The Surge-GWB Gets Credit

I want everyone to read jack “Don’t question anything I say because I served” murtha admitting the surge is working.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/murtha_eats_crow_on_iraq.html

That is huge news. Coupled with the democrats admitting hypocrisy as they chide the Iraqi’s for not passing laws when they can’t pass their own!!!

I remember when GWB proposed the surge. All the pundits said it wouldn’t work. All the snakes (lixy) were foaming at the mouth.

Bush gets credit for turning the war around in a profound way.

After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.

You do it after winning, NOT in the face of a hostile enemy.

You’ve lost, lixy.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I want everyone to read jack “Don’t question anything I say because I served” murtha admitting the surge is working.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/murtha_eats_crow_on_iraq.html

That is huge news. Coupled with the democrats admitting hypocrisy as they chide the Iraqi’s for not passing laws when they can’t pass their own!!!

I remember when GWB proposed the surge. All the pundits said it wouldn’t work. All the snakes (lixy) were foaming at the mouth.

Bush gets credit for turning the war around in a profound way.

After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.

You do it after winning, NOT in the face of a hostile enemy.

You’ve lost, lixy.

JeffR[/quote]

Well, I am glad it’s working and it’s about fucking time GWB did something right in regards to Iraq amidst so many fuck ups. It is a relief to see that we may actaully be ablr to get the fuck out of there sometime relatively soon.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I want everyone to read jack “Don’t question anything I say because I served” murtha admitting the surge is working.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/murtha_eats_crow_on_iraq.html

That is huge news. Coupled with the democrats admitting hypocrisy as they chide the Iraqi’s for not passing laws when they can’t pass their own!!!

I remember when GWB proposed the surge. All the pundits said it wouldn’t work. All the snakes (lixy) were foaming at the mouth.

Bush gets credit for turning the war around in a profound way.

After several straight months of relative peace, it will be time to start drawing down the forces.

You do it after winning, NOT in the face of a hostile enemy.

You’ve lost, lixy.

JeffR

Well, I am glad it’s working and it’s about fucking time GWB did something right in regards to Iraq amidst so many fuck ups. It is a relief to see that we may actaully be ablr to get the fuck out of there sometime relatively soon.[/quote]

Agreed.

Here is more:

http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071204/ts_nm/iraq_dc

40 al qaeda leaders killed or captive in November 2007.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You’ve lost, lixy. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about?

It is evidently good news that the plight of the Iraqi refugees is coming to an end. It is good news that there will be less amputated young Americans.

You say “Bush gets credit for turning the war around in a profound way”; I say Bush gets credit for starting the war.

Now go back to tasering people and leave me out of your silly partisan BS.

That violence is down in Iraq is great news. There’s been more than enough dying done by all sides.

The problem is that reducing violence was supposed to allow the government and the Iraq political process to get it’s act together and to actually start governing the country.

That doesn’t appear to have happened yet. Whether the US congress is able to pass laws or not is a moot point. Iraq needs to get its political house in order, pronto. A democracy doesn’t spontaneously operate by itself. It needs a whole supporting apparatus (legislative, executive, etc… you know the drill). Iraq appears to still be lacking large portions of those supporting institutions.

If Iraq does manage to establish a functioning government that remains stable after US stand down, then, yes, the surge will have worked and I’ll be quite happy to announce to the world that I was wrong about it being too little, too late. But that political process needs to happen very, very soon.

[quote]pookie wrote:
That violence is down in Iraq is great news. There’s been more than enough dying done by all sides.

The problem is that reducing violence was supposed to allow the government and the Iraq political process to get it’s act together and to actually start governing the country.

That doesn’t appear to have happened yet. Whether the US congress is able to pass laws or not is a moot point. Iraq needs to get its political house in order, pronto. A democracy doesn’t spontaneously operate by itself. It needs a whole supporting apparatus (legislative, executive, etc… you know the drill). Iraq appears to still be lacking large portions of those supporting institutions.

