Death Throes May Last For Years
In a shocking - yes, SHOCKING - statement, Rumsfeld tells FOX NEWS that the insurgency could last FOR YEARS TO COME.
My god. And here I was feeling so safe and secure that the insurgency was in it's last throes.
Is anyone else getting a little sick of this yet? Or will right-wingers simply fall in line, stare blankly and say "They are always right. We believe everything they say. Internets."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."
Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.
The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point -- with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.
My god. And here I was feeling so safe and secure that the insurgency was in it's last throes.
Is anyone else getting a little sick of this yet? Or will right-wingers simply fall in line, stare blankly and say "They are always right. We believe everything they say. Internets."
by MG at 6:54 PM
50 Comments:
I recall at 9/11 being told that it was going to be a long haul.
The number then in 2001 was Twenty Years.
Were we, or were we not just told by Cheney that we were in the final throes?
That to me is what's truly astonishing to me, that prominent members of the Bush administration can't seem to stay on message. Cheney says one thing, Rumsfeld says something else. It's a surprising lack of message discipline. Usually the GOP is more consistent, but then again, this isn't an election year.
If I were to guess which one is the liar, I'd go with Cheney.
Wasn't the "end of major combat operations" over a year ago?
You know what would help. If the Liberal Democrats wouldn't go on TV and tell all the insurgence they are right for what they are doing. This has turned into a propaganda war and the liberal dems are not on our side.
Where else should they go to try and get the American public to realize that the Bush administration is going in the wrong direction and has been for a long time?
You speak as though "liberal dems" are trying to take over the world with their evilness. We are simply doing our best to prevent someone from doing just that.
Those terrorists started killing people more than three decades ago, it has ZERO to do with Bush son or father.
Even their "holy" book tells them it's OK to kill people that are not like them ( Jews, Christians and HOMOSEXUALS. ).
So they are not about to stop killing innocents.
But then again there is a possibility they might kill less innocents when you leftys stop taking their sides and pissing on your own country.
Oh stop being such a drama queen. I'm allowed to disagree with the way Bush is handling things, you know. He isn't dictator yet.
Anonymous said...
"Even their "holy" book tells them it's OK to kill people that are not like them"
I'd want to be anonymous too, spouting nonsense like that. The only thing your post proves is that you know nothing about Islam. The Koran specifically forbids attacking innocents, and declairs Christians to be allies of Islam.
The problems that started "thirty years ago" are due to our unconditional support of Israel, which may have started before GHW Bush's presidency, but is their continuing policy.
I think we have a better chance of stopping the attacks if we would actually try to understand their complaints, and quit demonizing them.
But William! Why should we want to understand them??? They are EEEEVVVUUUULLL! And so are you! You are cuddling up to terrorists! You're a terrorist lover! You want them to come over and kill everyone! HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE BUSH!
*cough, hack*
Pardon me, I think I just channeled Ashcroft.
"I think we have a better chance of stopping the attacks if we would actually try to understand their complaints, and quit demonizing them."
But Karl Rove better not call us on it!!!
There's nothing to understand where the terrorists are concerned. You either support Israel or don't. The Palestinians have been offered their own home since it was carved up and Israel was created in the first place. They've rejected that offer time and time again in favor of killing Jews.
Bin Laden and his ilk want all Western influence removed from the Middle East. There's nothing to understand about that either. Aside from the fact that between the internet and a global economy, it's impossible, I would say that is a minority feeling even among his own Arabs/Muslims.
Now how exactly do we not demonize people who to "push Israel into the sea?" I'm all for deliberation and compromise but not if it means allowing a second holocaust, which is exactly what would happen if we "understood their complaints" and left Israel to defend itself.
Let's also remember that Israel is restrained by the US. They too have nuclear arms and plenty of reason to use them. The only reason why Baghdad, Damscus, Tehran, Medina, Riyadh, and Mecca haven't been blown to holy hell is because we keep telling the Israeli's to hold back.
There is no understanding here, either the Islamic Fundamentalists have to go (and by that I mean kill them) or we let the Rapture engulf the Middle East, which is surely what would happen.
Howdy Y'all
Just to show I'm not completely loopy, here's what Missilethreat.com has to say about the Israeli nuclear capability aka the Jericho 3:
The Jericho 3 will give Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East. In the advent of another Israeli-Arab war, the Jericho 3 will provide a deterrent against a possible nuclear attack by its neighbors. It will also provide Israel a last option to prevent being overrun and will likely secure US military aid, as the US government will have a strong desire to advert a nuclear war in the region. The range of the Jericho 3 also provides an extremely high impact speed for nearby targets, enabling it to avoid any Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defenses that may develop in the immediate region.
