Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Bush not to blame for bad intelligence
Mon, Jun 23, 2008 (2:05 a.m.)
This is in reference to a column you published June 15 by Jay Bookman, who writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Headlined “Bush’s lies indefensible,” the column was a blatant piece of “yellow journalism” and the Sun should be ashamed for printing it!
If you were to read speeches made by Sens. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, and speeches made by a host of other prominent Democrats, you would read that they, too, were positive that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was seeking to build nuclear weapons.
For Bookman to use his smear tactics and recount countless articles by detractors of President Bush is indicative of his liberal bias. He goes so far as to quote Sen. Jay Rockefeller, but fails to note that Rockefeller was one of the loudest voices that claimed Saddam “must be stopped.”
If Bookman doubts for a moment that Saddam would not have provided WMDs to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, his thought processes are seriously flawed and he should not be writing anything to be read by a thinking individual.
Al-Qaida being supplied by Iraq would have been a serious threat to America. If people do not believe that, then I have but one thought for them to consider: “Grits ain’t groceries and Mona Lisa was a man!”
The awkward truth is that former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan and others like him were not elected president and are not the men we elected to lead us!
Discussion: 31 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Theme park visionaries are in over their heads
- The down payment for your new home: $0
- GOP enthusiasm and Democratic tiptoeing
- Man arrested for attempted sexual assault
- Sweetening deals
- Motorcyclist who died in crash off I-15 overpass identified
- State’s delegation ecstatic over Palin
- All the theatrics, and a ‘killer speech,’ too
- Palin energizes skeptical base
- A ‘shoot from the hip’ move by McCain
Blogs
Winning The West
McCain energizes Republicans
Protesters interrupt McCain (3 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
- Jeremy Cornwell (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- X Burlesque (10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.)
- Boulder Blues (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- Hofbrauhaus Las Vegas (5 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Way to go Lee! It is so easy to blame the President for EVERYTHING bad. I think the blamers are just covering their backside.
By the way, "Grits Ain't Groceries" is a great song from the 70's by Wet Willie.
The lib-whiners hope their massive amount of blaming Republicans for what they sponsored in the 90s, only to run away from when action was required = will carry them through....
THIS tactic, as we all know, IS their politics.
The Socialist Sun has no shame at all, they're a "failing newspaper from 1989" which wouldn't be in business at all except for some legal interpretation from the Justice Dept, lol.........
Read it and weep, liberal......
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
"If Bookman doubts for a moment that Saddam would not have provided WMDs to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, his thought processes are seriously flawed and he should not be writing anything to be read by a thinking individual."
Then why is it that the President's own commission tasked to investigate the runup to the Iraq war found no credible evidence of a link between Sadda Hussein and al Qaeda? Was the President's Commission's report something that should not be read by any thinking indiviual?
Al Qaeda being supplied by England would be a threat too. Should we invade London?
The Clinton Administration tried for a regime change in Iraq and a Military Base in the Middle East but failed the task, along came the Bush Administration and got the job done.
.
"Saddam used WMD against his own people, gassing civilians in Northern Iraq and left unchecked, Saddam will use these weapons again.
This situation presents a danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and people everywhere.
The fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi Government, a Government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a Government that respects the rights of its people.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life.
The costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
Pres. Bill Clinton
1998
Yes, Terrorist was in Iraq and a threat to the U.S. BEFORE the 2003 invasion:
.
Abu Musab al_Zarqawi:
The summer of 2002, with Osama bin Laden's money, assistance and backing, Zarqawi was well settled in Northern Iraq.
He joined the group Islamit Ansar al-Ismal and fought against the Kurdish-National forces in the NORTHERAN REGION of Iraq prior to the 2003 US lead invasion.
After the September 11th attack, Zarqawi did travel back to Afghanistan to help al-Qeda fight the US led invasion there. He was allegedly wounded and moved to Iran to reorganize at al-Tawhid.
In the summer of 2002 Zarqawi returned to his group in NORTHERAN IRAQ where he was the leader and well positioned to lead his Islamic wing to resist the March 2003 invasion.