If Iraq does manage to establish a functioning government that remains stable after US stand down, then, yes, the surge will have worked and I’ll be quite happy to announce to the world that I was wrong about it being too little, too late. But that political process needs to happen very, very soon.
[/quote]

I don’t care if it’s a democracy, monarchy, ogliarchy, dictatorship or what not as long as it is freindly to us and stable; I will be a happy camper to be out of that shithole.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I don’t care if it’s a democracy, monarchy, ogliarchy, dictatorship or what not as long as it is freindly to us and stable; I will be a happy camper to be out of that shithole.[/quote]

So dictatorships are fine as long as they are friendly to US interests?

How far we’ve come from “we’re bringing democracy to the world!”

[quote]pookie wrote:

So dictatorships are fine as long as they are friendly to US interests?

[/quote]

As opposed to hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda? Hmm, hostile dictatorship, or friendly Al Qaeda fighting dictatorship. Which one is potentially the bigger threat, I wonder. Well, isn’t that an obvious answer for any nation?

As for not caring if a democracy is left behind or not…Pat, of course, speaks for himself.

I myself would very much like to see a democratic form of government in place when US security operations end. But, even I, at some point won’t support US security operations in Iraq forever. At some point Iraqi governement, security forces, and everday citizens are going to have to step up completely.

If they fail, and their government becomes a sectarian dictatorship, because the majority of Iraqis either supported such a thing, or sat on their hands while it happened, it’s on them. At that point it’s the government they’ve chosen, or at least are willing to tolerate. Just as long as they actively fight Al Qaeda and other islmasist terrorists groups. But, if they provide a safe harbor, we’ll be right back there. And this time there’ll be no reconstruction and nation building.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
As opposed to hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda?[/quote]

How about a contained and well watched dictatorship who wasn’t harboring AQ in the first place?

You could’ve saved about a trillion dollars and close to 4000 troops. To mention nothing of your image abroad and your tense relations with long-time allies…

I’d like to see Iraq (and Afghanistan too) work out and become modern democratic nations. But for all the rah-rahs and surge apologists, I’m not seeing it. The surge, as successful as it might turn out to be, is a temporary measure that was put in place to allow the Iraqi political process to sort itself out. THAT’s the really important part, and it’s just not happening. At least, not fast enough.

Let’s hope that Iraq can hold on to what little progress has been made under the surge and build on it for the long term.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I don’t care if it’s a democracy, monarchy, ogliarchy, dictatorship or what not as long as it is freindly to us and stable; I will be a happy camper to be out of that shithole.

So dictatorships are fine as long as they are friendly to US interests?

How far we’ve come from “we’re bringing democracy to the world!”
[/quote]

That was never my agenda, the was GWB’s philosphy that he was going to change the way the Middle East works. I want it stable and want to get the fuck out. Seems to me that most people in that region cannot handle a representative republic, they go crazy and start killing each other. Dictatorships seems to suit them…So yes, in my book, dictatorships are fine as long as they are freindly or a least not a threat to us or our allys. To get rid of all the assholes in the world we have to kill an awful lot of leaders. Castro, Mugabe, Chavez, Putin, Kim, etc. shit…I don’t think we have enough bullets.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As opposed to hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda?

How about a contained and well watched dictatorship who wasn’t harboring AQ in the first place?

You could’ve saved about a trillion dollars and close to 4000 troops. To mention nothing of your image abroad and your tense relations with long-time allies…
[/quote]
Ah, so we’rearguing about the invasion. I wasn’t aware of that. I’m still a supporter of the invasion, but as the topic is about the present, I’m not going to list my reasons off, yet again. That debate has been done too many times for me.

[quote]
I’d like to see Iraq (and Afghanistan too) work out and become modern democratic nations.[/quote]

Good for you.

But what is “fast enough?” Bear in mind, we’re not talking about deciding if their government should fund charter schools, stem-cell research, or national park services. They’re debating some of the most absolute, underlying, and fundamental points on how their nation can move forward, together. They’re involved in “make or break” types of arguments. One wrong policy could doom any chance at a democratic and largely unified Iraq. So, what is fast enough? One more year for all outstanding debates to be settled and answered?