The Jericho 3 is believed to have a maximum range between 4,800 and 6,500 km (2982.58 to 4038.91 miles) with a payload of 1,000 to 1,300 kg. It is possible for the missile to be equipped with a single 750 kg nuclear warhead or two or three low yield MIRV warheads. It has an estimated launch weight of 29,000 kg and a length of 15.5 m with a width of 1.56 m. It is a three-stage solid propellant missile.
The Republicans don't really have a definition of "last throes"
See: Terry Schiavo
john Richards said...
I recall at 9/11 being told that it was going to be a long haul. The number then in 2001 was Twenty Years.
20 years sounded reasonable to me to stop a complex, worldwide enemy.
12 years for a "Field Trip" War was not what I had in mind.
But my real point is:
20 years, 12 years, "last throes," or most likely "not in my lifetime" Between Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice Bush remarks-- it is obvious they have no plan. They thought it was gonna be six week war.
This administration has too many overlapping and incoherent thoughts. You know what happened to "thought"? Thought he farted, but shit his pants. Time for a new round of tightie whities in the oval office.
Congress needs a good housecleaning, also.
You know what, on second thought I agree with you. If Bush was a good leader he'd bring an end to violence immediately, just like Clinton did in Bosnia:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=649729
So, Brash, the sins of our past justify the sins of the present and future?
Brash, you're returning to a classic Republican tactic - "doesn't matter what you say, because Clinton was to blame for this, that, and the other and that's just as bad if not worse than whatever you think our current government officials are doing."
Come on back to the here and now. Clinton hasn't been in office for 5 years - can Bush please be held responsible for SOMETHING?
You guys are misinterpreting me.
"Clinton hasn't been in office for 5 years"
That's exactly my point! It's been that long and we still have an article from yesterday about continuing violence. I'm just using Bosnia, a reletively small conflct in the American experience, as a baseline. That "war" still isn't over, so why are you demanding that Iraq be wrapped up in another few months. It makes no sense.
And please don't throw the Cheney quote at me; it was a dumb thing to say but that's about it.
Here's a little WSJ goodness to add to the discussion:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006876
I am demanding that the Iraqi war be wrapped up because we didn't belong there in the first place.
And I WILL throw that dumbass Cheney quote out there (since it's not specifically at YOU I am throwing it at), because if Republicans can sit there and whine about Al Gore inventing the internet or 'I did not have sex with that woman', then why can't I point out Rupublican asshattery?
So did you demand the same of Bosnia considering we didn't have the U.N. Security Council's approval?
Also, the "sex with that woman quote" is memorable because that asshole lied right to our faces and knew he was doing it. Cheney shared a questionable opinion which may have been misinformed. And Gore's comment? Come on, that's just too hilarious.
Oh, wait, isn't Rumsfeld the one who said it would last "five months" at the outside? Which is it? Five months or 12 years? "Last throes" or 12 years?" Last throes" or a "generation", quoth Condi, Cheney? Which is it, flipflopper liars?
Oh, and where are those pesky WMDs that were threatening us so bad? Woops? Sorry, we were just lying to you stupid turd citzens, because you're too traumatized to object? What if we shackle you and your loved ones in stress positions until you pull out your hair? Will you libruls shut up then?
Oh, and where's that pesky Osama bin Laden who attacked us? You know, the guy Clinton warned Bush about, but the Bushists decided that since they hated Clinton they didn't have to listen to his librul warnings? So that's why we got attacked on Dirty Bush's watch? With 3K people dead? We don't care about Osama any more? We can't tell one Arab from another? We're torturing people for three years so they'll tell us where Osama is? Don't you think after 3 years he might have moved?
How do we get away with all this crap? How come all these dittoheads fall for it? 'Cause they're stupid blind dumbass totalitarians? Ya think?
Yeah, well THIS asshole lied to our faces about Iraq. I don't give a damn if Clinton was getting screwed by old whores that had been ridden hard and put away wet by every other member of his cabinet first. I DO give a damn about a statement that has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I wanted Bin Laden on stake. While I looked at Bush warily when he said we'd have him, dead or alive, within 6 months, I trusted that we'd bring them all down and kill them or dismantle them.
What a fucking joke.
No Bin Laden. Terrorists running all over the place. And for what? Iraq was the least of our worries. Hussein was playing a puffed up peacock because Bush backed him into a corner.
It would spiral into the most laughable of situations if only it weren't so tragic.
I'm sorry Markkind, but you are completely loopy. Your first post says that we have to protect those poor Isralies from a second holocaust by the overwhelming power of the Palestinians, then the second goes on about Israeli nuclear capabilities!
