Easy. The people of Iraq were not clamoring for reform and revolting against their government.

Obviously, the President isn’t a Republican, and therefore not to be criticized, ridiculed, or otherwise identified as being wrong in any way…………..even if he destroys the nation. Democrats=good, Republicans=bad. Got it?

“Sometimes something is lost in that initial excitement – reminds me of eight years ago, this very weekend when ’shock and awe’ was reined now upon Baghdad and the media utterly failed to ask skeptical questions. .

It reminds me of 20 years ago, and Iraq. Hey, this idea worked out just great when we protected and defended the people of Kuwait, didn’t it?

Oh.

Obama has already given the orders. No skepticism and no reporting of civilian casualties. Socky above, not sure where you get your news from, but, you’re sadly uninformed or just lying to cover for your boy.

same2u said:
Easy. The people of Iraq were not clamoring for reform and revolting against their government.

::facepalm::

Admittedly I was in high school, but WHERE THE HELL WAS THE IRAQ SKEPTICISM?!?!?! The only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is technology. 3 severe casualties for every death in Vietnam, ~15 in Iraq.

Yeah, the surge worked. Why? Because THAT WAS WHAT THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND WANTED FROM THE VERY START. Iraq is the inexcusable awful legacy of George W. Bush. I believe that he was well intentioned, but that’s what happens when you elect someone unqualified to be President to the office of the President. Say what you want about Obama, but there’s little doubt that he got there more on merit than most other Presidents. George W. Bush got elected because his name was George Bush and he had a soothing speaking voice. That’s just reality.

Well, that and Sandra Day O’Connor wanted to retire under a Republican President.

First, we did NOT screw up on Iraq. The world is better off without Hussein and so is Iraq. We screwed up on the follow up on Iraq.

Second, it is time the libs and the isolationist types like Ron Paul, to face the fact that the world will never be safe as long as there are governments in the Middle East that fund and harbor terrorists. We SHOULD go after the leaders of every government that does so. Do it ONCE and for all.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.
~ then Senator Barack Obama, December 20th, 2007.

same2u said:
Easy. The people of Iraq were not clamoring for reform and revolting against their government.

Even if they were, it’s none of our business. The USA can’t be the policemen of the world. The US taxpayer should be paying for such actions. We have out own problems here in the USA, and multiple other wars to deal with.

This is just another example of how Obama and Bush are the same.

Publius219 said:
Yeah, the surge worked. Why? Because THAT WAS WHAT THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND WANTED FROM THE VERY START.

No, it worked because of the Sunni Awakening. It could not have worked without it.

Sorry. I mean’t to say is “The US taxpayer should NOT be paying for such actions.”

Well for one the American people are mostly stupid and don’t pay attention, O-bomb-a knows this and does whatever the F he wants to. I am surprised Howie is even asking these questions. These dummies don’t want to hear it, we got to go save the people!!!! We are the Superman of the world!!!

More Liberty5 said:
Sorry. I mean’t to say is “The US taxpayer should NOT be paying for such actions.”

You are correct.

Pablo said:
No, it worked because of the Sunni Awakening. It could not have worked without it.

As he said he was in HIGH SCHOOL so we should cut him some slack. ;)

Don’t bother Obama with this stuff . Not interested .

” A president whose complete disregard for substantive political discourse in addressing the nation’s fiscal woes is derelict. Whether he is lazy, irresponsible or just overwhelmed, the signs point to a man bringing disrepute to the office for which self-imposed exile is his only way out. A president with enough time and energy to fill out a NCAA Final Four basketball tourney bracket but can’t find the time to attend to border security or assemble a meaningful budget incorporating the recommendations of his own deficit commission, is derelict. ”

“A president who refuses to address the nation on the crisis in Libya and the humanitarian catastrophe in Japan, instead giving fourteen rogue Democrat state senators from Wisconsin directions to Morton’s Steak House in Chicago, is derelict.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_in_exile.html

Publius219 said:
Admittedly I was in high school, but WHERE THE HELL WAS THE IRAQ SKEPTICISM?!?!?! The only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is technology. 3 severe casualties for every death in Vietnam, ~15 in Iraq.