Although there is no substantial evidence of a direct link between Zarqawi and Saddam, they did meet on few occasions.
This is facts from several different sources mainly USCENTCOM along with many documents well and recorded.
So anti-war mongers and the moveondot.Org group that blogg on forums across the Country 24/7; pushing your anti-war message, ”the Terrorist were not in Iraq before the war”
Facts prove otherwise !
Liberals want the world to forget about the statements of truth they utter. They'd much rather the masses remember the lies!
The Iraqi LIBERATION Act of 1998 - which was overwhelmingly argued and approved by a liberal-led Congress - codified into American Law the desire and American will to have "regime change" in Iraq. The liberal Clinton would rather get "Monica-ed"(mq) than effort this, so he blew up an aspirin factory to show the world how serious he was, lol.......
Bush comes along, adopts the very language of the previous Congress and liberals - and efforts "regime change", as the recently passed law desires.
Liberals vote FOR it, then run away from it, while shouting how hard it would be, how much of a "quagmire" and how "dumb" (Obama, from the backbench of the IL Senate) it would be == then da lib goes forth to be most helpful to America's enemies and corrode from within.
We all know Saddam had WMDs, as he killed villages of his own people with it. Perhaps, as some reports say, his WMD program was withering on the vine and was impotent at the time of the liberation. So, Saddam jerked around the world - especially the asinine and useless United Nations' Inspection teams. Some reporting said Saddam wanted to bluff along the world as he tried to lie his way to a strong-man stance globally - as if he had WMDs and was holding trump cards.
How stupid was Saddam? He was depending on France and the other U.N. friends to - "Stop Bush at the U.N.". This is why the UN went only so far, as the French LIED to Colin Powell at the time about when they would help stop Saddam, which conditions and verifications Powell and America more than met, imo......
How stupid was Saddam = he was depending on liberals in the States, the U.N. and the global major media to "Stop Bush"!! Saddam thought he REALLY held the trump card, but Bush etc pressed on.....
A witches' brew of corrosion and lies = the global opposition to the liberation.
Anyway, liberals approved of this effort long before they disapproved of it.
All, for a few seats more..........
John Kerry:
"If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards:
"Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing briefings on Saddam's WMD and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it
HILLARY CLINTON:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMD's."
TED KENNEDY:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
AL GORE:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
NANCY PELOSI:
"He will use those WMD again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Senator Hillary Clinton:
"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies Senator Hillary Clintonand friends around the world shared."
Dick Gephardt in September of 2002:
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."
Bill Clinton:
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."
Clinton's Sec of Defen William Cohen:
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Al Gore, 2002:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .
Harry Reid:
"The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Nancy Pelosi:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
You need more Dem quotes, let me know !
I have to log off but if the truth be known, when Dan Rather went to Iraq just before the US invasion to interview and warn Saddam that we were coming, the WMD were quickly moved to Syria........
One more thing before I log off....anyone want to know Obama's entire history background and political:)
google: http://www.theobamafile.com/
"MC"!!
Thanks for spreading the truth.....
I like this one as well or better..........
http://obamaism.blogspot.com/
Thanks MVMakz, I read about that link on GOPUSA it is a good link.
Where people need to be enlightened is on The Des Moines Register forum, too many Iowan's drank the kool-aide and their judgement is fogged when it comes to Obama.
.
Sorry NVMakz, never noticed until it was too late that I entered your username incorrect.....
NVMakz, MCBlawg,
This is why I support Obama for President, and why I couldn't support Clinton or Edwards or any of the other Democrats and why I liked Ron Paul. They're the only ones who saw through all the BS.
Obama on October 2, 2002:
"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
"Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
"He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
He was absolutely correct in all of this. Would that our current President could exercise that kind of judgment.
I bet $100 that Hussein after 200 days in office will keep at least 60,000 US troops in Iraq.
Awwww, NVMakz found himself a buddy! A friend who still believes in Iraq's WMD! Who said they didn't believe in mass hysteria?