[quote]
Let’s hope that Iraq can hold on to what little progress has been made under the surge and build on it for the long term.[/quote]

Ablsolutely agree.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, so we’rearguing about the invasion. I wasn’t aware of that. I’m still a supporter of the invasion, but as the topic is about the present, I’m not going to list my reasons off, yet again. That debate has been done too many times for me.[/quote]

It’s not about the invasion, too late to change that anyway, but you’d conveniently avoided listing the situation as it was before you invaded in your alternatives.

Just thought I’d be helpful and remind you.

[quote]I’d like to see Iraq (and Afghanistan too) work out and become modern democratic nations.

Good for you.[/quote]

Good for pretty much everyone.

Who’s arguing that? A lot of the basic stuff is still missing or in an unready state.

If you’re willing to stay there and hold their hands until 2030, or however long it takes, fine. But I have a feeling the US public is going to want to bring back the troops way before that.

I’m all for you staying until the mess is cleaned up, but the American people’s resolve seems to be faltering.

Well, it’d be nice if they managed to put enough in place to remain stable when the surge ends.

Instead, we get news of the parliament (or whatever they call it) taking summer months off; factions walking out, etc. It’s a long process in the best situations; how long will it take if they keep pulling stupid shit like that instead of working to make it work?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ah, so we’rearguing about the invasion. I wasn’t aware of that. I’m still a supporter of the invasion, but as the topic is about the present, I’m not going to list my reasons off, yet again. That debate has been done too many times for me.

It’s not about the invasion, too late to change that anyway, but you’d conveniently avoided listing the situation as it was before you invaded in your alternatives.

Just thought I’d be helpful and remind you.
[/quote]
Ok, I’m lost. I’m conveniently avoiding to list the situation prior to invasion? But you just said “It’s not about the invasion, too late to change that anyway…” Right, so again, why would I list it? I’m not in possesion of a time machine, if I even agreed with “the situation as it was before,” as you view it. So, it’s pointless for me to list it. But, even while agreeing with me on the futility of going down that tangent, you question my motives. I was trying to be polite here.


I know, I made that point directly below what you quoted. The basic stuff is what’s going to be the most grueling thing a democratic Iraqi government will probably ever have to do.

I have no idea how long it will take. I’ve never offered a guestimate, and won’t here. But I’m not ready to say “not fast enough,” yet. That’s all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, I’m lost.[/quote]

Your “…hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda? Hmm, hostile dictatorship, or friendly Al Qaeda fighting dictatorship” lacked a few possibilities, that’s all.

After all the time, money and lives invested in this war, it would really suck to settle for yet another Middle Eastern dictatorship.

It’s not really important, no one is getting a do-over anyway.

It’s not fast enough in the sense that those Iraqis involved in the political process don’t seem motivated to use the relative peace provided by the surge to get things done.

When the surge ends (April 2008 is it?) and troop levels go back to pre-surge numbers, will enough have been done and put in place to maintain stability, or will Iraq simply fall back into chaos and sectarian violence? It’s not like all the insurgents have gone away or anything. They live there.

That’s why I wish they’d hurry; or at the very least appear to give the impression that they’re putting the provided reprieve to good use. Taking months of vacation and having a third of their parliament’s members walk out is not what I was hoping to see.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok, I’m lost.

Your “…hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda? Hmm, hostile dictatorship, or friendly Al Qaeda fighting dictatorship” lacked a few possibilities, that’s all.

After all the time, money and lives invested in this war, it would really suck to settle for yet another Middle Eastern dictatorship.

It’s not really important, no one is getting a do-over anyway.

[/quote]

But, it seems you support staying in Iraq for the time being anyway so as not to “settle for yet another Middle Eastern dictaroship.” That’s pretty much what I said. I’m not asking for troop withdraws now, because I want to see a western friendly democratic Iraq. What I’m not going to do is caught up in yet another should have/shouldn’t have invaded Iraq debate. As we both have said now, it would be entirely pointless to this thread. I think we can both leave it as this?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As opposed to hostile dictatorships that will harbor Al Qaeda?