Yeah, the surge worked. Why? Because THAT WAS WHAT THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND WANTED FROM THE VERY START. Iraq is the inexcusable awful legacy of George W. Bush. I believe that he was well intentioned, but that’s what happens when you elect someone unqualified to be President to the office of the President. Say what you want about Obama, but there’s little doubt that he got there more on merit than most other Presidents. George W. Bush got elected because his name was George Bush and he had a soothing speaking voice. That’s just reality.

Well, that and Sandra Day O’Connor wanted to retire under a Republican President.

If there had been no Sunni Awakining, if we hadn’t been paying these people millions of dollars not to attack us, then the surge would have been a huge failure. Actually it was but the Neo-Cons took credit for it. Google Surge/Sunni Awakining.

@ Color Me Bad,

You are an uninformed moron. I spent a considerable amount of time In Al Anbar province and can tell you that the surge and awakening worked wonders compared to the time before it started. I don’t car what your little blogs on google say. The facts are the attacks declined, and as the US reduced it manpower in Al Anbar, to include the $, the attacks didn’t reappear. Those people were subjected to daily attacks and intimidation from foreign extremists and Islamic hard-liners and they had enough.

Please at least try to inform yourself.

gordonbloyershow said:
First, we did NOT screw up on Iraq. The world is better off without Hussein and so is Iraq. We screwed up on the follow up on Iraq.

Second, it is time the libs and the isolationist types like Ron Paul, to face the fact that the world will never be safe as long as there are governments in the Middle East that fund and harbor terrorists. We SHOULD go after the leaders of every government that does so. Do it ONCE and for all.

Ask those ~100,000 dead Iraqis if they’re better off without Hussein.

More Liberty5 said:
The USA can’t be the policemen of the world. The US taxpayer should be paying for such actions

Pablo said:
::facepalm::

There are human rights violations

gordonbloyershow said:
Second, it is time the libs and the isolationist types like Ron Paul, to face the fact that the world will never be safe as long as there are governments in the Middle East that fund and harbor terrorists. We SHOULD go after the leaders of every government that does so. Do it ONCE and for all.

Does a POS like you or Congressman King get to decide when an individual or group is a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter?

The Liberal media has painted themselves into a corner.  Even if they do disagree with BO’s decision to start a war with Libya and want to question his wisdom and leadership they can not without being forced to label themselves “Racist”.  And we all know that will never happen.

Publius219 said:
Ask those ~100,000 dead Iraqis if they’re better off without Hussein.

Pull your pants up.

same2u said:
There are human rights violations

Can you show me where in the US Constitution were powers to wage undeclared wars are legal if human rights violations are identified? I looked and looked and can’t find it.

Pablo said:
No, it worked because of the Sunni Awakening. It could not have worked without it.

Maybe, maybe not. But the Generals wanted a massive ground force from the beginning to control the cities once the government was overthrown. Rumsfeld and the hardcore neocons (Cheney/Wolfowitz) thought we’d be greeted as liberators and hence didn’t believe the additional troops were necessary. The additional troops were certainly necessary to prevent the situation from decaying the way that it did. Iraq is Vietnam with updated technology. People get their faces blown off, but they survive.

More Liberty5 said:
Can you show me where in the US Constitution were powers to wage undeclared wars are legal if human rights violations are identified? I looked and looked and can’t find it.

We haven’t declared war since WW2. I think defending human rights are part of American exceptionalism.

Color Me Badd said:
Well for one the American people are mostly stupid and don’t pay attention, O-bomb-a knows this and does whatever the F he wants to.

Well, 52% of them are…or were.

Publius219 said:
Ask those ~100,000 dead Iraqis if they’re better off without Hussein.

You miss him, don’t you?

Lover said:
As he said he was in HIGH SCHOOL so we should cut him some slack. ;)

Because the age arguments work so well from generations that have put us in the hole we’re in. Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.

Publius219 said:
We haven’t declared war since WW2. I think defending human rights are part of American exceptionalism.

so yemen, saudi arabia, iran, north korea, are next

More Liberty5 said:
Can you show me where in the US Constitution were powers to wage undeclared wars are legal if human rights violations are identified? I looked and looked and can’t find it.

