>

> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

> >news:47b4f0d7$0$17354$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

> >> "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> >>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >>> By Wagenvoord

>

> >>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>

> >>> By Case Wagenvoord

>

> >>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

> >>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

> >>> may

> >>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>

> >>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

> >>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

> >>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>

> >>> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

> >>> shove

> >>> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

> >>> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

> >>> that

> >>> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

> >>> that

> >>> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>

> >>> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war,

> >>> and

> >>> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused

> >>> them

> >>> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a

> >>> robust

> >>> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>

> >>> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

> >>> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real

> >>> threat

> >>> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by

> >>> another

> >>> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

> >>> has

> >>> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

> >>> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>

> >> Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

> >> your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

> >> you,

>

> > They'd know they were dealing with a country that actually obeys the Law

> > of Nations

>

> You won't have a country, if they succeed.

That's what he wants.

On Feb 15, 6:09 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:

> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>

>

>

>

>

> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >> By Wagenvoord

>

> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> >> been unforgivable.)

>

> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>

> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

> >> armored up?

>

> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>

> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>

> Sheesh.......

>

> Mitchell Holman

>

When America goes to war it should go all out to win the war. Bush

and you do not believe that.

On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:41:50 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"

>

>

>

> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>

> >Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >> By Wagenvoord

>

> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> >> been unforgivable.)

>

> >You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> >pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> >it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> >ideas,

>

> The problem with trying to win clashes of ideas with guns is that guns

> shoot bullets, not memes.

When you have a gun people get the idea. Without guns you would not

have liberty or freedom. Those wh will not fight for their freedom do

not deserve it.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and

degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that

nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for

which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his

own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of

being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than

himself." -- John Stuart Mill

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:54:31 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>

>"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>>

>>

>> By Case Wagenvoord

>>

>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

>> may

>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>>

>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>>

>> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

>> shove

>> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

>> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

>> that

>> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

>> that

>> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>>

>> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war, and

>> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused them

>> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a robust

>> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>>

>> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

>> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real threat

>> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by another

>> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

>> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>

>Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

>your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

>you, they will do one of two things. One, they will attack every other

>country, and if they are successful, they will soon be in control over these

>countries, leaving the US isolated and alone. They would first start by

>taking over the entire middle east, and then they have control over most of

>the oil in the world today. "If" they can get Russia to be on their side,

>they will control even more of the oil. Then they would start gobbling up

>every other country. Or, if say China knows the US will not take ANY

>pre-emptive action against them, they will build up their nuclear arsenal,

>then launch a massive first strike, hoping they can knock the US out of the

>box on the first strike, then they win.

The US had a policy of massive retaliation or MAD thru the Cold War

and it seem to work just fine. Worked fine for the entire Western

world too as that was included under NATO, etc; So your neo-Domino

Theory falls apart as it did back in the 60's. There's just no massive

conspiracy to take down the US. Of course if we continue to attack

countries without provocation, then one might arise.

As for Russia, Putin's policy is no different than the Tsars and the

Reds - a push for warm water ports and control of the Mideast. Truman

stopped that adventurism in the late 40's. The US again stopped this

with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR. There's

no love lost between the Syrians and the Russians, and the Iranians

and the Russians. There could however be lots of love if the US

continues on its present agressive policy. The US has large bases in

the area - the Russians none.

China's much more interested in a continuously growing economy that in

military conquests. China's economy is a much larger threat than the

Chinese military. One day China will request payment in full for our

massive debt. I wonder how many Weimar dollars they'll get?

What Bush's attack now and ask questions later policy has done in Iraq

is to destabilize the country. It's the most non-homogenous country in

the area and all it took was for Saddam to go and POW - that's the

sound of Iraq's demise. Yup - Bush's cowboy diplomacy has worked out

just fine. Whatever happened to, "Speak softly and carry a big

stick." Somebody should find one and beat Bush upside his head with

it.

WB Yeats

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:47B5C0CE.21CB971B@yahoo.co.uk:

>

>

> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>

>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>>

>> >

>> >

>> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>> >>

>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>> >>

>> >> By Wagenvoord

>> >>

>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> >> been unforgivable.)

>> >>

>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

>> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

>> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

>> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>> >

>> >

>> >>

>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

>> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

>> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

>> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

>> >> armored up?

