Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

[BigBadBrian]

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."

Link (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF)

[DrMaddVibe]

So positive and full of hope. I hope all of the troops serving over there read what he has to say.

[Nickdfresh]

Truth hurts...

they should be pissed at BUSH, and many are...

Especially when he lies about "IRAQIs being out front," when in fact they are led by US troops embedded or by Marines and Soldiers that are actually out front...

[FORD]

Looks like he's agreeing that Murtha's plan is the best existing solution. I don't see what the problem is.

[Wayne L.]

Crazy Howard is one of the most overrated & nauseating politicians around when it comes to whining liberal Democrats & will cause them to lose in 06 & 08 against Republicans because of his INSANE rhetoric.

[Guitar Shark]

Why the thumbs down, BBB?

I may not agree with Dean all the time, but this time his arguments seem to make sense.

I also like the fact that the Democrats are apparently on the verge of actually presenting a PLAN. Finally.

[Warham]

We already know what their plan is: bail out at the first possible moment.

[Wayne L.]

If you think Dean makes sense with his rhetoric GS, you must believe Cindy Sheehan as well.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Why the thumbs down, BBB?

I may not agree with Dean all the time, but this time his arguments seem to make sense.

I also like the fact that the Democrats are apparently on the verge of actually presenting a PLAN. Finally.

Awe c'mon. didn't you see WAYNE L.'s post?:rolleyes:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Awe c'mon. didn't you see WAYNE L.'s post?:rolleyes:

Yes, I was truly blown away by his logic. I need to reconsider my whole life philosophy. :(

[FORD]

Wayne just wants to sniff Cindy Sheehan's feet. Especially after she's been standing outside Chimpy's pig farm for a week.

[Warham]

I'm gonna be sick..

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
I don't see what the problem is.

You don't see much of anything...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I also like the fact that the Democrats are apparently on the verge of actually presenting a PLAN. Finally.

You actually believe that ??

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Looks like he's agreeing that Murtha's plan is the best existing solution. I don't see what the problem is.

"the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" - Howard Dean

You don't see the problem, eh?

Bro, even if the above statement were 100% true, saying that is a slap in the face to every soldier wearing a uniform and fighting right now.
I don't wanna hear talking points designed to take away from the very real and true impact words like this coming from someone in power has on a soldier. i hope it generates more of what if has already brought the Democrats who live by this idea that freedom of speech removes any accountability for the things they say to the people.

You reap what you sow, buddy, and the Democrats have one hell of a harvest coming when the troops finally do come home.
The problem with the Liberal minded is that they confuse cawardice with patriotism, and then only get mad when this is pointed out to them.
Tough shit, Howard Dean will not be able to spin out of those comments, and i don't give a flying fuck how anyone tries to down play it.
That was a very bad choice of words for the good doctor, AGAIN!

Y'all just want so hard to lay a failure at the feet of Bush that you are killing morale among the troops, while i might add putting their loved one's here at home through hell in the process, by denegrating what the troops have done there in the last 3 years.
You're DEAD to the idea that anything good is happening there, but it will not work for you, election day "06 is fast approaching and i feel a vibe, or wave as it were about to turn your boat over.

Like the Titanic, by turning away from the iceburg they sealed their fate and steered their destiny to an icey - watery grave.
But had they hit it head on the damage would have been confined to the front of the ship and the threat of uneven flooding minimalized, therefore buying more than enough time for rescue to arrive before the ship even came close to sinking.

Democrats are trying like hell to steer away from fear, but that is what is "plain wrong", my friends.
Face it now, (which as you can see hasn't been a cakewalk, and your, um, support, if that is what you still call it, of the troops hasn't helped)
Or face it later when the job is tougher and no chance at Victory exists at all.

You all forget that terrorism was already millions strong before 9-11.
I guess in your mind it was all the creation of the Bush administration?

That reminds me of a joke...What happens when a Democrat takes Viagra?
He get's taller...

Pull your fucking heads out of the clouds and get a wiff of reality already. the idea that we are going to WIN the war in Iraq is the ONLY option, or the world will be screwed.
Giving any terror cell the impression of victory to celebrate will be deadly to all free nations in the future, so stop helping them.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Pull your fucking heads out of the clouds and get a wiff of reality already. the idea that we are going to WIN the war in Iraq is the ONLY option, or the world will be screwed.
Giving any terror cell the impression of victory to celebrate will be deadly to all free nations in the future, so stop helping them.

The situation in Iraq is a "civil war". It's not "terraists" and it damn sure isn't some fictional branch office of "Al Qaeda" led by Max Towelheadroom Zarqawi.

It's Sunni vs Shia and the one thing they CAN agree on is that they want the occupation to end.

You can't "win" that.

[LoungeMachine]

We can't win millitarily...

Even many Military Experts, including Generals have said that.

And we've pretty much thrown "winning the hearts and minds" out the window

It's a war of attrition, and they are willing to play it out......

10 years, and 10,000 lives later, we'll still be dodging IEDs that we failed to secure in the first place.

Have we learned nothing from History????????

[jero]

You allready won this one!
Netherlands is a small but proud partner of the US

[Warham]

Originally posted by Cathedral
"the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" - Howard Dean

You don't see the problem, eh?