How about a contained and well watched dictatorship who wasn’t harboring AQ in the first place?

[/quote]

For all the euro-weenies, liberal democrats, nasty canadians, PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT sADDAM WASN’T HARBORING al qaeda IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE WAR.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POINT OUT THAT SADDAM REFUSED TO EXTRADITE AL ZARQAWI PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION?

IN SPITE OF HAVING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JORDIANIAN KING, SADDAM REFUSED TO TURN HIM OVER.

AL ZARQAWI WAS SHOT IN THE LEG FIGHTING FOR AL QAEDA AGAINST THE U.S. IN 2001. HE SOUGHT AND RECEIVED CARE FROM HIS PATRON, SADDAM.

Here is the timesonline: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article672996.ece

IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR SOURCE YOU PREFER, LET ME KNOW AND I’LL GO AHEAD AND GOOGLE IT FOR YOU.

YOU CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT WHETHER SADDAM WOULD HAVE USED NUCLEAR OR CHEMICAL WEAPONERY DIRECTLY AGAINST US, BUT YOU CANNOT (AS IN PLEASE STOP) KEEP CONTENDING THAT AL QAEDA WASN’T BEING DIRECTLY AND OPENLY BEING SUPPORTED BY SADDAM PRIOR TO 2003.

This is my new approach to the snakes. I’ll work on one talking point per day.

They will eventually add up.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
For all the euro-weenies, liberal democrats, nasty canadians, PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT sADDAM WASN’T HARBORING al qaeda IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE WAR.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POINT OUT THAT SADDAM REFUSED TO EXTRADITE AL ZARQAWI PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION?

IN SPITE OF HAVING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JORDIANIAN KING, SADDAM REFUSED TO TURN HIM OVER.

AL ZARQAWI WAS SHOT IN THE LEG FIGHTING FOR AL QAEDA AGAINST THE U.S. IN 2001. HE SOUGHT AND RECEIVED CARE FROM HIS PATRON, SADDAM.

Here is the timesonline: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article672996.ece

IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR SOURCE YOU PREFER, LET ME KNOW AND I’LL GO AHEAD AND GOOGLE IT FOR YOU.[/quote]

Here’s the relevant part of your article:

…al-Zarqawi was wounded in one leg. He fled across Iran to Iraq and reportedly received treatment in Baghdad, apparently at the expense of the Iraqi Government. It is believed that Saddam refused a request by King Hussein to extradite al-Zarqawi to Jordan, despite the close relationship between the two countries at the time. In any case, al-Zarqawi is understood to have visited Syria, Lebanon and Jordan before basing himself in the summer of 2002 in a strip of territory in the Iraqi Kurdish region on the border with Iran that was held by the group Ansar al-Islam (the Supporters of Islam).

Apart from the “reportedly” and “is believed” which seem to indicate as much guessing as knowing, it says that Saddam refused to extradite him to Jordan, but that Zarqawi later visited it.

Aren’t you going to invade Jordan and topple the regime for letting AQ briefly transit?

Your big ace card in regards to Iraq harboring Al-Qaeda is that one guy, shot in the leg, stayed there for a some months, hidden in the Kurdish regions…? Why was he hiding if he was a welcomed guest?

It’s very weak. As usual.

I’m sure writing it in all caps will convince more people. SHOUTING EQUALS INSTANT CREDIBILITY, DOESN’T IT?

One guy. Shot in a leg. Hidden with the Kurds near the Iranian border.

That’s your idea of direct and open support for an organization? Do you give free taserings with that?

Oh, and one last thing:

I’d just like to know how you produce a variety of nuclear weaponry from 50kg of enriched uranium.

Since you brought it up.

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
For all the euro-weenies, liberal democrats, nasty canadians, PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT sADDAM WASN’T HARBORING al qaeda IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE WAR.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POINT OUT THAT SADDAM REFUSED TO EXTRADITE AL ZARQAWI PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION?

IN SPITE OF HAVING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JORDIANIAN KING, SADDAM REFUSED TO TURN HIM OVER.

