Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookLetter to the Editor:
No criticism is too harsh for Bush team
Fri, Jun 20, 2008 (2:02 a.m.)
Kudos to Carole LaRocca’s Thursday letter, headlined “Bush owes disabled veterans an apology.” She criticized President Bush and his “greedy cohorts” for sending our brave soldiers to war based on false rationalizations, and for Bush’s further failure to back enhanced educational benefits for those soldiers when they return from war.
What can be said of a president who sends Americans to fight a war of choice — not of necessity — and then provides inadquate care for some of those brave young men and women when they return from war suffering catastrophic disabilities?
This is the same president whose administration, for purely war propaganda purposes, lied to the nation and to the family of Pat Tillman about Tillman’s friendly fire death. This despicable conduct is fully detailed in the book “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” by Mary Tillman, Pat Tillman’s mother.
John McCain has stated that we may have a military presence in Iraq for the next 100 years. When you vote in November, remember that history tells us that if we do not learn from our mistakes then we are truly doomed to repeat them.
Discussion: 35 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Man arrested for attempted sexual assault
- Motorcyclist who died in crash off I-15 overpass identified
- All the theatrics, and a ‘killer speech,’ too
- Palin energizes skeptical base
- Fire at Land Rover dealership under investigation
- Buyout keeps Cosmopolitan in play
- Why attack on city bus met inaction
- Officers fatally shoot man wanted in Clark County burglaries
- Arrest made in teen’s death
- Las Vegas trio guilty of drug trafficking in Hawaii
Blogs
Winning The West
McCain energizes Republicans (1 Comment)
Protesters interrupt McCain (4 Comments)
Culture Blog
Welcome back to (a cooler) First Friday
Now and Then
Las Vegas team to be named later could outdraw its parent club -- if it's the Marlins
Culture Blog
Tributes to Four Seasons, Supremes and Sophie Tucker in Summerlin
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Clark County School District v. Shirley A. Breeden
Sports: UNLV
UNLV-Louisville hoops on New Year's Eve Day to air on ESPN 2
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Carl Edwards caption contest (2 Comments)
Calendar
The Temptations at the Orleans
The legendary motown band returns to Las Vegas (8 p.m. to 11 p.m. Orleans Hotel-Casino)
- Harvest Festival at the Cashman Center (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
- "The New Generation" boxing match at Star of the Desert Arena (5:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Jeff McBride Magic at the Edge at Palace Station (7:30 p.m.)
- Alice Cooper's Psycho-Drama Tour at the Orleans Showroom (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
More re-hash = blown out in debate - of stale talking points of the DNC and the Huffington Post, etc.
McCain, in ongoing liberal lying, never said what this writer is saying.
America's enemies can't wait for November, if the liberal, Obama, is elected.
Read about Obama's melting down...
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
BUT, misleading the public in general is the journalistic standard to the Socialist Sun.....
Questioner: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…"
McCain: "Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me."
That's exactly what he said. It's hilarious to watch the cowards who support McCain run away from his own words, and then turn around and attack Obama. Their utter inability to defend their own candidate speaks volumes about how the much vaunted "maverick" is anything but.
Watch them try to run away from McCain's own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2a...
More of the same from flip-flopper McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp...
The only "maverick" thing McCain's ever accomplished is how, with break-neck speed, he's sold out almost every ideal which made him such a great political figure.
NVMakz - do you ever do anything but spew right-wing lies and drivel? Thank heavens no one is stupid enough to vote for McInsane and be able to sleep with their conscience at night. 4 more years of uncontrolled spending, tearing away American rights all for the good of the upper 2%. I can't wait for November and we elect a fiscal responsible party and someone with a brain who isn't laughing all of the way to the bank when oil goes up. I am sure if Bubba had a child that was drafted in to his war, he would make sure they didn't go. Only poor people can lose their sons & daughters for his personal greed. That's why he went AWOL isn't it, oh I forgot Daddy sealed those records so no one would know - shhhh. If they can't read about it no one will know.... Come November we will elect a true President a leader and it sure won't be McInsane - just another Bubba wanna-be.