In general, I agree, However, I don’t have a problem with some limited bombing when the aim is to level the playing field or prevent a slaughter.

Pablo said:
Well, 52% of them are…or were.

You miss him, don’t you?

Only an idiot would think that only one side is filled with idiots. More like 80-90%. And I don’t miss Saddam, but if he were alive today I wouldn’t be any less free than I am. And ~100,000 Iraqis might still be alive. Along with the ~35,000 US troops who have died/had their lives ruined, and their families. War has consequences. Just because way less than 1% of the population directly feels those consequences doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We just ignore them, because of political correctness. Time to start putting dead bodies all over the news. Then I bet we think a little longer.

More Liberty5 said:
@ Color Me Bad,

You are an uninformed moron. I spent a considerable amount of time In Al Anbar province and can tell you that the surge and awakening worked wonders compared to the time before it started. I don’t car what your little blogs on google say. The facts are the attacks declined, and as the US reduced it manpower in Al Anbar, to include the $, the attacks didn’t reappear. Those people were subjected to daily attacks and intimidation from foreign extremists and Islamic hard-liners and they had enough.

Please at least try to inform yourself.

Why so much crap directed at her?
there was already this.

Pablo said:
No, it worked because of the Sunni Awakening. It could not have worked without it.

same2u said:
In general, I agree, However, I don’t have a problem with some limited bombing when the aim is to level the playing field or prevent a slaughter.

Your hole is getting deeper by the post.

same2u said:
In general, I agree, However, I don’t have a problem with some limited bombing when the aim is to level the playing field or prevent a slaughter.

cjd ohio 1 said:
so yemen, saudi arabia, iran, north korea, are next

same2u said:
There are human rights violations

Yes, of the sort where you get raped/tortured/slaughtered when you speak out against the regime. Duh.

cjd ohio 1 said:

Don’t forget Ivory Coast.

Publius219 said:
We haven’t declared war since WW2. I think defending human rights are part of American exceptionalism.

A formal declaration or authorization via the US Congress in the form of a resolution give the President such powers. Regardless, President O-bomb-a is now just another war monger. Just more proof that the democrats/ republicans are the same. We can’t afford these actions.

Our children’s children will be paying for thus crap. We have trillions $ of debt, and the month deficit for Feb. 2011 was larger than the whole deficit for the fiscal year ’07.

Pablo said:
Yes, of the sort where you get raped/tortured/slaughtered when you speak out against the regime. Duh.

Then take it up with More Liberty 5 you cowardly POS.

same2u said:
Then take it up with More Liberty 5 you cowardly POS.

You lose.

More Liberty5 said:
A formal declaration or authorization via the US Congress in the form of a resolution give the President such powers. Regardless, President O-bomb-a is now just another war monger. Just more proof that the democrats/ republicans are the same. We can’t afford these actions.

Our children’s children will be paying for thus crap. We have trillions $ of debt, and the month deficit for Feb. 2011 was larger than the whole deficit for the fiscal year ‘07.

The debt isn’t an immediate problem. To say otherwise is to show ignorance as to the realities of the bond market. The long-term debt needs to be addressed. That isn’t done via short-term cutting of NPR. It’s done by reforming SS/Medicare/Medicaid and cutting defense spending. “The Presidnet should lead!!!” but Congress controls the purse strings. So pick one argument or the other, but using both is logically inconsistent. Not that things like consistency matter to the ideologically-driven GOP.

same2u said:
Then take it up with More Liberty 5 you cowardly POS.

Hey, how’d the “boycott” work?

More Liberty5 said:
A formal declaration or authorization via the US Congress in the form of a resolution give the President such powers. Regardless, President O-bomb-a is now just another war monger. Just more proof that the democrats/ republicans are the same. We can’t afford these actions.

Our children’s children will be paying for thus crap. We have trillions $ of debt, and the month deficit for Feb. 2011 was larger than the whole deficit for the fiscal year ‘07.

Your childrens children are paying for your Social Security. This whining about the burden on kids and grandkids from the elderly whose entitlements are paid for by their kids and grandkids is laughable.