But if MCBlawg's assertion is true and Syria has all these WMD, why haven't we invaded/bombed/occupied Syria? Maybe because the charade is loony conspiracy theory that only the dumbest among us would believe.
Speaking of loony conspiracy theories... "MCBlawg," funny, three capitalized letters in a row? Just like NVMakz. Also, MCBlawg favors using bad grammar and extended ellipses... just like NVMakz. And MC just joined the Sun's site today to tell NV what a great and wonderful person NV is. One wonders if NV AND MC are one in the same.
Or, more likely split personalities. Rush-Rove-Hannity brainwashing can have that effect on people.
What's truly hilarious? MCBlawg's postings at GOPUSA, where he claims Obama and Wright are both secret muslims:
http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.p...
Yeah, MCBlawg, you and NVMakz will get along just fine with brilliant reasoning like that.
Is this a true or false statement?
Iraq never ever had WMD's.
Look at Nance, in his big boy suit, pretending to be a lawyer. Is this a deposition, Jim?
Do you, too, believe that Syria has WMD from Iraq? Are you proposing a full-scale invasion/occupation? If not, why not? Are you soft on terrorism? Is it your double standards?
Nance needs to borrow MCBlawg's tin foil hat.
Thanks theBS. So you agree that Iraq at some point in time did have WMD's.
"Do you, too, believe that Syria has WMD from Iraq?" I do not think that Syria got its WMD's from Iraq. They do have a stockpile of rockets that have chemical warheads and by some reports they are trying to develop a nuclear weapons program with help from the North Koreans.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/...
There is no solid proof of what happen to the WMD's in Iraq. The best guess is that the Iraq government destroyed them without keeping track of how, when and where. Saddam wanted everybody to think that they had WMD's as a deterrent to attack from the US and from Iran. Even Saddam’s top generals during the invasion were demanding that Saddam order the use of WMD's. Clinton administration repeatedly stated that Saddam had WMD’s. The EU, British, UN, and Russian intelligence all stated often that they thought Iraq had WMD’s.
"Are you proposing a full-scale invasion/occupation?" Eventually, some military events involving the US are going to happen. It is better that we take some military actions now then wait when Iran and Syria develops nuclear weapons. Hussein will support military actions against Iran and Syria by Israel. If Hussein wins he will owe everything to the Jewish’s groups that will allow him to be President.
JFNance,
If Obama is a closet Muslim, how is it he'll owe everything to the Jews?
Take your bigotry elsewhere; it's not welcome here.
Hussein has anti-Jewish friends up to his eye-balls.
Hussein went before USA Jewish leaders and begged them to ignore those relationships. He told them that he pledged 100% support to Israel.
So he is in their right hand pocket.
For this, there will still be a significant number of troops in Iraq during his term.
For this, he will stand by and support Israel when Israel takes out Iran nuclear program.
For this, he will stand by and support Israel when Israel takes out Syria's second attempt to have a nuclear program.
For this, he will stand by Israel whenever and whatever they need to do to survive.
Our country made this choice a long time ago.
It is too late to change course.
Even a man called, Hussein, will lead the charge.
I do not think that he will pull a Jimmy Carter on Israel.
Liberals melting down is such a gratifying thing. Libs slinging "the bs" in writhing denials and painful contortions.
"the bs", I simply love the itchy place I have had under your skin. Thanks!
Anyway, it's is undeniable that Iraq had WMDs. But, when "the bs" flys, denial is all there is.
"Do you, too, believe that Syria has WMD from Iraq? Are you proposing a full-scale invasion/occupation? If not, why not? Are you soft on terrorism? Is it your double standards?"
IF Syria really does have the WMDs, why would liberals allow such a despotic regime to have them? Liberal weeakness, that's why! Libs need to assist examples of oppressive big-government - as it is the design for us.
It is undeniable that libs need failure to lower the bar so they can claim a success in comparison.