Bro, even if the above statement were 100% true, saying that is a slap in the face to every soldier wearing a uniform and fighting right now.
I don't wanna hear talking points designed to take away from the very real and true impact words like this coming from someone in power has on a soldier. i hope it generates more of what if has already brought the Democrats who live by this idea that freedom of speech removes any accountability for the things they say to the people.

You reap what you sow, buddy, and the Democrats have one hell of a harvest coming when the troops finally do come home.
The problem with the Liberal minded is that they confuse cawardice with patriotism, and then only get mad when this is pointed out to them.
Tough shit, Howard Dean will not be able to spin out of those comments, and i don't give a flying fuck how anyone tries to down play it.
That was a very bad choice of words for the good doctor, AGAIN!

Y'all just want so hard to lay a failure at the feet of Bush that you are killing morale among the troops, while i might add putting their loved one's here at home through hell in the process, by denegrating what the troops have done there in the last 3 years.
You're DEAD to the idea that anything good is happening there, but it will not work for you, election day "06 is fast approaching and i feel a vibe, or wave as it were about to turn your boat over.

Like the Titanic, by turning away from the iceburg they sealed their fate and steered their destiny to an icey - watery grave.
But had they hit it head on the damage would have been confined to the front of the ship and the threat of uneven flooding minimalized, therefore buying more than enough time for rescue to arrive before the ship even came close to sinking.

Democrats are trying like hell to steer away from fear, but that is what is "plain wrong", my friends.
Face it now, (which as you can see hasn't been a cakewalk, and your, um, support, if that is what you still call it, of the troops hasn't helped)
Or face it later when the job is tougher and no chance at Victory exists at all.

You all forget that terrorism was already millions strong before 9-11.
I guess in your mind it was all the creation of the Bush administration?

That reminds me of a joke...What happens when a Democrat takes Viagra?
He get's taller...

Pull your fucking heads out of the clouds and get a wiff of reality already. the idea that we are going to WIN the war in Iraq is the ONLY option, or the world will be screwed.
Giving any terror cell the impression of victory to celebrate will be deadly to all free nations in the future, so stop helping them.

The best post eva!

You've got my vote for Post of the Year. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
The best post eva!

You've got my vote for Post of the Year. :D

Your Chairman would vote otherwise, I'm afraid ;)

Love ya, Catheter, but disagree with 90% of your points..


sorry.:cool:

[Warham]

Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.

My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.


:rolleyes:

Nice misdirection from the real issues :rolleyes:

Shall we move on to the War On Christmas next??


Settle this now, in one sentence.

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER "WINNING"?????

I'd love to hear it :cool:

We can't WIN this if wiping out bombings is your goal.

If having Iraqis defend for themselves is winning to you, then SET TIMETABLES LIKE THEY DO ALL THE TIME.

We've already rid the nation of Saddam, and phantom WMDs:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

no. they can't.

[smollen55]

Ok let me give my opinion...

Critics of the war in Iraq say there is nothing new in the "National Strategy for Victory" President Bush outlined at the Naval Academy last week. This is one of the rare instances where critics of the war in Iraq have gotten something right.

I read carefully both the 35-page document prepared by the National Security Council (its available at cnn.com in pdf format) and the text of President Bush's speech outlining it, and found in them nothing I didn't already know. This is what I expected. One shouldn't change a sound strategy when it is clear it is bearing fruit. All that's happening is that the president finally is explaining his strategy to the American people.

When can most of our troops come home? The short answer is: when Iraq has a stable, democratic government capable of defending itself.

So when will that be? Pretty soon. There need not be a significant weakening of the resistance before there can be a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The key to the U.S. security strategy is to create Iraqi army and police units of sufficient size and quality to be able to protect the country (mostly) by themselves. As the president put it in earlier contexts: "As they stand up, we'll stand down."

The Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size planned for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007.

Despite a large number of casualties from terrorist attacks, there's been no shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Though performance has sometimes been spotty, for the most part Iraqi soldiers perform well in combat. A year ago, (insurgents) freely attacked the Iraqi military. So the hostiles have resorted to remote bombings because they cannot stand and fight the Iraqi soldiers anymore.


The security situation is much improved over a year ago. People are actually seeing people walking their pets on the streets and the mortar and rocket attacks are extremely rare.

The security situation has improved chiefly because there are now so many Iraqi troops in the field. The president said 80 Iraqi battalions (500-800 men each) are now in the fight, and 3,500 new police officers are being trained every 10 weeks.

The increasing number and skill of the Iraqi soldiers and cops means that they can garrison communities once they have been cleared of insurgents.

"Clear and hold" is having a powerfully deleterious effect on the resistance, because it means the terrorists (largely) are unable to recover lost ground. The harmful effect on the resistance will multiply in the months to come, as more Iraqi units join the fight, and existing units gain more experience.

Currently, there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, up from 137,000 to provide additional protection for the referendum on the constitution in October (which proceeded almost without incident), and for the election for a permanent government under that constitution scheduled for Dec. 15th. A few weeks after that election is over and a new government is formed, troop levels will drop back to the 137,000 level, probably a little further. More reductions -- to or just a little more than 100,000 troops -- will be made once the Iraqi army is "built out" in May or June.