To the McCain and Bush haters-guess you do not care about the babies that will be aborted under the dems, clinton was such a great president according to the dems, maybe, if he had been doing his job instead of the "desk job", 9/11 wouldn't have happened. He didn't do anything about the Cole either. President Bush had to do the jobs , the other presidents didn't do. It's amazing that leaders from other countries truly like our President, but so many of the people of the U.S. prefer to read the mean press, instead of learning about a truly fine man. Maybe, if you didn't have so much hatred, you might even enjoy life. You should thank God that you live in the greatest country ever. Try a little kindness, it really doesn't hurt.
Hussein has sold his soul to (can you guess???) otherwise he will never win the Presidency.
I bet $100 that two years from we will still have over 60,000 troops in Iraq with Prez Hussein.
Katy: I guess you don't care about the babies that have been aborted under Bush, or will be under McCain.
Maybe you ignore the fact that Bush was handed a memo that was titled: "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and chose to ignore it. Such awesome judgment! The press is so mean!
Is this the best the right can come up with? They NEVER defend their own, just point the finger elsewhere. Oh, and no matter what, Clinton's sexual escapades are the cause of everything. High taxes, inflation, terrorism, low test scores, teen pregnancy, illegal immigration, gay marriage, all of it.
And no, Nancey, I can't guess who you think Obama's sold out to. See, you're a wingnut, and I can't follow your pretzel logic. Spell it out and prove it. Or call him Hussein a few more times, cause that's really scary to the many racists on the right.
That is your audience, you know. You cater to the fear of bigotry. Your cowardly inability to debate the issues is so typical of the Rush-Rove-Hannity sycophants.
Lets see......The world trade tower was first attacked in Clinton's term. Clinton determined that bin Laden was behind it and back then it was easy to find bin Laden and they found him.
A team of special forces had him in their crosshairs.
Clinton's team debated whether to kill him. They worry about civilians getting killed and they decided not to do it.
Later they did decide to go after his camp by firing cruise missiles thousands of miles away with out the aid of special forces guiding the missiles locally.
Albright called this, "Playing a video game".
Also during Clinton's term, a team of terrorist entered into the country and started to take piloting lessons.
Clinton had 6 years to kill bin Laden. Bush had 6 months. Too bad, both failed.
It is funny that Hussein was to go back to Clinton's policy of going after terrorist like they are police hunting down criminals.
That sure did put a big dent in our enemy's fighting capacity.....LOL Hey bin Laden put your hands up because Sherrif Hussein is coming afte you.
"Is this the best the right can come up with? They NEVER defend their own, just point the finger elsewhere."
Clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton, etc, etc, etc. Exactly what I already wrote, Republicans can never defend their own, only point the finger elsewhere.
Also, what happened to you whole wingnut "Obama sold out to ....." argument? Did you forget about that?
"Your cowardly inability to debate the issues is so typical of the Rush-Rove-Hannity sycophants."
It does hurt when you slammed Bush but Clinton or other presidents did the same thing but 100x worst.
And all you can do is this.....blah, blah...insult insult...blah, blah, blah ...insult, insult.
The sad part of it is that you are not good at generating insults.
Go take a class in generating insults. I believe that is the true love of your life.
You simply continue to prove my contention: you have no defense of Bush, or his failed policies.
You also fail to tell me who it is you think Obama sold out to. The fact is, you can't assert it because you know it isn't true.
All you can do is whine about Clinton. You're a broken record, Nance, who relies on the politics of fear and racism, aka "cowardly" tactics.
Prove me wrong and defend Bush.
Bush: No loss of civilians in the US due to terrorism since 9/11.
Enough said.
Bush: largest loss of civilian life on U.S. soil due to act of terrorism in U.S. history.
That's your great measuring stick? Casualties of terrorism? If that's how a great leader should be measured, Bush watched over the greatest U.S. terrorism casualty count in American history.
Or, in Bush's language: "Mission Accomplished!"
And you still can't demystify your grand "Obama sold out" argument. I've given you days to prove that one, and you've failed.
Empty rhetoric from another Rush-Rove-Hannity sycophant. Thank you for entirely proving my point.
I guess if we lost ten's of thousands of lives and large distruptions in our economy in the US after 9/11 that would have been no big deal in your book.