Works-in-progress represent failure, just ask "the bs". 90% reductions in violence represent failure, don't they "the bs"? Learning to develop the internal processes to be able to spend their budgets represents failure. Progress represents failure.
The founding fathers at the beginning of our republic took much longer to make the progress that the Iraqis have accomplished. IF today's corrosive-libbiethumbsucker was there, there would probably be no America as it has developed.
I'd hate to live in a world where progress represents failure and reductions in evil and death represent failure. That's simply a sick place to be, but it's where "the bs" has lived for seemingly a long time.
I'm enjoying the displays of your pain, "the bs". "Bring it on" some more. Cry out in your weakness.....
Obama is a weak, shufflin' political puppy, a slick-talkin'-man and the next in a long line of uber-libs who the nation will not accept as POTUS. Libs - like sheep - just pull the lever "liberal" without thinking.
Don the tin hat, everyone, NVMakz has returned!
Your simultaneously overestimating and embarrassing yourself. Honk! Honk!
I can see you lost our last round, so you've come to this post to repeat the same Clinton boogeyman tautology. Iraq's a success! Liberals are Marxists! Or Communists! Or Pacifists! Or Corrupterists!
Just sit there, sheepishly cowering in your fear. Bush's Great Way Forward has failed. This is proven in the most recent report of the GAO. He hasn't reached his own benchmarks, his own perilously low bar of success. He can't meet his own requirements. He is an utter failure.
What I'll never understand is why you're so desperate to defend him. I guess all that Rush-Rove-Hannity brainwashing is quite effective.
So let's do a little cut and paste of the points I made in the other thread, the one you cowardly abandoned.
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.
As I said before, progress represents failure to you, "the bs".
Bringing this point out again only reinforces this basic liberal tenet.
I didn't respond to this obvious commandment in liberal "logic" before because the reference thread isn't on my computer. I checked again, and it's not there.
But, thanks for trotting out - in very Freudian fashion - this very ingrained loss for you - so telling the fear of success and the advancement of failure.
Cowardice is the provence of liberals.
Well, I handily cut and pasted it for you, in anticipation of your inability to use a computer. A cowardly excuse, I might add. You're utter inability to argue the facts is also noted.
You choose not to argue those facts, because you can't. You stick to your old sound bites that don't reflect the reality of Iraq. Bush's New Way Forward is ending. The surge is over, and the political success it was meant to inspire has not taken place.
Just rack it up to another Bush failure. Even when he gets to set his own standards, effectively writing his own test, he fails it. That's your inspiration, the great failure.
As for your 90% reduction of violence in Iraq, why don't you cite a source?
While I'm here, though, I'll cite a source for a 90% reduction in attacks: Basra. Basra saw a 90% reduction in violence... but only after British troops pulled out.
The gains made in Iraq, particularly in Al Anbar, are extremely fragile. Without the benchmarks set forth in the Great Way Forward, Iraq won't have the infrastructure to sustain these gains.
There's also no guarantee that the Sunni will continue their alliance with U.S. Forces in Al Anbar, a large component of our success there.
But this will all be for naught, as Bush's benchmarks haven't been met. Foolishly, he's allowing the Commanders to overlook the lack of infrastructure set forth in his benchmarks and now we're handing over Anbar Province to provisional authorities.
One would only hope this doesn't doom them.
And, awww... "Freudian." So glad to see you're learning, kiddo. One of these days, with lots of hard work and logic, you'll be enlightened.
Hey, "bs":
Thanks for another opportunity to look down on you, where progress is negative and more death and misery is a big positive....
90% source cited yesterday. In the thread no longer in the mix. Why don't you go back and get it - bring it back for me? Ignoring it is noted, while squaking on in ignoRANT bites is as well.
Try this other one. The surge is slowing due to the success of it. Success bums you out, per your history here.
http://thetension.blogspot.com/2008/04/l...
The surge moves on and Iraq. IF there is backsliding, I'm sure that will make you cheer....