The role of the U.S. forces that will remain in Iraq will change. Iraqis will take the lead in fighting and patrolling, with U.S. forces as backup. Most of the bases from which U.S. troops currently are operating will be turned over to the Iraqis.

Currently, only one Iraqi army battalion is considered capable of operating entirely on its own. The others rely on Americans for fire (artillery and air) support, logistical support, and some intelligence support.

It will take a few years to build up support units in the Iraqi military. But most U.S. combat units likely will be out of the country by the end of 2007, sooner if the resistance continues to weaken at the rate it has in the last several months.

The war in Iraq is being won everywhere except in the news coverage of it. (blame the liberal assholes and the fucking dems like Kerry, Kennedy, and this complete ass named Dean). The president must continue speaking out. The people aren't going to get the truth unless he tells it.

ok, I am done.....

[LoungeMachine]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by smollen55
[B]

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
[QUOTE]Originally posted by smollen55
[B]

You okay LOUNGE?:confused:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You okay LOUNGE?:confused:


:D

Damn meds....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by smollen55
Ok let me give my opinion...

I read carefully both the 35-page document prepared by the National Security Council (its available at cnn.com in pdf format) and the text of President Bush's speech outlining it, and found in them nothing I didn't already know. This is what I expected. One shouldn't change a sound strategy when it is clear it is bearing fruit.

Buhuhuhuhawhawhawhaw!



All that's happening is that the president finally is explaining his strategy to the American people.

The same one he's been recounting over and over...


When can most of our troops come home? The short answer is: when Iraq has a stable, democratic government capable of defending itself.

Or when we have successfully trained two of the three factions in the civil war?


So when will that be? Pretty soon. There need not be a significant weakening of the resistance before there can be a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Of course, because there will be no major weakening in the insurgency in the foreseeable future.


The key to the U.S. security strategy is to create Iraqi army and police units of sufficient size and quality to be able to protect the country (mostly) by themselves. As the president put it in earlier contexts: "As they stand up, we'll stand down."

Or train one faction in the civil war...The SHIAs already have their own independent paramilitaries and militias, many of which are being trained by the IRANIAN Revolutionary Guards. They're going to protect THEIR portion of the country.


The Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size planned for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007.

Despite a large number of casualties from terrorist attacks, there's been no shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Though performance has sometimes been spotty, for the most part Iraqi soldiers perform well in combat. A year ago, (insurgents) freely attacked the Iraqi military. So the hostiles have resorted to remote bombings because they cannot stand and fight the Iraqi soldiers anymore.

The IRAQI Army is built mostly of former Kurd and Shia militiamen or veterans of those ethnicities. It would have been easier to have mustered the old IRAQI Army back after we took Baghdad, then reformed, retrained, and payed them instead of many drifting into the insurgency/pro-gov't militias. Relatively few open SUNNIs are in the police/army. And many who are are guerilla infiltrators, as evidenced by the suicide bombings in the Police Academy yesterday, in which 43 (mostly) Iraqi police cadets were slaughtered. And so many join the security forces because they pay well, and the unemployment rate is high among males aged 18-45...



The security situation is much improved over a year ago. People are actually seeing people walking their pets on the streets and the mortar and rocket attacks are extremely rare.

Really? There are a consistently high level attacks on Coalition Forces and US casualties are consistently numerous in caparison to two years ago. Also, Iraqis continue to die at a high rate even if the number of suicide bombings vary from month-to-month...


The security situation has improved chiefly because there are now so many Iraqi troops in the field. The president said 80 Iraqi battalions (500-800 men each) are now in the fight, and 3,500 new police officers are being trained every 10 weeks.

Only 40,000 Iraqi troops are capable of independent action, and BUSH patently lied in his speech when he mentioned that IRAQI forces "led" the way in a recent (Tal-Afar?) offensive, when it was US troops like (enlisted) Green Berets were acting as senior (Iraqi) commanders, and US Marines and soldiers "out front" according to an embedded journalist.


The increasing number and skill of the Iraqi soldiers and cops means that they can garrison communities once they have been cleared of insurgents.

But not the SUNNI communities...


"Clear and hold" is having a powerfully deleterious effect on the resistance, because it means the terrorists (largely) are unable to recover lost ground. The harmful effect on the resistance will multiply in the months to come, as more Iraqi units join the fight, and existing units gain more experience.

There is no "Clear and Hold," US forces in IRAQ are undermanned, so they are unable to "hold" and garrison villages "cleared" of insurgents.


Currently, there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, up from 137,000 to provide additional protection for the referendum on the constitution in October (which proceeded almost without incident), and for the election for a permanent government under that constitution scheduled for Dec. 15th. A few weeks after that election is over and a new government is formed, troop levels will drop back to the 137,000 level, probably a little further. More reductions -- to or just a little more than 100,000 troops -- will be made once the Iraqi army is "built out" in May or June.

"Built out" of what? Ethnic factions?


The role of the U.S. forces that will remain in Iraq will change. Iraqis will take the lead in fighting and patrolling, with U.S. forces as backup. Most of the bases from which U.S. troops currently are operating will be turned over to the Iraqis.