Publius219 said:
And ~100,000 Iraqis might still be alive.

Or they might not. You seem to be glossing over Saddam’s penchant for murder as well as the Oil For Food corruption that cost perhaps millions their lives while Saddam lined his already full pockets.

Publius219 said:
The debt isn’t an immediate problem.

Sooo….we need to raise the debt limit or what happens again????

Pablo said:
Or they might not. You seem to be glossing over Saddam’s penchant for murder as well as the Oil For Food corruption that cost perhaps millions their lives while Saddam lined his already full pockets.

Glossing? He’s in FULL denial.

same2u said:
Then take it up with More Liberty 5 you cowardly POS.

More Liberty isn’t making an asinine argument. That’s why I’m talking to you, twerp.

Publius219 said:
Time to start putting dead bodies all over the news. Then I bet we think a little longer.

No, we can’t do that this time. The POTUS is a Democrat. Next time maybe.

Publius219 said:
The debt isn’t an immediate problem. To say otherwise is to show ignorance as to the realities of the bond market. The long-term debt needs to be addressed. That isn’t done via short-term cutting of NPR. It’s done by reforming SS/Medicare/Medicaid and cutting defense spending. “The Presidnet should lead!!!” but Congress controls the purse strings. So pick one argument or the other, but using both is logically inconsistent. Not that things like consistency matter to the ideologically-driven GOP.

You are a complete fool if you believe that over $14.2 trillion of debt, not to mention huge monthly and yearly deficits, isn’t a real problem. And I completely agree that we need to reform Social Security/ Medicare, as well as cut Defense spending. I also agree that we need to cut all irrelevant spending to include the millions we give NPR. The US taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for that either – Read the US Constitution.

And trying to claim I’m some republican shows your ignorance.

Kusinich is reading Obamas own words on Fox News in regards to constitutional authority to start a war. LOL!

Publius219 said:
Your childrens children are paying for your Social Security. This whining about the burden on kids and grandkids from the elderly whose entitlements are paid for by their kids and grandkids is laughable.

Another ignorant statement. Our $14.2 debt is going to have to come from somewhere. It’s not going to just appear out of thin air like you and the neocons and democrats think.

Lover said:
Kusinich is reading Obamas own words on Fox News in regards to constitutional authority to start a war. LOL!

LOL…I know. It shows how much of a liar and hypocrite O-Bomb-a is. He needs to be impeached.

same2u said:
In general, I agree, However, I don’t have a problem with some limited bombing when the aim is to level the playing field or prevent a slaughter.

cjd ohio 1 said:
so yemen, saudi arabia, iran, north korea, are next

can’t answer the tough questions now huh? so you ignore them lol

Lover said:
Kusinich is reading Obamas own words on Fox News in regards to constitutional authority to start a war. LOL!

I know it’s hilarious…except for the fact that peoples lives are at stake and billions of dollars are being wasted. It shows just how much of a liar and hypocrite O-Bomb-a really is.

Lover said:
Hey, how’d the “boycott” work?

For somebody who constantly complains about Garth, you sure leave a lot of trollish comments.

More Liberty5 said:
You are a complete fool if you believe that over $14.2 trillion of debt, not to mention huge monthly and yearly deficits, isn’t a real problem. And I completely agree that we need to reform Social Security/ Medicare, as well as cut Defense spending. I also agree that we need to cut all irrelevant spending to include the millions we give NPR. The US taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for that either – Read the US Constitution.

And trying to claim I’m some republican shows your ignorance.

You are a complete fool if you mischaracterize what I said. Hence, you’re a complete fool, since you mischaracterized what I said. You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011.

More Liberty5 said:
I know it’s hilarious…except for the fact that peoples lives are at stake and billions of dollars are being wasted. It shows just how much of a liar and hypocrite O-Bomb-a really is.

It’s not the first time Obomber has said one thing and done another.

same2u said:
For somebody who constantly complains about Garth, you sure leave a lot of trollish comments.

So, it failed?

Publius219 said:
You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011.