You say that "You either support Israel or don't". Personally, I don't support anyone who either uses me or attacks me, both of which describe Israel. I would be more than happy to support them otherwise. Currently they are a de-stabilizing influence, and not deserving of support.
Moxie,
Still haven't answered my Bosnia follow-up or responded to the WSJ article.
Repeating the same liberal talking points we've heard for the last year do not an argument make. Furthermore, I don't remember Cheney going back in time to before the war and making that quote.
I agree with you, Brash. On reflection, Bosnia was ill-advised, and likely an attempt by Clinton to distract from whatever domestic problems he was having at the time. I'm being serious, by the way, this isn't sarcasm. Milosevic was really no better or worse than Hussein, wasn't a threat to us and did not need to be taken out, by us, at that time. I've soured somewhat on the Clinton years, and am not so inclined to leap immediately to his defense. I still insist Bush is the worst president we've ever had, but I no longer think Clinton was all that great.
I think we all realized (the realists among us anyway)from the very beginning that Iraq was going to last for quite a while. What I take issue with is the fact that we were told that it wouldn't and that it was essential to invade due to the imminent threat posed by WMD.
Iraq, like Bosnia, is an exercise in nation-building, a practice disparaged by GWB himself during the 2000 campaign. It seems, however, that nation-building in a region rich with resources is more acceptable than nation-building in a region that isn't worth anything.
And it's not pissing on my country to demand accountablitiy and basic competence from my leaders. So if all our anonymous wags would just grow up and drop their aging Cold War rhetoric, we might actually have a chance for true debate.
"What I take issue with is the fact that we were told that it wouldn't and that it was essential to invade due to the imminent threat posed by WMD."
And I think the difference between you and me is that I think those were mistakes and you think they were deceits...and argument for another day.
As for the nation building, I think the difference between 2000 Bush and 2005 Bush is 9/11. It jarred a lot of peoples opinions.
"And it's not pissing on my country to demand accountablitiy and basic competence from my leaders."
Did I claim it was? I just hate to hear people say the sky is falling. There are lots of things to be critical about in Iraq, but as the WSJ article points out, a lot is going right. I'm more willing to listen to a person who concedes the latter point before expressing the first.
Sorry, Brash. I don't have time to address each and every one of your questions while I am at work. You apparently desire in-depth responses that I am unable to provide when you want them.
I think I will leave you and Kid Bastard to the in-depth discussions since you two seem to enjoy debating each other anyway.
Sorry Moxie, didn't mean to pressure you.
I think you're just mad because my site is more evil than yours now. You need to update that graphic to have a little cross.
If I can get all RealPolitik here for a tick...
China is getting more and more aggressive in exherting its territorial claims. They're on the way to morphing into a nationalist state. They are going on a submarine building binge, both costal and long range.
They're also coming online as a consumer market. So they need more oil.
We will be, if we are not already at the leading edge of, a cold war with China. Does that mean wars by proxy? I dunno.
What is it does mean is we have to figure out how to reclaim the two-front policy of the cold war, if we are going to be in a position to apply counter pressure to China's expansion into the Pacific.
So how do we begin to think in those terms? We have managed to mire ourselves for good or evil two landlocked not terribly large countries.
Recruitment is weak. Our basic naval deployment unit, a carrier group, is a sitting duck for a nuclear submarine.
We stretched dangerously thin right now.
I don't have a solution, other than find a way to coexist with China, but I'm not sure the political will is there on either side.
Another thing occured to me: we are paying for all these shenanigans with Chinese money...the Chinese (and Japanese, and Korean) are loaning us cheap dollars. That's why you don't see a lot of action on strengthening the dollar. The tax cuts would be vaporised.
A weak dollar also depresses the price of American consumer goods for the Chinese consumer. Happy consumers are less likely to revolt.
So if things got nasty with the Chinese, they could mess with us without firing a shot. things very uncomfortable for us financially by hoarding dollars. Fun! I may be entirely wrong on this. I sure somebody will correct me.
Brash, the pissing on the country remark was aimed at the anonymous wags, not you.
Just to clarify.
We can't bail out now.
We WERE WARNED about it being a long and bloody war involing up to 12 Nations.
I think Bush and his Administration is Damned no matter what they do.
Carpet Bombing will speed things up.
Carpet Bombing will speed things up
Sure did the trick in Cambodia. And Dresden hasn't bothered us since.
Moxie Wrote:
I DO give a damn about a statement that has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I wanted Bin Laden on stake. While I looked at Bush warily when he said we'd have him, dead or alive, within 6 months, I trusted that we'd bring them all down and kill them or dismantle them.