Currently, only one Iraqi army battalion is considered capable of operating entirely on its own. The others rely on Americans for fire (artillery and air) support, logistical support, and some intelligence support.

It will take a few years to build up support units in the Iraqi military. But most U.S. combat units likely will be out of the country by the end of 2007, sooner if the resistance continues to weaken at the rate it has in the last several months.

No, it ISN'T WEAKENING!! THERE WILL BE NO COMPLETE VICTORY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS, AND THE IRAQIs DO NOT WANT US THERE (82%)! The very, active, presence of US troops is driving the insurgency as much as anything else...


The war in Iraq is being won everywhere except in the news coverage of it.

Why, because Fearless Leader GEORGIE BUSH told you so in his bullshit PDF?

What about this?:

http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg

Did you believe him then too BuSHEEP?



(blame the liberal assholes and the fucking dems like Kerry, Kennedy, and this complete ass named Dean).

Now you're just getting mean. Did they invade a country based on false pretenses with no plan to "win the peace" and not enough troops to secure the country after "the end of major combat operations," despite military critics that said their plans were fanciful, self-serving bullshit?

I thought conservatives were supposed to take responsibility for their mistakes, and not blame others ("liberals," the media).



The president must continue speaking out. The people aren't going to get the truth unless he tells it.

ok, I am done.....

Yeah right, he's just been dead on so far..:rolleyes:

The guy, and his cronies, that got us into this mess is going to get us out.. Yeah, uh-huh.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

Who's they? Kerry, perhaps? Liberals everywhere hoping for a US defeat, so they can lay the blame on Republicans?

Again, by definition, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what are they?

It's not a hard question to answer.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Again, by definition, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what are they?

It's not a hard question to answer.

Ooo -- ooo -- I know! Neocons!!

What do I win?

[Cathedral]

You win an all expenses paid trip to Club Iraq for your "See for Yourself" weekend, in the heart of beautiful and scenic Ramadi, the terror hotbed of the NEW Iraq.

There you'll enjoy mass killings, beheadings, and get a weeks free tactical training in the art of suicide bombing, where can you get all of this for free?

But that is not all, you even get photo's taken with your favorite Terrorists the likes of, Al-Zarqawi, Bin Ladden and those ever splintered Republican Guards and there's still more, and as a special thank you from those blood thirsty haters of everything western (including the westerners), you will get the first copy of the video game by Muslim Technologies, Kill Great Satan: Death to America fo your xbox 360....

yes, this package is worth a whopping pile of camel shit and it's all youir's, FREE..................

[ELVIS]

Do they have it for PS3 ??

[Guitar Shark]

I'd rather just have the XBox 360.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Your Chairman would vote otherwise, I'm afraid ;)

Love ya, Catheter, but disagree with 90% of your points..


sorry.:cool:

I expect nothing less from my total opposite, lol.
But i wasn't maiking points, i was stating facts......... :)

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Do they have it for PS3 ??

LOL... we think alike sometimes... scary

[Cathedral]

I prefer pc games, because of the updates.
You can't get that from a console if there are glitches in the software.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Who's they? Kerry, perhaps? Liberals everywhere hoping for a US defeat, so they can lay the blame on Republicans?

Again, by definition, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what are they?

It's not a hard question to answer.

I once terrorized a mouse, I terrorized my high school right before I graduated:D, I've terrorized some sheep here, but actually, I don't consider myself a political terrorist...

Again, with the semantic shit...

Exactly how is John KERRY hoping for a US defeat again?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL... we think alike sometimes... scary

:D

[FORD]

Al Zarqawi *IS* a video game.
But he's published by BCE Software.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Al Zarqawi *IS* a video game.
But he's published by BCE Software.

Prove it!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Prove it!

You're asking me to prove someone doesn't exist?

That's a double negative. And that's how we got in this quagmire to begin with.

I'd like some proof that he DOES exist. And a police composite sketch isn't going to do it.

[Cathedral]

Oh brother, so we are all supposed to believe something that cannot be proven because you say so?

Lots of people have died at the hands of these people you say do not exist, yet cannot offer proof to support your claim that they don't.

Does that really make sense to you?
You need air, brotha'...........................

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Oh brother, so we are all supposed to believe something that cannot be proven because you say so?

Lots of people have died at the hands of these people you say do not exist, yet cannot offer proof to support your claim that they don't.

Does that really make sense to you?
You need air, brotha'...........................

You have dead people, but you have no proof of who was actually responsible.

In fact, nobody in Iraq outside of the occupying army and the puppet government seems to know who this alleged phantom Hopalong Zarqawi person is.

If the guy was such a legend among Islamic "holy warriors" you would think he'd be a little better known.

But then the BCE doesn't need actual proof. They just need constant repitition of a lie (or distortion) until it is accepted as the "truth".

9-11-01 being another prime example. They still have yet to produce a SINGLE piece of hard evidence proving their commonly accepted explanation of 19 guys (whose names weren't on the passenger lists) supposedly hijacking planes with box cutters (an account which itself can only be "verified" by a primary player in the Florida election fraud and the "Arkansas Project" harrassment of President Clinton, one Ted Olson.)