>> >>

>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it

had

>> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

>> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>>

>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>>

> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

> have.

Bush started the war.

Bush underestimated the number of troops needed.

Both of which are Clinton's fault, of course.

Sheesh..............

On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:

> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:47B5C0CE.21CB971B@yahoo.co.uk:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Mitchell Holman wrote:

>

> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

> >>news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>

> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> >> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>

> >> >> By Wagenvoord

>

> >> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

> >> >> been unforgivable.)

>

> >> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> >> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> >> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> >> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> >> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>

> >> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

> >> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

> >> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

> >> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

> >> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

> >> >> armored up?

>

> >> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it

> had

> >> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> >> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> >> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>

> >> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

> >> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

> >> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>

> > The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

> > have.

>

> Bush started the war.

>

> Bush underestimated the number of troops needed.

>

> Both of which are Clinton's fault, of course.

>

> Sheesh..............

How long did it take the American troops to reach Baghdad and topple

the Saddam Hussein government?

"znuybv" <thowilson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9edc45ef-2aee-4ccf-a743-bf050adca938@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 15, 6:09 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:

>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>> innews:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>>

>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> >> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> >> been unforgivable.)

>>

>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

>> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

>> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

>> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>>

>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to

>> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women

>> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives

>> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly

>> >> armored up?

>>

>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it

>> > had

>> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

>> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>>

>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>>

>> Sheesh.......

>>

>> Mitchell Holman

>>

> When America goes to war it should go all out to win the war. Bush

> and you do not believe that.

That would be true if Bush believed in cutting and running, and so far he

has not said he is willing to do that.

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

news:puubr313nlu3hl40kmmljqakhd2a1tf1jn@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:54:31 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Gandalf Grey" <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>news:47b47ec5$0$8667$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>>

>>> By Wagenvoord

>>>

>>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am

>>>

>>>

>>> By Case Wagenvoord

>>>

>>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry

>>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this

>>> may

>>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity.

>>>

>>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national

>>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is

>>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges.

>>>

>>> This doesn't make sense, because with a little effort Democrats could

>>> shove

>>> the charge of softness down the Republican's throat. Sen. Bernie Sanders

>>> said that the reason Congress will never cut off funding for the war is

>>> that

>>> they are afraid, "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying

>>> that

>>> the Democrats betrayed the troops."

>>>

>>> Let us assume that the Democrats actually cut off funding for the war,

>>> and

>>> that Bush did exactly as they feared: He went on the tube and accused

>>> them

>>> of not supporting our troops. What follows is an example of what a

>>> robust

>>> Democratic rebuttal of that charge would sound like:

>>>

>>> Mr. President, let us explain to you how one goes about supporting our

>>> troops. To begin with, one only sends them into combat where a real

>>> threat

>>> to our national security exists, such as an attack on our soil by

>>> another

>>> nation. (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

>>> has

>>> been unforgivable.) One does not support our troops by sending them into

>>> combat on a rickety raft barely held together by 935 lies.

>>

>>Here is how the President should reply. If; you establish a policy where

>>your future adversaries know you will not attack them, until they attack

>>you, they will do one of two things. One, they will attack every other

>>country, and if they are successful, they will soon be in control over

>>these

>>countries, leaving the US isolated and alone. They would first start by

>>taking over the entire middle east, and then they have control over most

>>of

>>the oil in the world today. "If" they can get Russia to be on their side,

>>they will control even more of the oil. Then they would start gobbling up

>>every other country. Or, if say China knows the US will not take ANY

>>pre-emptive action against them, they will build up their nuclear arsenal,

>>then launch a massive first strike, hoping they can knock the US out of

>>the

>>box on the first strike, then they win.

>

> The US had a policy of massive retaliation or MAD thru the Cold War

> and it seem to work just fine.

MAD makes one basic assumption. That the other side is not insane, but that

the other side is sane. It works great "if" the other side says to

themselves, the risk is not worth the reward, it does not work worth a damn

when the other side does not care what happens if they attack you....

Worked fine for the entire Western

> world too as that was included under NATO, etc; So your neo-Domino

> Theory falls apart as it did back in the 60's.