Typical rationale used by tyrants to ignore laws. If the US Constitution doesn’t work as you appear to imply, then change it as per the US Constitution. Don’t just ignore it.

And these problems we have in this country are a result of tyrant politicians on the left and right ignoring our laws. But there is no wonder we keep electing just criminals, because people like you believe they BS they spew.

Lover said:
Kusinich is reading Obamas own words on Fox News in regards to constitutional authority to start a war. LOL!

And talking impeachment. He’s such a racist.

More Liberty5 said:
Typical rationale used by tyrants to ignore laws. If the US Constitution doesn’t work as you appear to imply, then change it as per the US Constitution. Don’t just ignore it.

And these problems we have in this country are a result of tyrant politicians on the left and right ignoring our laws. But there is no wonder we keep electing just criminals, because people like you believe they BS they spew.

“Change!”
“Transparency!”

More Liberty5 said:
And these problems we have in this country are a result of tyrant politicians on the left and right ignoring our laws.

And courts. Don’t forget the courts.

Good point Pablo. But to be fair, President O-Bomb-a isn’t the first. he’s just following the lead of many of the others.

Publius219 said:
You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011.

Actually, that would eliminate all sorts of problems, almost overnight. It would, in fact, cause the federal government to looks at enormous swaths of its current portfolio and say “You know, that just isn’t our problem.”

The Media establishment is a disgrace, they are edging on this attack, yet they haven’t done their investigation of those who are fighting against Ghadafi. They are so inept at what they do as this stage that the news is irritating to watch or listen to. School of Journalism needs to reevaluate and check the kind of graduates they are producing.

Pablo said:
And talking impeachment. He’s such a racist.

*an idiot. I agree.

Pablo said:
Actually, that would eliminate all sorts of problems, almost overnight. It would, in fact, cause the federal government to looks at enormous swaths of its current portfolio and say “You know, that just isn’t our problem.”

You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011.

Pablo said:
And talking impeachment. He’s such a racist.

Why do you always have to resort to race baiting.

skyfet said:
Why do you always have to resort to race baiting.

sky, he wants to impeach the first black President. Plus, it’s the guy he lost the job to. Clearly, racism has been burning white hot within his breast for three years now. Everybody knows it.

Publius219 said:
“You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011″.”

Spoken like a true tyrant. If the US Constitution doesn’t work then change it as per the US Constitution. Don’t just ignore it and make it up as you go along.

If the US government would actually follow the Constitution then we wouldn’t have decade long wars, huge debts, the Patriot Act, or the current illegal bombing.

Publius219 said:
You’re similarly a fool if you think reverting to strict Constitutionalism will solve complex problems in 2011.

You’ll notice that I didn’t say “solve”. You’ll also noticed that we haven’t defined “problems” because I think we’re quite a ways apart as to what those look like.

Kuscinch

More Liberty5 said:
Good point Pablo. But to be fair, President O-Bomb-a isn’t the first. he’s just following the lead of many of the others.

Exactly. I would like to see that precedent overturned. The president should only have the authority to order military strikes if it is in immediate defense of the country. Otherwise, congressional approval should be required.

same2u said:
Kuscinch Exactly. I would like to see that precedent overturned. The president should only have the authority to order military strikes if it is in immediate defense of the country. Otherwise, congressional approval should be required.

so are you for the action in libya or not?

Just trying to put in a No Fly Zone, eh? Hey, everybody!!! Look! FREEDOM BOMBS!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

We are protecting the citizens from a tyrant. By bombing the shit out of said tyrant’s house, of course. Hahaha. You know if there is one business that never has a recession it’s bombing people’s asses.

Pablo said:
“You’ll notice that I didn’t say “solve”. You’ll also noticed that we haven’t defined “problems” because I think we’re quite a ways apart as to what those look like.”

Many of these “problems” aren’t our problems to solve.

cjd ohio 1 said:
so are you for the action in libya or not?

I find the merits of a limited action in Libya worthwhile. However, that doesn’t mean I like the president having the authority to order it.

same2u said:
I find the merits of a limited action in Libya worthwhile. However, that doesn’t mean I like the president having the authority to order it.

why are the worthwhile but actions in other countries isnt? please explain

same2u said:
The president should only have the authority to order military strikes if it is in immediate defense of the country.