The reason why Hussein will keep significant qualities of troops in Iraq is that a close neighbor to the west of Iraq will force him to. He will no choice in the matter.
"I guess if we lost ten's of thousands of lives and large distruptions in our economy in the US after 9/11 that would have been no big deal in your book."
That's not what I said. You gave the worst available criteria for defending Bush: "civilian casualty loss in the U.S."
That's your great defense of Bush, a criteria which he could never win. You continue to prove my point... that the sycophants on the right blindly adore Bush without any criticism whatsoever.
You claim "no loss of civilians in the US due to terrorism since 9/11," which is COMPLETELY FALSE. What about the five people who died of anthrax in the Amerithrax attacks? I guess you don't care that those five people died and the Bush administration couldn't hold anyone accountable. Mission accomplished!
And I'll repeat myself for the last time: Who did Obama sell out to?
The anthrax has not been proven to be terror related. The strain of anthrax seemed to come from US stock. FBI was investigating a guy who before the anthrax attack started a anti-anthrax company and who access to that stock.
Yes, I am really glad that Bush has protected US citizens living in this country. Also, the soldiers have killed ten's of thousand 9/11 wanna be's, too.
As to sold out: "The reason why Hussein will keep significant qualities of troops in Iraq and in Kuwait is that a close by neighbor to the west of Iraq will force him to. He will have no choice in the matter."
You're such a joke. The weaponized anthrax wasn't terror related? Then what was it? A friendly gift? The note said "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU DIE NOW." But no, it's not terror related...
You selectively choose what is, and is not terrorism. Anthrax is bioterrorism. It has no other purpose. That you refuse to acknowledge that proves you're a right-wing leech.
You failed to delineate domestic terrorism versus international terrorism, and now you're scrambling to redefine what terrorism is. LOL!
Even when you're proven wrong, you just reiterate failed arguments. You're a constant source of amusement. Your great defense of Bush backfired, and now you think anthrax isn't terrorism.
If anthrax isn't terrorism, what is it?
But who am I kidding? There's no reasoning with you, just stale, debunked talking points.
And your Obama "argument"? "significant QUALITIES of troops?" Do you mean quantities? Do you read what you type? Obviously not.
No terrorist group has ever claimed respondibility for the attacks. The main person of interest had a monetary motive and not a political motive. He had access to the exact strain used in the attacks. He previously wrote a paper on to conduct such attacks. He is a person who generated false PHD credentials to get hire with the military germ program. Witnesses have claimed to see him around the mailboxes in Princeton where the attacks were mailed from. After the FBI questioned him another attack never occurred. I guess if we use your logic then every murder in the USA is a terrorist attack.
The only correct point that you have made so far is my use of the word 'qualities' instead of 'quantities'. Score two points for Mr. theBS.
Well, here's another: "respondibility?"
So, by your logic, causing nationwide panic by murdering five people and attempting to murder more by use of a weaponized neurological toxin is NOT terrorism?
What, pray tell, is your definition of terrorism, then? Just because a group hasn't claimed "respondibility" doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.
By your definition, Oklahoma City wasn't a terrorist act. Pssst: there are American terrorists. They're not all Muslim extremists... contrary to the brainwashing you've received from Rush-Rove-Hannity.
But Bush dropped the ball on prosecuting that as well. And thus: "no criticism is too harsh for (the) Bush team."
And please, before you reply, send it through a spell check or have someone proof-read it. It'll save you the shame of being outed as illiterate.
Yes Mr. Outed, you are doing excellent work fighting illiteracy.
According to the Webster's dictionary, which is much different than your slang dictionary, terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
There have been no groups that claim responsibility for the attacks. No group has made attempts at coercion related to the attacks.
The main person of interest in the investigation had a financial motive. Before those attacks, he started a company that was offering consulting services on how to prevent, stop or deal with bio-germ warfare attacks. He was not attempting to coerce anyone but he was trying profit from the attacks.
But to save you heartache, I will change my argument to no citizen has died from a terrorist attack in US since November 21st, 2001. That is over 6.5 years of protection.
You hate Bush so much that will not concede that he has protected the homeland for that date range.
So go close your eyes and dream of more ways to hate Bush.