[Guitar Shark]

Apparently, today Dean changed his statement to "We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically."

Nice save, Howard. :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Dean said the other day we can't win, but today he said we have to win!

FORD, how do you keep up with this guy's flip-flopping?

[Guitar Shark]

Seriously, I wonder if someone is counting the number of retractions Dean has had to make over the years for his ill-conceived comments. It really does seem like it happens fairly often.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Seriously, I wonder if someone is counting the number of retractions Dean has had to make over the years for his ill-conceived comments. It really does seem like it happens fairly often.

That doesn't change the fact that he's right.

It's more like the ill-informed sheepish American people can't hear the truth --which is that colonial occupiers can't really win guerilla wars, nor do they do well in other peoples' civil wars. The only strategy is to let the IRAQIs figure it out for themselves (which will be a three ethnic state and possibly three separate states...)

SADDAM was the Marshall TITO of IRAQOSLAVIA...

That's what happens when imperialists create multi-national states right after WWI, they either need a tyrant to hold them together or else they fall apart...

[Guitar Shark]

I agree Nick. But as a spokesperson for the Democratic party, he hasn't impressed me.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I agree Nick. But as a spokesperson for the Democratic party, he hasn't impressed me.

Yeah, he's too honest to be a politician, that's why these NEO CON buffoons crack me up when they go on their anti-DEAN rants, they're real complaint when the subterfuge is removed is that DEAN is essentially too honest to be the DNC spokesman...

Yet they hated CLINTON for his political-speak and the loved "MISSION ACCUNTPLISHED" Fearless Terra-alert BUSH.

Alternatingly sad and hysterical at the same time...

[Warham]

How do you know he's right when he changes what he says from day to day?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
How do you know he's right when he changes what he says from day to day?

This from somebody that voted for BUSH...

[Warham]

I dunno. Bush has said we should stay in Iraq since 2003. I don't remember him flip-flopping about the war at all.

You said you agree with Howard. Does that mean you agree with what he said yesterday that we couldn't win the war, or do you agree with what he said today that we have to win the war? Or do you agree with John Kerry that our troops are being boogeymen for the Iraqi children?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
So positive and full of hope. I hope all of the troops serving over there read what he has to say.

Who put us in this hopeless situation?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
I dunno. Bush has said we should stay in Iraq since 2003. I don't remember him flip-flopping about the war at all.

You said you agree with Howard. Does that mean you agree with what he said yesterday that we couldn't win the war, or do you agree with what he said today that we have to win the war? Or do you agree with John Kerry that our troops are being boogeymen for the Iraqi children?

He doesn't know what he believes, neither does Ford, hell, neither does Howard.
None of them are on the same page, just in the same story book.

Either way, i notice that when you ask questions they hardly ever get answered with an actual answer. it's always some seemingly witty smart ass comment that totally avoids providing an answer.

Typical political spin, and what I find to be laugh out fucking loud funny is the fact that every damn one of them is exactly what they claim to be against.
Honesty? From a politician? y'all are completely lost in a dream land where you actually THINK you have reps that give a shit about you.

What is the date today? 12-08-05?
Hmmm, just a tad over 3 years left for Bush. y'all better get with the program and stop wasting opportunity fighting a ghost that will vanish at the end of his term. Democrat's, all about hatred, confusion, foil beenies, and total failure on all fronts...You have NO foundation in which to build a shitter much less a poltical threat on election day in '06 or '08......But best of luck to ya saving up for that clue.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Who put us in this hopeless situation?

Saddam Hussein and the United Nations...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I dunno. Bush has said we should stay in Iraq since 2003. I don't remember him flip-flopping about the war at all.
...


Except for when he said it was over.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by smollen55
Ok let me give my opinion...

The security situation has improved chiefly because there are now so many Iraqi troops in the field. The president said 80 Iraqi battalions (500-800 men each) are now in the fight, and 3,500 new police officers are being trained every 10 weeks.

ok, I am done.....

And why would anyone believe what the president says? He's a degenerate liar. :rolleyes:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Except for when he said it was over.

Not to mention the flip-flopping reasons given for needing to go to war in the first place. First it was to enforce UN resolutions, then it was to protect us against WMD, then it was to "liberate" the Iraqis....

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Saddam Hussein and the United Nations...

Saddam Hussein had a lot to do with it. But why was he in violation of the UN?

Who gave him the tacit go ahead to invade Kuwait?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Saddam Hussein and the United Nations...


Saddam Hussein and The UN knocked down the WTC, and sent a missle into The Pentagon ?????????????

MYSTERY SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOO HOO :rolleyes:

[NATEDOG001976]

One solution is to pull the troops out and wipe Iraq off the map. Just a thought.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by NATEDOG001976
Just a thought.


Only smaller ......

[NATEDOG001976]

I have mixed feeling on Iraq. I have a best friend who is Capt in the Army who is presently in Baghdad. He thinks things are way better off since the troops rolled in, Mosul households now has 80% running water and electricity compared to around 20% before the troops arrived. But I think shit will hit the fan when we eventually pull out. I still support the troops 100%

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Saddam Hussein had a lot to do with it. But why was he in violation of the UN?