Isn't this character judgment....... "thousands of innocents"
Amongst these "thousands", think any were criminals, pedophiles, etc?
You knew all of thousand of souls to make a judgment?
It's OK to kill who you deem to be evil?
When I said carpet bombing I was being facetious.
William, I guess I need to clarify a few things here.
My contention is that we have to continue to support our ALLIES the Israeli's from the whole Middle East collective, not just the Palestinians. One of the small reasons for deposing Hussein was the he financially supported Palestinian terrorists in Israel and given half a chance would have launched a missile at them. This is the precisely the issue between Israel and Iran.
Secondly, the reason why included the post about the Jericho 3 was to underline the fact that Israel has the capability to change the face of the ME but they don't because we continue to restrain them. Having said that, because we stop them from fully engaging their enemies in the ME, we are beholden to stop all ME countries from causing them further harm. That's the tradeoff and it has more to do with our relationship with the Saudi's than anything else.
The Israeli's are not destabilizing the ME. Again, the Palestinians were offered their own country and during the final Clinton years, Arafat was offered everything but the kitchen sink. He turned it down saying there would never be peace. It's the Arabs/Muslims that are destablizing that region, not the Israeli's whom at this point were prefer to build themselves a nice wall an be left in peace
When did the Israeli's ever attack us?
"Isn't this character judgment....... "thousands of innocents"
Amongst these "thousands", think any were criminals, pedophiles, etc?
You knew all of thousand of souls to make a judgment?
It's OK to kill who you deem to be evil?"
And you are making the judgement that they are all evil and deserved to die? Are you saying that our soldiers are okay to kill off? Are you saying all the children are ok to kill off? You can't possibly convince me that out of the thousands and thousands of Iraqis that have been killed, ALL of them are terrorists. I don't think it's unreasonable to use the word "thousands" when describing the number of people who wanted nothing to do with this conflict getting killed.
Markkind -
For some reason I can't post as me. Anywho, I'm not anonymous, just wanted to point that out.
So those last two anon comments were by you Mark?
Yes, yes they were
and for some reason, I still can't log in via your comments section like normal
weird
No Moxie I am not judging.
But...they died, because it was their time.
We cannot change this.
Our deaths dates have already been chartered.
Death is perfect in the sense that it is 100 percent certain.
A dead puppy is hit by a truck and we cry.
A dead muskrat....well he's just Sh*t ot of luck.
We can't decide who and when, we are biased.
By the logic you just stated:
"But...they died, because it was their time.
We cannot change this.
Our deaths dates have already been chartered.
Death is perfect in the sense that it is 100 percent certain."
you should have no problem with abortion then, but if I recall an earlier comment you made, you were staunchly anti-abortion.
I do not say this to start an abortion debate - I find this topic to be simply a matter of personal/religious beliefs. I bring it up only because by your logic, then those potential humans weren't meant to be born, yet I have a feeling you will argue that.
Yes, for the most part I agree with your philosophy of death, but those who would instigate death (i.e. serial killers or drunk drivers or whatever) are still brought to justice so it (hopefully) never happens again.
While I doubt Bush would actually be tried as a war criminal, I truly and honestly believe that his desire to go into Iraq overpowered his desire to do what is right (fact-check, make sure the intel was MORE than 100%, get more evidence - because if Hussein had all those WMDs, we would have been able to gather additional evidence without too much trouble). This warmongering has led to the deaths of thousands of people - thousands that could have been prevented - and we are looking at bloodier months to come.
"When did the Israeli's ever attack us?"
USS Liberty, 1967
As to destabilizing the middle east...
This was what started our current cycle of violence.
On the anonymous thing, I've noticed that sometimes it takes a while to load the script for selecting your ID. Give it a minute or two, and it should let you log in.
WIlliam, on your first point, wow, I had no idea. I'll probably post something on it on my site with a full opinion. It doesn't change my views vis a vis the Arabs VS the Israeli's but at least I know where you are coming from now and I respect that.
On your second point, sorry, still don't see the Arabs has having a legit complaint. I see the Arabs acting like insane children in the article that you cited.
I think this is one of those points where philosophically we are at an impasse as I won't be changing my views toward Israel anytime so and I doubt I can convice you otherwise to support them.
'til the next raucus debate then.
Yeah, it was fun.
I see you got your ID back. Was it the network latency slowing the script?
I'm not surprised that you haven't heard about Liberty. The gov'ment doesn't like to mention it. I was stationed on one of the carriers ordered to stand down and let the attack continue. The crew took it as a permanent black eye so, yes, it's a bit personal with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home