We are the 99%

February 25, 2006

William F. Buckely: It's failed.

Take a look at this, gang. William F. Buckley, host of Firing Line, founder of The National Review and one time CIA agent, wrote this recently about the Bush regime's program in Iraq:
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.
And:
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
But then we knew that this would happen before the invasion, didn't we?

IMPEACH

3 comments:

Braden said...

Actually, he's right. Why?

Because the left has under minded this war politically to the extent where they knew where they wanted to go with it, and that is to turn it into another Vietnam. We won every single ground battle in that war, yet the left has under minded it every step of the way until the point they convince everyone that we lost it. You all did the same thing here, so it's a no wonder people are coming forward with this type of nonsense. I do know this: I know quite a few military people who are/were stationed in Iraq, and they are in complete disbelief as to what the left is doing to this war. They cannot believe everything they're doing in Iraq is being poured down the drain. What the sad thing is in all of this is our enemy is watching all of this, and they have got to be shaking their heads as well as laughing at the same time. Nice projection you liberals have made for us. Nice. Real nice. Keep it up, the terrorists will "thank you" and the rest of us later. You just don't get it. You never will. But don't worry, the terrorists will for you.

Jonathan Potts said...

Oh please. First, the word is "undermined." Second, this is an administration that manipulated intelligence to justify a war against a nation which posed little or no threat to our long-term security. It ignored the advice of its own State Department in preparing for the occupation, and it pretty much fired the general who advised it that it needed more troops.

We know that inexperienced people were sent in to oversee the reconstruction, and it alsmot universally acknowledged that disbanding the Iraqi army greatly contributed to the insurgency.

But yes, let's blame liberals. Including those liberals like Brent Scowcroft and other former Republican officials who knew that invading Iraq would have disasterous consequences. Why do they want the terrorists to win?

Braden said...

Oops. Sorry about that. Looks as if iespell burped. Yep, I know, it's "undermined."

You have to sit back and ask yourself and wonder why the left says the things they say when it comes to the war in Iraq. Seriously. Hey, if you ask me, going there was the thing to do, but...it could of been handled better...like I think it's wrong to fight a war politically. Bush buckled. Just like he buckled with this ports fiasco. If you ask me, he's definitely owed someone a major favor for this. See, I am not this "Pro Bush" person you have lead yourselves to believe. I do however, see a major bias with the left. On the right, I see nothing but spinless, gutless Republicans who don't have the b*lls to do what really needs to be done. Instead, they let the left walk all over them, and it shows. If you ask me, both parties are filled with incompetent, foolish liars, but it's the Democrats who are so obvious about it.