Who gave him the tacit go ahead to invade Kuwait?

Go and read 1441. The UN voted more than once to use force to make Saddam comply. Bush was making sure the UN would stick to its words.


http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Not to mention the flip-flopping reasons given for needing to go to war in the first place. First it was to enforce UN resolutions, then it was to protect us against WMD, then it was to "liberate" the Iraqis....

It's not flip-flopping if he uses ALL those as reasons.

[Warham]

Maybe you libs agree with Murtha. He thinks we should send our troops to Okinawa and wait until the shit hits the fan in Iraq, and then send our boys back over there.

:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Go and read 1441. The UN voted more than once to use force to make Saddam comply. Bush was making sure the UN would stick to its words.


http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Make sure you only cite the UN resolutions you like, then point out how hapless and 'corrupt' they are regarding everything else....

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.eventsounds.com/wav/moron.wav

[Nickdfresh]

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

[DrMaddVibe]

Goodnight moron.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Goodnight moron.

WAV goodbye boy....

[DrMaddVibe]

Awwwwww, run out of Dean quotes?


Take notes LM.

[NATEDOG001976]

The Dean scream.

[Nickdfresh]

Or the BUSH annunciation flubs.:)

[DrMaddVibe]

or the Bush bashing!

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not flip-flopping if he uses ALL those as reasons.

I'll give you that, but the truth is that those reasons evolved over time. He kept changing them depending on how the political winds were blowing at any given time. Knuckleboner has pointed this out repeatedly - "liberating Iraqis" was not advanced as a justification for the buildup for war until well after the war had begun.

[Warham]

So, which one of you libs agrees with Murtha that we should send our troops to Okinawa?

[Nickdfresh]

Meee!! There are a lot less roadside bombs there.:)

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, who thinks we should continue to get our service-people killed because BUSH can't admit we really fucked up?

[DrMaddVibe]

Speak for yourself moron!

[Warham]

Who here agrees with Dean that the US can't win this war and thinks the US should hold out the white flag?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
So, which one of you libs agrees with Murtha that we should send our troops to Okinawa?

Geisha Services Included?


:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Speak for yourself moron!

Wohohoh! "Moron!" What big words...

Ohhhhh! I don't know how I'll ever recover...






Ohhhhhhhhhh boy!


Pot tea kettle bitch...

Who else was I speaking for?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe



Take notes LM.

*Note to self*

ASSVibe says morons should speak for themselves

Guess CHIMPY needs to have Cheney and KKKarl's hands removed from his ass, then.:cool:

[Warham]

I have a hard time believing that Murtha actually was an officer in our armed forces with his new suggestion.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh



Who else was I speaking for?

You mean, "for whom was I speaking? "

;)


I guess ASSVibe thinks you're speaking for the cons

LMAO:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I have a hard time believing that Murtha actually was an officer in our armed forces with his new suggestion.

Funny, that's how I feel about our Commander in Thief :cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Who here agrees with Dean that the US can't win this war and thinks the US should hold out the white flag?

That's not what he's saying...

Not surrender, but GRADUAL withdrawl...

Just like REAGAN did in Lebanon.;)

Either that, or we need a lot more troops...Who's will to be drafted or enlist?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I have a hard time believing that Murtha actually was an officer in our armed forces with his new suggestion.

I have a hard time believing that you serve....


Oh, never mind.:)

IRAQ, a War designed largely by chickehawks, for chickenhawks...

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Go and read 1441. The UN voted more than once to use force to make Saddam comply. Bush was making sure the UN would stick to its words.


http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Comply with what exactly?

HE

DIDN'T

HAVE

ANY

GODDAMNED

WMD'S

[Warham]

That was hard to tell FORD when he was kicking weapons inspectors out repeatedly.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
That was hard to tell FORD when he was kicking weapons inspectors out repeatedly.

Oh, gee..

Well, our bad then....

Sorry world.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
Comply with what exactly?

HE

DIDN'T

HAVE

ANY

GODDAMNED

WMD'S


Fuck you with your own website dickbreath!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/p/08_gassing.html

[DrMaddVibe]

OK, Dean, from now on
it's 1-word answers
Posted: December 12, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Howard Dean's gaffe last week impels us to make a new entry in the Blind Partisan's Dictionary:

Out of context: adjectival phrase, 1. stupid 2. really stupid.

Dean said, "The idea that we're going to win this war [in Iraq] is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong" [actually, he said "ideer," but this may be forgiven as a quaint regionalism].

When outrage followed – as should have been predictable – Dean called the quote "a little out of context."

The Democratic National Committee head declared, "They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq."

Many a wise apothegm applies to this limp defense, perhaps the most musical being the words of poet Will Carlton:

Thoughts unexpressed may sometimes fall back dead:

But God himself can't kill them when they're said.

Dean's loose lips impelled at least one Democratic congressman to call for his resignation, and three other party faithful met with Dean behind closed doors to discuss damage control. We have obtained a surreptitious recording of a portion of the meeting, which appears to have been heated. We have substituted milder expletives for those actually employed:

Democrat No. 1: Blast it, Dean! What possessed you to say that?