No, it just goes to show you haven't thought your own arguments through. You come here and espouse the worst right-wing talking points and can't back them up with actual facts.
It takes several days worth of back and forth to have you admit that the anthrax attack was terrorism.
Since you're so fond of definitions, let's define coerce: "to achieve by force or threat." The threat would be death by anthrax. Thus, it was a terrorist act. The DHS defined it as such in the PATRIOT act: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
To follow your reasoning, Bush is responsible for the safety of U.S. civilians only AFTER 11-21-01. Why not before? He should be responsible for the protection of America since taking office, and should be held responsible for all acts during his administration, ergo you must hold him responsible for 9/11.
So yes, Bush can take responsibility for a safe populace for 6.5 years, as well as take responsibility for the largest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
So your argument makes complete sense once you concede that fact. However, it's an argument for why Bush has failed, not a successful defense of Bush.
You are right. Bush in his first nine months of office failed to stop 9/11.
Clinton failed to stop those same terrorists from sneaking into the country and who got pilot training on his watch. He failed to stop this despite the fact he got a heads up from bin Laden. I guess he did not get it when Laden’s guys tried to destroy world trade buildings the first time.
Both Bush and Clinton failed.
Here are things that Bush did not fail on.
1) From Nov 2001 until now, no attacks on US civilians in the homeland.
2) Tens of thousands 9/11 types are either dead, defeated or captured.
3) Increase federal spending on education by 80%
4) Medicare Drug coverage for seniors
5) Increase spending on fighting Aids in foreign countries from less than one billion by Clinton to now around 50 billion
6) Appointed two excellent Supreme Court Judges
7) Gives 110% in the support in the defense of Israel
8) Removed the Taliban government from Afghanistan
Back in town and loving "jfinance's" thrashing of "the bs".
Stale and crumbling talking points - and 3/4 of "his" posts insults, "the bs" whines as the modern-day lib-fascist does. "bs"? Want some cheese with that, putz??
Clintonian and Algorian policies were "left" over - in the face of the non-stop attacks from "bs" artists as the liberals are = when 9/11 struck. This is beyond truth.
While Bush etc was still saddled by proven Clintonian policy failures and weaknesses at the time of 9/11, he and the Republicans worked hard and fast - despite the corrosion we still see from liberals - to work toward remedying and securing America from the failed and impotent 90s "let's blow up a few tents and splatter some camels with sand" = Clintonian responses to the major threat of our time.
Is "Clintonian" in the dictionary, or will "the bs" have a conniption fit? lol on the deflections da lib must throw down to get through the day.
When a liberal president's failures slop over to a stronger Republican's Administration and result in the attack which kills 3000+ citizens, who is responsible? The causes were Clinton's = the responses and repairs are Bush's. As the world-wide terrorist can't run free and easy as in the 90s, and are being killed and captured by the tens of thousands = da lib-corroder still wants an indictment and habeas corpus....
THIS is primary to what the loser Obama has sold out to......
First among too many known and proven liberal-social communist failures major nations around the world have moved away from - while American lib-fascists want to go where many have failed before.
Keep it up, "j". "the bs" lives up to his nic each day................
So let's traverse the comments on this page for a second and relive my punditry.
"Is this the best the right can come up with? They NEVER defend their own, just point the finger elsewhere." Clinton and his job performance is irrelevant to judging Bush.
Truly, you all have come from the same brainwashed cult, unable and unwilling to criticize your own. The point stands, if Nance wants to give Bush credit for a lack of domestic terror attacks since Nov of 01, Bush must take responsibility for the failures of 9/11.
To blame 9/11 on anything or anyone else is typical Republican tomfoolery, shirking responsibility when it is clearly their own. Bush's judgment leading up to the attack can clearly be called into question, as can his decision to leave Tenet in control of the CIA. The failures of Bush's CIA and FBI, their inability to translate gathered intelligence and communicate effectively, Bush's choice to ignore the warnings of the PDB, and the failure of Bush's INS are legion.
They show a CIC who was grossly negligent in protecting the homeland. Couple that with Bush's failed War on Iraq, his culpability in the disastrous response to Katrina, Bush's failing economy, his systematic attacks on the Constitution and expansion of the powers of the Executive.