No one can say that the Domino Theory was not correct. You can say it was

not correct, "if" we did not get involved in that theater of oprations, and

the "dominos" did not fall. But since we did get involved in that theater

of operation, you cannot say it was not correct. Besides, the Domino Theory

was partly fulfilled, when South Vietnam collapsed, and the North invaded

Laos, and the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia.

There's just no massive

> conspiracy to take down the US. Of course if we continue to attack

> countries without provocation, then one might arise.

It does not have to be a massive conspiracy. As radical islam has shown, a

handful of dediated people can cause an awful lot of damage....

>

> As for Russia, Putin's policy is no different than the Tsars and the

> Reds - a push for warm water ports and control of the Mideast. Truman

> stopped that adventurism in the late 40's. The US again stopped this

> with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR. There's

> no love lost between the Syrians and the Russians, and the Iranians

> and the Russians. There could however be lots of love if the US

> continues on its present agressive policy. The US has large bases in

> the area - the Russians none.

There was no real love between Stalin's Russia and Britain and the US

either, during WWII. It was a marriage of conveninece, nothing more...

>

> China's much more interested in a continuously growing economy that in

> military conquests. China's economy is a much larger threat than the

> Chinese military. One day China will request payment in full for our

> massive debt. I wonder how many Weimar dollars they'll get?

If that is all they are interested in, why are they spending so much money

building up their military?

>

> What Bush's attack now and ask questions later policy has done in Iraq

> is to destabilize the country. It's the most non-homogenous country in

> the area and all it took was for Saddam to go and POW - that's the

> sound of Iraq's demise. Yup - Bush's cowboy diplomacy has worked out

> just fine. Whatever happened to, "Speak softly and carry a big

> stick." Somebody should find one and beat Bush upside his head with

> it.

>

It will not be if we and the new Iraqi government succeeds. The odds of

what you think will happen is increased if we cut and run, before the new

Iraqi Government is able to defend themselves.

znuybv <thowilson@gmail.com> wrote in

news:0780a929-4f3b-4489-ad6e-e0caed3630af@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:

>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>> innews:47B5C0CE.21CB971B@yahoo.co.uk:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>

>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

>> >>news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk:

>>

>> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote:

>>

>> >> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> >> >> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> >> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy

>> >> >> has been unforgivable.)

>>

>> >> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care.

>> >> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on

>> >> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an

>> >> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil.

>> >> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear.

>>

>> >> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best

>> >> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army

>> >> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men

>> >> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How

>> >> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq

>> >> >> been properly armored up?

>>

>> >> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because

>> >> > it

>> had

>> >> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a

>> >> > military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to

>> >> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with

>> >> > what you don't have.

>>

>> >> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient

>> >> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his

>> >> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault?

>>

>> > The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you

>> > have.

>>

>> Bush started the war.

>>

>> Bush underestimated the number of troops needed.

>>

>> Both of which are Clinton's fault, of course.

>>

>> Sheesh..............

>

> How long did it take the American troops to reach Baghdad and topple

> the Saddam Hussein government?

If Bush didn't underestimate the number of troops

needed then why "the Surge" of even more troops?

On Feb 14, 9:41 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"

<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gandalf Grey wrote:

> > And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment

> > money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to war with the

> > equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to

> > unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every

> > vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

>

> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> programme they didn't want to cut?

No.

Lobster

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>

> Gandalf Grey wrote:

>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq

>>

>> By Wagenvoord

>>

>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has

>> been unforgivable.)

>>

> You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You

> pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that

> it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of

> ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you

> intentionally don't see this is less clear.

This is what modernity did:

http://www.dtman.com/covert/images/child.jpg

http://www.dtman.com/covert/images/child.jpg

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/images/ali.jpg

You are every bit as much to blame as any supporter of Osama bin Laden.

>

>

>> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best equipment

>> money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to war with the

>> equipment it has. This left our brave men and women needlessly exposed to

>> unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every

>> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up?

>>

> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it had

> just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military

> programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what

> you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have.

>

>

>> And you dare accuse us of not supporting the troops!

>>

>> You have allowed a cabal of bilious old men, who are nothing more than

>> Pollyannas with PMS, to hijack our foreign policy so they could pursue their

>> demented fantasies of power and world domination.

>>

> You are such a kook.

>

>

>