Dean: The truth! You know it's Vietnam all over again.

Democrat No. 2: Sure it is, and I still wear tie-dye to work. This isn't the '60s anymore, dag nab it!

Dean (weeping): I miss those days! The movement! The marches! Nixon in the White House! We can get it back. We can! (This is followed by a sharp, slapping sound.)

Democrat No. 1: Get hold of yourself, Dean! (A soft sobbing is heard.)

Democrat No. 2: Gosh almighty! We have to do something, but we can't just fire him.

Democrat No. 3: I haven't spoken up until now, but I think I may have a solution.

Democrats 1 and 2: What? What? Tell us?

Democrat No. 3: Well we can't gag him, but I think we can limit what he says.

Dean (sniffling): OK. I'm willing to listen.

Democrat No. 3: You'll have to limit your statements to variations on the most intelligent thing you ever said.

Dean: What's that?

Democrat No. 3: Eeeeeeeeaaaagh!

Meanwhile, back in California: Actor-director Rob Reiner's Preschool for All initiative was nailed by a Reason Foundation study of just such a program in Quebec. The long and short of it: Publicly funded preschools have no measurable effect on learning, they drive private preschools out of business, and they end up costing orders of magnitude more than their advocates say.

Reiner, you may recall, wants to levy a 1.7 percent tax on Californians earning more than $400,000 a year to pay for this social engineering.

A San Francisco Chronicle commentary on the Reason Foundation study says, "The final price tag for Quebec's day-care program is 33 times what was originally projected: It was supposed to cost $230 million over five years, but now gobbles $1.7 billion every year."

Some folks want us to adopt Canada's medical care system, too.

[FORD]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Can't tell which is which, eh?:D

[diamondD]

Sounds just as truthful at that Bush/Constitution thread...

[DrMaddVibe]

You can't tell either.

Obviously!

[Cathedral]

LMMFAO, the funny thing is that the funniest parts aren't parody.

[Nickdfresh]

No, they're just selectively edited and taken out of context while failing to address any real issues that DEAN is addressing. The fact that this Administration has flown through the IRAQ War on the seat of its pants, at best, with no real plan.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, they're just selectively edited and taken out of context while failing to address any real issues that DEAN is addressing. The fact that this Administration has flown through the IRAQ War on the seat of its pants, at best, with no real plan.

Dean isn't adressing any issues, he offers nothing but a pep-rally designed to harp on this administration.
The reason for that is there aren't many lib's on the same page on any one issue besides "Get Bush", it's all the party has been about and it's still all you get from them.
No plans, no ideas, no unity, no nothing...Good Luck come election day, it will be yet another eye opener for the left.

The Republican Party may be F.U.B.A.R. right now, but at least when push comes to shove they/we unify on the issues and get shit done.
the fucking Democrats got mouth pieces shooting off different points of view every 10 minutes and not a fucking one of them has anything to offer but pissing and moaning about what is going on now.
By the time it sinks in that people don't care about yesterday and want to know what's going to happen tomorrow, the Dems may not have a voice left in Washington.

Soon, maybe no-one will have a voice that isn't propelled by gun powder.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Dean isn't adressing any issues, he offers nothing but a pep-rally designed to harp on this administration.
The reason for that is there aren't many lib's on the same page on any one issue besides "Get Bush", it's all the party has been about and it's still all you get from them.
No plans, no ideas, no unity, no nothing...Good Luck come election day, it will be yet another eye opener for the left.

The Republican Party may be F.U.B.A.R. right now, but at least when push comes to shove they/we unify on the issues and get shit done.
the fucking Democrats got mouth pieces shooting off different points of view every 10 minutes and not a fucking one of them has anything to offer but pissing and moaning about what is going on now.
By the time it sinks in that people don't care about yesterday and want to know what's going to happen tomorrow, the Dems may not have a voice left in Washington.

Soon, maybe no-one will have a voice that isn't propelled by gun powder.

Sorry CAT, but your comments are a bit off-track and outdated. The REPUBLICAN party IS THE NEW DEMOCRATIC Party, with the moderates beginning to reject the fundamentalist element, and splinter.

It's taken the Republicans less than ten years of what it took the Democrats over 40-years to do; fall apart due to corruption scandals, with a relative minority trying to hijack the agenda 'for JESUS,' or at least what their concept of JESUS is...

The IRAQ WAR is a complex problem requiring a lot of debate, thought, and tough choices to get out of, but then again, only one of the most amateurish, incompetent President in history could create (or recreate) this quagmire. He did it with the help of a political machine behind him, good at taking money from special interests and getting elected, but not actually governing once they get power...

The times they are a changin' CAT...

[diamondD]

If the Dems lose the election, it will be the same old Diebold sob story from the same few here. If there's one thing I have learned over the years here, it's that some people will believe anything but the facts as long as it keeps their perceptions alive.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
If the Dems lose the election, it will be the same old Diebold sob story from the same few here. If there's one thing I have learned over the years here, it's that some people will believe anything but the facts as long as it keeps their perceptions alive.

You mean like Fearless cheerLeader? LOL

Maybe the Republicans will cry about "liberal bias" in the press for years to come? Or, for not reporting the "good" news in Iraq...