Clearly, on balance, even with Nance's 4th quarter list of Bush's "successes" (which are also entirely debatable) Bush is a failed leader.
And with some many failures, why would McCain be so desperate to recast his public image as something other than Bush's 3rd term?
1) From Nov 2001 until now, no attacks on US civilians in the homeland.
You take the good, you take the bad. Bush oversaw two terrorist attacks on the United States.
2) Tens of thousands 9/11 types are either dead, defeated or captured.
If you mean muslim extremists, you're correct. If you mean "terrorists capable of pulling off another 9/11," you're not. And what of Osama bin Laden?
3) Increase federal spending on education by 80%
Yes, federal spending under Bush has ballooned to record levels, leading to deficit spending and borrowing from Asia.
4) Medicare Drug coverage for seniors
Medicare drug coverage for seniors which we are grossly overpaying for, since the Republicans wouldn't allow price negotiations.
5) Increase spending on fighting Aids in foreign countries from less than one billion by Clinton to now around 50 billion
Yes, funding which requires faith-based strings if nations want to take advantage of it. And while you bring this up, "Both the Senate and House versions of the bill would reauthorize PEPFAR at $50 billion over five years. However, Coburn and six other Republican senators are blocking the legislation because they are opposed to the legislation's cost and "mission creep" into health and development efforts. In addition, they want language inserted into the measure that would guarantee that 55% of PEPFAR funding goes toward treatment, including antiretroviral drugs. Some advocates have said that they would agree to the treatment language but that efforts to compromise with Coburn have been ineffective."
So the obstructionist Republicans can't even agree to combat AIDS.
6) Appointed two excellent Supreme Court Judges
I'll give you Roberts, who most would agree is a brilliant legal mind, but Alito? While I share Alito's love of forensics, he's hardly an "excellent" USSC judge.
7) Gives 110% in the support in the defense of Israel
Wait: Bush is superhuman?
8) Removed the Taliban government from Afghanistan
Yes, and now tribal warlords have taken control of a great percentage of the countryside, continue to retreat to Pakistan whenever US forces make progress, and opium production has barely even burped.
Whether it IS Bush being saddled with Clintonian / Algorian policy weakness and failure in confronting the rise of Islamo-fascist Terrorism == or the "coming home to roost" of massive 90s accounting and financial frauds destroying the retirement savings by the trillions of those the libs care about most, the poor and struggling; while claiming that that phony "wealth" balanced budgets == or Clinton NOT signing the ANWR bill 1995 which further choked off energy supplies - sending firm signals to our enemies that America will NOT effort our own energy objectives == or Clinton trying to SELL OUT Israel with Arafat's blessing == or hundreds of examples of liberal anti-American corrosions and treasons......
In comparison with what the rose-colored failed Clinton-era "left" America with, Bush is as clean as the freshly driven snow.
Of course liberals whine about how America isn't as "liked" around the world as we were in the 90s == the 90s was a decade of Dem-lib attacks on our very soul as Americans; just like those "friends"(lol) want us to do; to destroy ourselves.
America's enemies know who their friends are, the American Dem-lib-fascist. The corroder within..........
The corrosion is from Republican sheep who still cannot defend their great leader.
Bush's weakness is at issue here. He lacked the judgment and fortitude to prevent al Qaeda from attacking the United States. He lacked the judgment and fortitude to prevent the Anthrax attack. He lacked the judgment and fortitude in choosing his own appointments.
You further prove my point, NVMakz, the right is nothing but Bush apologists who still shriek and cry about the failures of the Clinton administration. Wake up, it's 2008. You've been so focused on the past, you can't even identify the current failures. Worse: you appease those who would see our country fall. You appease a failed leader.
You enable a leader who stokes the fire of anti-Americanism around the globe. America's enemies love Bush's cowboy "Bring it on" bravado. Or McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." It gives them a hardline enemy with which to recruit. The friend is Bush, their greatest recruitment tool.
So is all this empty rhetoric of yours just subterfuge designed to meet your jihad recruiting goals for the month?
Bush, mopping up 90s liberal failures, is more than justified.