You mean like this?

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

What’s with this guy?

More Liberty5 said:
Many of these “problems” aren’t our problems to solve.

Exactamundo.

Where are all the Libs and Progressives and why aren’t they calling for O-Bomb-A’s head? They must agree with what this guy is doing. Oh well, we all knew it all along.

im_lovin_it said:
Just trying to put in a No Fly Zone, eh? Hey, everybody!!! Look! FREEDOM BOMBS!!!!

Check this out too! Arab League to the West: Psyche!

NewsBusters| Howard Kurtz: Media Drumbeating War Again, Not Asking Skeptical Questions About Libya
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/20/howard-kurtz-media-drumbeating-war-again-not-asking-skeptical-questio

cjd ohio 1 said:
why are the worthwhile but actions in other countries isnt? please explain

I don’t believe I have stipulated to your statement previously.

For sheer idiocy this rates right up there with “Islam is Religion of Peace”:

Say what you want about Obama, but there’s little doubt that he got there more on merit than most other Presidents.

same2u said:
I find the merits of a limited action in Libya worthwhile. However, that doesn’t mean I like the president having the authority to order it.

ok

same2u said:
I don’t believe I have stipulated to your statement previously.

really

More Liberty5 said:
@ Color Me Bad,

You are an uninformed moron. I spent a considerable amount of time In Al Anbar province and can tell you that the surge and awakening worked wonders compared to the time before it started. I don’t car what your little blogs on google say. The facts are the attacks declined, and as the US reduced it manpower in Al Anbar, to include the $, the attacks didn’t reappear. Those people were subjected to daily attacks and intimidation from foreign extremists and Islamic hard-liners and they had enough.

Please at least try to inform yourself.

My boyfriend was in Al Anbar and Fallulah, and he tells quite a different story.

More Liberty5 said:
@ Color Me Bad,

You are an uninformed moron. I spent a considerable amount of time In Al Anbar province and can tell you that the surge and awakening worked wonders compared to the time before it started. I don’t car what your little blogs on google say. The facts are the attacks declined, and as the US reduced it manpower in Al Anbar, to include the $, the attacks didn’t reappear. Those people were subjected to daily attacks and intimidation from foreign extremists and Islamic hard-liners and they had enough.

Please at least try to inform yourself.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_important_was_the_surge

It is a common tactic for neo-con supporters like yourself to deduce that since you saw something or had an experience personally then it must be true for the entire thing. Very common tactic which is being used very well in Minnesota right now. Republican douchebags like Michelle Bachmann are trying to get a bill passed in which people on welfare can only carry less than 20 dollars in their pocket. The reason for this is because Rep. douchebags say “well I know a story about a welfare queen who spent her money on gambling and drugs”. So of course to all know nothings this must be true about every welfare recipient. You used the same tactic here, since I saw that the surge worked then it must be true.

My boyfriend was a CO in Al Anbar, you sound like you probably worked for a private contractor, I dont know just a hunch. What would you know about what was going on really working Blackwater?

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_important_was_the_surge

The link might help you out, these are objective experts who observed what was going on during the Sunni Awakening, they reach the same conclusions as I and my boyfriend and of course General Petraeus who said this

“Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. [...] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.

Petraeus was careful at the time not to say the Sunni Awakening would have succeeded without the surge because of the election and the fact that McCain was riding the point that Obama hated the Surge and it worked. Ask him now what he thinks and he says that the Surge had nothing to do with the Sunni Awakening.

I understand you have an agenda, but really people can look this stuff up for themselves and see the truth, you just end up looking pretty foolish.

Color Me Badd said:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_important_was_the_surge

It is a common tactic for neo-con supporters like yourself to deduce that since you saw something or had an experience personally then it must be true for the entire thing. Very common tactic which is being used very well in Minnesota right now. Republican douchebags like Michelle Bachmann are trying to get a bill passed in which people on welfare can only carry less than 20 dollars in their pocket. The reason for this is because Rep. douchebags say “well I know a story about a welfare queen who spent her money on gambling and drugs”. So of course to all know nothings this must be true about every welfare recipient. You used the same tactic here, since I saw that the surge worked then it must be true.