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
If the Dems lose the election, it will be the same old Diebold sob story from the same few here. If there's one thing I have learned over the years here, it's that some people will believe anything but the facts as long as it keeps their perceptions alive.

The last two major elections (2000 and 2004) were decided in states where the entire political machine is corrupt. How many indictments have there been in Ohio recently? And Ohio is Diebold's home base.

Even the 2002 midterm had many of it's races hijacked.

Google the words "Rob Georgia" for the most obvious example.

Election fraud is a reality in this country, and something must be done about it, or our government is no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein's was.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by diamondD



If there's one thing I have learned over the years here, it's that some people will believe anything but the facts as long as it keeps their perceptions alive.




Jesus, that's pricelesss ................


Now let's read it again, but replace "some people" with "President Bush" and see how familiar it sounds.....



Originally posted by diamondD



If there's one thing I have learned over the years here, it's that President Bush will believe anything but the facts as long as it keeps his perceptions alive.






Yeah, I agree with you dd

:cool:

[diamondD]

I don't beat the same thing to death over and over either. I don't blindly follow GW Bush and I'd like you to show me otherwise. I don't think they have a good plan going on over there. However, I don't think Howard Dean has a fucking clue of what to do either.

My point is if the Republicans keep their seats and the Dems don't make any gains, no one will take the responsibility that it was because of lack of direction and leadership. the same old blame will keep going on and on. I've been through at least 3 national elections in this forum. It's really never changed.

I've voted Democrat, especially locally when I couldn't stand the choice. But nationally, they just don't seem to get it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by diamondD
I don't beat the same thing to death over and over either. I don't blindly follow GW Bush and I'd like you to show me otherwise. I don't think they have a good plan going on over there. However, I don't think Howard Dean has a fucking clue of what to do either.

My point is if the Republicans keep their seats and the Dems don't make any gains, no one will take the responsibility that it was because of lack of direction and leadership. the same old blame will keep going on and on. I've been through at least 3 national elections in this forum. It's really never changed.

I've voted Democrat, especially locally when I couldn't stand the choice. But nationally, they just don't seem to get it.

That's the only thing liberals on this forum have, DD. If they can't attack you for being a Busheep, they are out of ammo. They have nothing besides that to fall back on.

[LoungeMachine]

True.

You guys are all wonderful.

You take all the fun out of this if we can't hang "busheep" or "neo-con shitbag" on you....

May as well just kick the dog.

Sincerely,

The tin foil beanie wearing ultra Liberal wackos

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
That's the only thing liberals on this forum have, DD. If they can't attack you for being a Busheep, they are out of ammo. They have nothing besides that to fall back on.

Except your posts.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Except your posts.

Literally LMMFAO

I mean literally :D :D

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
The last two major elections (2000 and 2004) were decided in states where the entire political machine is corrupt. How many indictments have there been in Ohio recently? And Ohio is Diebold's home base.

Even the 2002 midterm had many of it's races hijacked.

Google the words "Rob Georgia" for the most obvious example.

Election fraud is a reality in this country, and something must be done about it, or our government is no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein's was.

Funny, I didn't see you complain about the fraudulent 2004 gubernatorial election in the state of Washington, Dave.

I can only assume it's because the Democrat won... ;)

[Warham]

FORD's marginalized himself a long time ago. Does anybody here take his diebold rants seriously?

[LoungeMachine]

Yes, I do indeed.


[ insert warham's gasp of surprise here]

[Warham]

That's no surprise. You believe most things FORD says, even when he's running around in one of his aliases.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Funny, I didn't see you complain about the fraudulent 2004 gubernatorial election in the state of Washington, Dave.

I can only assume it's because the Democrat won... ;)

I agree with you, shark.

However, in light of 2000, I chalked it up to a small piece of Karma.

And it's no big win having that gash in Olympia anyway.

I should have told Booth to run again :D

[Guitar Shark]

It will be interesting to see what FORD says when the Dems lose the 2008 election. In 2004, he blamed Diebold and the "DLC" Chair, Terry McAuliffe. I can almost guarantee Dean will be blameless in 2008 in FORD's world. It will be 100% Diebold.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
That's no surprise. You believe most things FORD says, even when he's running around in one of his aliases.

Aliases?

You mean he's not Satan and Jesus H. Christ ?


There goes my whole belief system down the tank :mad:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
It will be interesting to see what FORD says when the Dems lose the 2008 election. In 2004, he blamed Diebold and the "DLC" Chair, Terry McAuliffe. I can almost guarantee Dean will be blameless in 2008 in FORD's world. It will be 100% Diebold.

2006 and 2008 are ours......

You read it here first, folks















you can stop laughing now, warham

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
It will be interesting to see what FORD says when the Dems lose the 2008 election. In 2004, he blamed Diebold and the "DLC" Chair, Terry McAuliffe. I can almost guarantee Dean will be blameless in 2008 in FORD's world. It will be 100% Diebold.

I've always liked your imput in here, GS. You think clearly, and are grounded in reality enough to know that the Republicans will indeed win in 2008.

[LoungeMachine]

suck ass

[DrMaddVibe]

And now back to Roller Derby!