The causes belonged to 90s failures Clinton / Algore; the fixes, resultant emerging freedoms and chance at a better life for not only the 50,000,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan, but millions more who fight the terrorist, belong to Bush.
As al Qaeda's best and most-experienced die or are running away into their caves, they await "the bs" from the leftist corroder globally to revive their flagging fortunes. I see you're doing your best in this regard......
Violence is now down 90% +/- from the high-point of liberal-terroristloving success rates in Iraq. Will you laugh at it again, as you wish for more death, destruction and misery?
The failed leadership belongs to the 90s. Of course, liberals only recognize that which fails and corrodes = to the delight of the global anti-American hater.
After all, I belong to a Party whose name ends in "i can", while yours ends in "rat". That's all history needs as a starting point..........
theBS is full of hatred of Bush and it has totally consumed his soul.
Here are things that Clinton did well.
1) Balance the Budget
2) Good economy except at the end he did leave Bush with a recession
3) Welfare reform
4) Free trade agreements like NAFTA
5) Got a lot republicans elected to House, Senate, state bodies and governors. He was the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Reagan. Hopefully, Hussein will help in this area.
Here the things that he did badly.
1) Appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg which is so far left I think Stalin is to the right of her.
2) He decommissioned two US Army divisions which we desperately need now
3) His foreign policy was a failure and it trigged a new intifada by Palestine against Israel
4) He failed to stop Bin Laden
5) He failed to reduce the swell of Middle East extremism who were preparing to strike against USA
6) Failed to come up and implement an energy policy and also he stop the drilling of new oil in the US
Or, better yet:
"rat-tick".
Geez, calm down, Makz, you're frothing at the mouth.
And wrong again, bucko: I'm a registered non-partisan. What "clever" retort do you have for that one?
There's your failed causality argument again. You're so willing to subjugate yourself to Rove and his ilk, blindly worshiping failure after failure. The failure to prevent 9/11, you celebrate. The failure to stop the Anthrax attack, you celebrate. Bush's failed intelligence and analysis? You celebrate. You're so easy to please, all one has to do is waive a banner that says, "Mission Accomplished" and you'll cheer like gangbusters... without regard to reality.
Let's see here, who does the terrorist more desire? Those that would continue a net-sum-zero charade of a war and bloodshed as recruitment tool (aka, McBush)? Or those who want to get back on track and eliminate America's real threat, al Qaeda? That's a tough one, why don't you take more than a second to ponder it.
It's hilarious to watch you feebly attempt to reframe your prior "Iraq is wonderful! Violence is reduced!" debunked nonsense. You're entirely transparent, and it just indicates how badly you're losing the greater argument. Your utter weakness is showing.
But you're content to submit unquestioning support and appeasement in the guise of patriotism. That is the true erosion of American values that we must fear.
And Nance, your entire post illustrates my point: y'all are Clinton-obsessed to the point of paranoia. It's truly scary.
Questioner: Tell me about Bush
Right-winger: CLINTON IS EVIL HE CAUSED EVERYTHING I HATE CLINTON HIS WIFE IS MEAN CLINTON RAISED TAXES CLINTON HAD SEX WITH INTERN CLINTON yeeaaaarrrrggghhhh!
You are both incapable of isolating the men and evaluating them on their own faults and merits. Makz's defense of Bush is merely more finger-pointing at Clinton and shirking of responsibility (and inane shrieking/frothing).
This is the most enjoyable comment thread I've had in years.
I enjoy seeing you, "the bs", falling apart. It takes some posts to shake you loose from your delusions, but when you fall, you fall fast and hard.....
Others are adopting your new nic. Your reputation gets around fast, eh?
IF you were "non-partisan", you wouldn't be here. So, you are what you argue (corrosion); and you are what you do not accept (successes and your trouncing here).....
"Violence is reduced!" debunked nonsense.": Done and done....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/librar...
Either you don't (or can't) read, or just stand ignoRANT. You WANT more death and misery, as your own record here shows. More death = success for da lib.
Slavishness is the entirety of the lib-fascist Bush Derangement Syndromer.....
Cause and effect. The major force in our universe. The causes are Clintongore, the effects and fixes are Bush's.