My boyfriend was a CO in Al Anbar, you sound like you probably worked for a private contractor, I dont know just a hunch. What would you know about what was going on really working Blackwater?

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_important_was_the_surge

The link might help you out, these are objective experts who observed what was going on during the Sunni Awakening, they reach the same conclusions as I and my boyfriend and of course General Petraeus who said this

“Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. [...] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.

Petraeus was careful at the time not to say the Sunni Awakening would have succeeded without the surge because of the election and the fact that McCain was riding the point that Obama hated the Surge and it worked. Ask him now what he thinks and he says that the Surge had nothing to do with the Sunni Awakening.

I understand you have an agenda, but really people can look this stuff up for themselves and see the truth, you just end up looking pretty foolish.

Yeah you can thumbs down this all you want teabag/neocon filth but the facts are facts and if you ever bothered to actually read instead of listen and take orders you would agree with this. Idiots.

Rush Gingrich said:
Why so much crap directed at her?
there was already this.

Its okay Rush I am used to the Mediaite teabag/neo con commenters hating everything I post because facts hurt their feelings.

Color Me Badd said:
Its okay Rush I am used to the Mediaite teabag/neo con commenters hating everything I post because facts hurt their feelings.

And also because I am a woman and I am an easy target. I do feel Sarah Palin’s pain on that one actually.

Color Me Badd said:
And also because I am a woman and I am an easy target. I do feel Sarah Palin’s pain on that one actually.

i rarely agree with you, but dont play the victim card, stand up on facts

Color Me Badd said:
Its okay Rush I am used to the Mediaite teabag/neo con commenters hating everything I post because facts hurt their feelings.

Color Me Badd said:
And also because I am a woman and I am an easy target. I do feel Sarah Palin’s pain on that one actually.

Maybe, but you are really a stupid ass. This is common knowledge . LMAO !!!!

You feel Palin’s pain? You realize your fellow lefties will see this as a sign of weakness and shank you in the chow line.

writer said:
You feel Palin’s pain? You realize your fellow lefties will see this as a sign of weakness and shank you in the chow line.

Girth said:
Maybe, but you are really a stupid ass. This is common knowledge . LMAO !!!!

I very much love that in the same sentence you called me a “stupid ass” you used the term “LMAO” I dont engage in debate with children. Move along son.

Two words. Protective custody.

Color Me Badd said:
I very much love that in the same sentence you called me a “stupid ass” you used the term “LMAO” I dont engage in debate with children. Move along son.

LMAO – You are clearly a brain dead moron. Nothing there but pure pablum – a waste of space. Jesus.

Color Me Badd said:
“My boyfriend was in Al Anbar and Fallulah, and he tells quite a different story.”

Um…are you a complete idiot? Al Anbar is a Province in Iraq. And within that province is the city of Fallujah. they aren’t two different places. Also, I don’t care what your “boyfriend” says. The facts are the facts. Look at the statistics of attacks before the surge/ awakening and after – not to mention people moving back.

I was not with BlackWater either. I’m a former US Marine officer that served three tours in Iraq – two In Al Anbar Province (Fallujah, Ramadi, Hit). I’m no neocon either. Go back and read my previous statements denouncing such politics as well as the politics of the current idiot President O-Bomb-a.

Oh and Prospect.org is just another liberal rage. I wouldn’t tolerate some neocon quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source so I won’t tolerate you quoting these idiots either.

More Liberty5 said:
Color Me Badd said:
“My boyfriend was in Al Anbar and Fallulah, and he tells quite a different story.”

Um…are you a complete idiot? Al Anbar is a Province in Iraq. And within that province is the city of Fallujah. they aren’t two different places. Also, I don’t care what your “boyfriend” says. The facts are the facts. Look at the statistics of attacks before the surge/ awakening and after – not to mention people moving back.

I was not with BlackWater either. I’m a former US Marine officer that served three tours in Iraq – two In Al Anbar Province (Fallujah, Ramadi, Hit). I’m no neocon either. Go back and read my previous statements denouncing such politics as well as the politics of the current idiot President O-Bomb-a.