More benchmarks advancing and developing, Much more Iraqi security effectiveness, 90% reductions in deaths, more American servicemen die in Afghanistan than in Iraq, Maliki rising up, Sadr dragging his sorry tail into Iran, al qaeda turned on by Iraqis - and on and on and on the successes rise = I await your illilogical consternation.
"All this for naught...." Once again = you're a joke, thanks for the laughs........
"and now we're handing over Anbar Province to provisional authorities."
This is success, not failure as you phrased it, liberal...
It's a sick and corrosive world where you write from. Live with it......
LOL! Oh NVMakz, the joy you bring me each and every day. "I'm computer illiterate, find my proof for me." Dolt.
I've proven my points with accurate, reliable, researched data. You've sheepishly forgotten your own sources.
Your rebuttal consists of stale talking points I destroyed a few posts up with the GAO report. Your rebuttal's quite impotent, I'd say.
You still fail to prove your 90% blather. Yesterday, you claimed 80-90%... Pinocchio, your nose is growing. I've always said you were a puppet for the right, now you've just proved it.
You're also unable to rebut the failure of Bush's benchmarks. Remember those comments from yesterday, the ones you can't find? (lol) Remember how I said Republicans never want to hold their own responsible? Thanks for more proof. You can't even hold Bush to Bush's standards.
Oh, and way to praise the elevated number of casualties in Afghanistan. Only you would bring that up as a positive. Afghanistan is Bush's other failed war, thanks for proving that one as well.
And your frantic ellipses? Every one makes me smile. Every one represents another debunked NVMakz myth. Every one represents your inability to argue the facts on the ground in Iraq. Every one represents your failure.
You've made clear that failure gives you joy?? It is the central point of your presence here.....
Typical. Sad.
Your language of vitriolic failure (as success) combined with delusion is laughable.
There is no accurate sentence in your putrid mess of bandwidth waste here.
Live with it!
As you descend off into denial and self-delusional vitriol = welcome back to your home.....
Success is failure and failure success in your world. Spiking the ball on your own 20 yard line is all that's here for you now.
Confusing the two concepts in your sad, maniacal screeding is cinched as evident and undeniable.
Keep sinking away and ignoring all but your hater presence.....
Still no proof, eh? No link? No evidence of your 90% (or 80%, or whatever other number you made up) claim?
Still no defense of Bush's failed benchmarks?
Unable to refute the GAO report?
Unable to refute Basra?
Unable to refute any of it?
See what happens when I present facts in contrast to your impotent rhetoric? You bail. You give up and collapse into a mumbling mess of cliches. Pinocchio has left the building.
Or, in Bush's terms, "Mission Accomplished!"
Still in denial, eh? Still, not a truthful sentence passing - in your head - as argument? Hours in denial, what a waste
Denying yourself truth is your rep here. Keep spiking the ball in your zone, it makes me chuckle.
See what happens when denial, delusion, hatred and senselessness takes over = your vision of failure being success here.
You had your chance to shine, but descended into lib-denial and vitriolic spewing-up. Wrapped yourself in self-congratulatory delusion. What's new there?
You had all you needed, if you were honest with yourself. That's not your gig, though.
Keep spiking it down over there. The franticness and of it all and your spirited living-in-denial makes me smile.
The surge is succeeding and will draw down soon. Will it make you cry out in weakness, as it represents successes you deny yourself and would deny millions? Yeah, probably.
Live in your failure - after all - it means success to you. It suits you.
Still, no rebuttal. Nothing of substance, that is.
On 5/29, you noted "the massively successful "surge" strategies."
90% of Iraqi security forces can't operate without coalition support. Your view: success.
76% of funds budgeted for reconstruction, unspent. Your view: success.
Iraq unable to meet little more than half of the demand for electricity. Your view: success.
No commission to reinstate the Ba'athists. Your view: success.
No legal framework for distributing oil revenues. Your view: success.
No legal framework for disarming militias. Your view: success.
No legal framework for managing it's oil resources. Your view: success.
Who's delusional? Who's in denial? You continue to celebrate failure.
Your desperation for the last word is really obvious, though. Too bad it'll just be another debunked diatribe.