The rest of your screed; just for our amusement and having anything to say since you've been and continue to be trounced, is "liberal" vitriolic nonsense. Laughable, since I make points and you lose them, then whine and name-call in impotence....
"rat-tick", lol.....
Spin 'till you're dizzy, then say you haven't enjoyed yourself in such a long time. The essence of liberal-politic. Your writings display that all too well.
You're a joke, thanks for the laughs......
I'm glad you're enjoying your hypocrisy. "Name-call in impotence?" Wait, would that be the impotent "the BS," "rat-tick" or your usual "social-commun-fasc-ist" stammering? Your entire last post is an exercise in impotence (and awful grammar). Not much of a surprise you relish your own hypocrisy.
Falling fast? Not quite. In fact, entrenched is more like it.
As for your "reduced" violence argument, ignoring the facts (that violence has merely been reduced to 2004 levels, according to your own sources) and claiming success is truly delusional. There's no celebrating death there, only truth. But your reframing of the argument reeks of desperation and failure. NVMakz can't keep up.
You can only continue the failed charade of your blame game. Shirking responsibility at every turn, the vanguard Republican pathos.
Makz foolishly chooses to view life through a haze of hatred and animosity. Like a scorned girlfriend, blaming and blaming and blaming and taking no responsibility for their own failures.
You aren't even true to the ideals of your own party. Unable to criticize Bush as a failed fiscal conservative, a failed compassionate conservative. He failed to control the spending of a conservative Congress. His War on Iraq a failure by his own measure. He watched over the greatest terrorist attack on American soil. Failure after failure, yet you praise him.
You're both a lesson in Freudian denial and transference. That's the comedy here. Someone whose taken Psych 101 can debunk your failed arguments.
And your impotence is showing with your frantic ellipses. When you can't make an argument, substitute some periods. That's very persuasive.
Or is that droplets of your frothing, depressing the period key?
Quotes from the GAO Report entitled "SECURING, STABILIZING, AND REBUILDING IRAQ," June, 2008
"In April 2008, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the Commanding General of the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I) testified before congressional committees on conditions in Iraq. They stated that significant progress had been made toward achieving U.S. goals but that progress was fragile and reversible."
"However, DOD reports that the number of Iraqi security force units deemed capable of performing operations without coalition assistance has remained at about 10 percent." FAIL
"In addition, the time frame for transferring security responsibilities to Iraqi provincial governments now extends into 2009. As of May 2008, 9 of 18 provincial governments had lead responsibility for security in their provinces." FAIL
"For example, the government has not yet established the commission needed to reinstate former Ba’athists in the government. In addition, the government has not enacted legislation that will provide a legal framework for managing its oil resources, distributing oil revenues, or disarming militias. The Iraqi government also faces logistical and security challenges in holding the scheduled 2008 provincial elections—a key element of reconciliation for Sunnis. Finally, the government has not completed its constitutional review to resolve issues such as the status of disputed territories and the balance of power between federal and regional governments. A goal of The New Way Forward was to facilitate the Iraqis’ efforts to enact all key legislation by the end of 2007." FAIL
"However, Ministry of Finance expenditure data show that between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. Specifically, Iraq’s central ministries spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007, a decline from similarly low spending rates of 14 and 13 percent in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Spending rates for critical ministries varied from the 41 percent spent by the Water Resources Ministry in 2007 to the less than 1 percent spent by the Ministries of Oil and Electricity. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq’s efforts to spend capital budgets and thereby contribute to its own rebuilding." FAIL
"Providing essential services to all Iraqi areas and communities and helping Iraq maintain and expand its oil exports are key goals of The New Way Forward. Overall crude oil production has increased or improved for short periods; however, production has not reached the U.S. goal of an average crude oil production capacity of 3 million barrels per day (mbpd) and export levels of 2.2 mbpd. In May 2008, oil production was about 2.5 mbpd and exports were 1.96 mbpd. Meanwhile, the daily supply of electricity met only 52 percent of demand in June 2008." FAIL
That's quite a success, Makz.
I bet $100 that Hussein after 250 days in office that he will still have over 60,000 troops in Iraq with additional 30,000 in Kuwait.
Wow, Nance. I don't know how to counter your scathing rebuttal. You are awesome.