Oh and Prospect.org is just another liberal rage. I wouldn’t tolerate some neocon quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source so I won’t tolerate you quoting these idiots either.

Sorry I am not good with Iraqi geography I was never there, I can only go by what my bf has told me about the situation and what I have read on my own.

You still didn’t address what Peteraeus has said on the record about the Surge/Sunni Awakening.

More Liberty5 said:
Oh and Prospect.org is just another liberal rage. I wouldn’t tolerate some neocon quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source so I won’t tolerate you quoting these idiots either.

That said, the Michael O’Hanlon bit there seems to be pretty well on the mark.

Color Me Badd said:
Ask him now what he thinks and he says that the Surge had nothing to do with the Sunni Awakening.

See, this is not what Petraeus said:

Ask him now what he thinks and he says that the Surge had nothing to do with the Sunni Awakening.

Nor is this:

Petraeus was careful at the time not to say the Sunni Awakening would have succeeded…

If you want to quote him, try something more like this:

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.
One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.
We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.
Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels.
Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.
Additionally, in what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produce such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.

Color Me Badd said:
You still didn’t address what Peteraeus has said on the record about the Surge/Sunni Awakening.

-I never said that the surge was solely responsible for the extreme reduction in violence. General Peteraeus didn’t say that either. But the surge worked, even your President O-Bomb-a admitted so.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Petraeus_Obama_acknowledged_surge_worked.html

As a senator and presidential candidate, Barack Obama strongly opposed the troop surge that President George W. Bush called for in Iraq.

As president, Obama told Gen. David Petraeus the surge worked.

On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Petraeus whether Obama acknowledged that the surge was successful, and Petraeus said: “He did, in fact.”

But Petraeus, now the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said during the Afghanistan deliberations, the administration didn’t spend much time relitigated past battles over Iraq.

“Although I would also tell you we haven’t spent a lot of time looking at the rear-view mirrors of the bus,” Petraeus said, adding that they talked about how reconciliation worked in Iraq and how they achieved population security there. -

gordonbloyershow said:
. We SHOULD go after the leaders of every government that does so. Do it ONCE and for all.

we should?

When have we become an empire? If we are “given” the power to remove leaders of nations, that harbor radical groups that fight against us, aren’t every other nation capable of doing so to the nations they are against?

Diplomacy and Warfare are very powerful tools that nations have, and each nation is forged by a government, that people decide, either through revolutions, or through elections. Just because they are there, doesn’t mean they should be used, since collateral damage from them can be high.

Howie, they first have to be expelled from Barry’s rectum.

Howard Kurtz demanding media fairness? This is like Charlie Sheen arguing for abstinence and a drug-free workplace.

Color Me Badd said:
I understand you have an agenda, but really people can look this stuff up for themselves and see the truth, you just end up looking pretty foolish.

Well said. This is the difference between rational people of any political persuasion and the conservative trolls who rejoice in their own ignorance as if they were touched by the holy spirit.

notsofast said:
Howie, they first have to be expelled from Barry’s rectum.

Welcome back. Somebody posing as you was posting and I couldn’t believe how many thumbs up you were getting. Then, I noticed it was “nutsofast” and not “notsofast.” So, tell us all about your vacation in Obama’s neither regions:)

Pablo said:
You mean like this?

What’s with this guy?

While I agree with the principle of what you’re saying, can you not see the difference between what Bush Sr did with Kuwait, Clinton with Kosovo, and Obama is now doing with Libya compared to Dubya and Iraq?

gordonbloyershow said:
First, we did NOT screw up on Iraq. The world is better off without Hussein and so is Iraq.

I think most of us would agree that Hussein is better at feeding the worms that running a country. However, I wonder why we didn’t allow the Iraqi people the chance to take care of toppling him themselves. We’ll never know if that might have played out that way. Now, all we can do is ask if it was worth the lives of all the brave Americans who died in that war. To me, it was not.
I’ll pose this question to you- If removing Hussein from power meant that your child had to die for that to happen, would you still maintain your stance? Serious question, would you sacrifice a child for that outcome?