AL ZARQAWI WAS SHOT IN THE LEG FIGHTING FOR AL QAEDA AGAINST THE U.S. IN 2001. HE SOUGHT AND RECEIVED CARE FROM HIS PATRON, SADDAM.

Here is the timesonline: The Times & The Sunday Times

IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR SOURCE YOU PREFER, LET ME KNOW AND I’LL GO AHEAD AND GOOGLE IT FOR YOU.

Here’s the relevant part of your article:

…al-Zarqawi was wounded in one leg. He fled across Iran to Iraq and reportedly received treatment in Baghdad, apparently at the expense of the Iraqi Government. It is believed that Saddam refused a request by King Hussein to extradite al-Zarqawi to Jordan, despite the close relationship between the two countries at the time. In any case, al-Zarqawi is understood to have visited Syria, Lebanon and Jordan before basing himself in the summer of 2002 in a strip of territory in the Iraqi Kurdish region on the border with Iran that was held by the group Ansar al-Islam (the Supporters of Islam).

Apart from the “reportedly” and “is believed” which seem to indicate as much guessing as knowing, it says that Saddam refused to extradite him to Jordan, but that Zarqawi later visited it.

Aren’t you going to invade Jordan and topple the regime for letting AQ briefly transit?

Your big ace card in regards to Iraq harboring Al-Qaeda is that one guy, shot in the leg, stayed there for a some months, hidden in the Kurdish regions…? Why was he hiding if he was a welcomed guest?

It’s very weak. As usual.

I’m sure writing it in all caps will convince more people. SHOUTING EQUALS INSTANT CREDIBILITY, DOESN’T IT?

YOU CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT WHETHER SADDAM WOULD HAVE USED NUCLEAR OR CHEMICAL WEAPONERY DIRECTLY AGAINST US, BUT YOU CANNOT (AS IN PLEASE STOP) KEEP CONTENDING THAT AL QAEDA WASN’T BEING DIRECTLY AND OPENLY BEING SUPPORTED BY SADDAM PRIOR TO 2003.

One guy. Shot in a leg. Hidden with the Kurds near the Iranian border.

That’s your idea of direct and open support for an organization? Do you give free taserings with that?

Oh, and one last thing:

I’d just like to know how you produce a variety of nuclear weaponry from 50kg of enriched uranium.

Since you brought it up.

[/quote]

pookie,

This is why I don’t like arguing with snakes.

HERE ARE THE WORDS OF JORDAN’S KING ABDULLAH:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/May/middleeast_May570.xml&section=middleeast

Read it.

It ISN’T JUST “ONE GUY” it’s a highly visible leader of al qaeda. In fact, he turned into THE LEADER.

Does your infantile brain fail to grasp that if saddam was harboring and refusing to extradite A LEADER, there is a high probability that the guys he LEADS were with him?

DO LEADERS TYPICALLY TRAVEL UNARMED AND ALONE?

Hey, jackass, I’ve long since directly answered your commentary about the uranium.

Don’t believe me? Look up my posts.

I never said he could produce a wide array of nuclear weaponery from the amount he was purported to have.

I DID SAY that he was obviously trying to acquire enough to make weapons and there was a high probability he’d use them.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR shouted:

[/quote]

The following is the most comprehensive and up-to-date study on the issue, and they concluded that “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

What now? Can’t trust your own government?

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR shouted:

The following is the most comprehensive and up-to-date study on the issue, and they concluded that “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

What now? Can’t trust your own government?[/quote]

lixy,

Isn’t it you who is constantly saying my Government is wrong?

Now you have 100% faith?

You are so clumsy.

Oh, did the Senate report mention the saddam tapes that haven’t been translated?

Did the Senate report mention Saddam’s refusal to extradite al zarqawi?

If the answer to either or both is no, then the report was incomplete.

Let me ask you directly: Is King Abdullah lying? If he’s lying, then why? If he is lying and you give a reason, then tell me why our intelligence placed al zarqawi exactly where Abdullah says he was.

I know I’m hitting an area of supreme tenderness to you snakes, but, to say that saddam wasn’t actively supporting al qaeda, is simply false.

JeffR