Here's the text:
You know, Harry Reid said a while ago that the war in Iraq is lost. It's wrong. It's not lost. In fact, I would say we're beginning to win it. We've turned the tide with the new strategy. And in fact, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which American forces would lose the war in Iraq, on the ground in Iraq. If we lose it, it's gonna be lost here at home, in a different kind of war for public opinion and political support."Meanwhile out in reality.
The Green Zone (that heavily fortified section of Baghdad where the American and Iraqi facilities are) is still under attack:
Security is so bad there that a visiting Member of the US House of Representatives couldn't even leave the zone and had to wear body armor during the entire trip:At least 20 mortar rounds and Katyusha rockets struck the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday afternoon, killing an American service member and two other people in an attack on the heart of U.S. and Iraqi government facilities in the capital.
An Iraqi and a third person of unknown nationality were killed in the attack, according to a statement released by the U.S. Embassy. About 18 people were injured, including two U.S. military personnel and three American contract employees, the statement said.
Security conditions in Iraq prevented Bachmann from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight. She and other congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip, she said.Of course, this House Member, being a loyal bushie, still believes in dubya's surge.
But [U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann] said she was encouraged by reports of progress from [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker, Gen. David Petraeus and other personnel in Iraq linked to the surge.Although she did say elsewhere in the piece:
It hasn't had a chance to be in place long enough to offer a critique of how it's working.Logic and consistency has never been this gang's strongest suit.
23 comments:
Security is so bad there that a visiting Member of the US House of Representatives couldn't even leave the zone and had to wear body armor during the entire trip:
You do realize that a visiting Member of the US House of Representatives is a target that the Iraqi insurgents would love to pick off. Maybe the military is erring on the side of caution.
Joe Lieberman may be hearing directly from the troops instead of your vaulted gatekeepers.
AP: Screw the Facts, Protect the Narrative
But the troops do not understand the big pictures that your media elites do.
Mein Heir, EVERY AMERICAN is a target that the Iraqi insurgents would love to pick off. Maybe the Bush Administration is erring on the side of idiocy. Joe Lieberman may be hearing directly from the voices inside his head instead of your vaulted [vaulted?] propagandists.
Do you really believe, Mein Heir, that we have the enemy "on the run" in Iraq as security continues to degrade? Do you really believe that we are "winning" -- whatever that means -- after having just suffered the worst quarter of the war? If you do believe those things, you are an excellent example of the whole invalid concept of belief.
EVERY AMERICAN is a target that the Iraqi insurgents would love to pick off.
So you are saying the Iraqi insurgents do not have high value targets.
i.e.
Private=Captain=General=US Congress member.
Give a same chance of killing any of the above they would just as likely pick the Private as the US Congress member?
Do you also believe that if that the Iraqi insurgents managed to kill a Member of the US House of Representatives that the news coverage would be the same as when a US soldier is killed?
So you are saying the Iraqi insurgents do not have high value targets.
I am??? Huh. Thanks for letting me know. Am I also scratching my ass with a garden hoe?
Do you also believe that if that the Iraqi insurgents managed to kill a Member of the US House of Representatives that the news coverage would be the same as when a US soldier is killed?
I have told you twice now that I make it a point not to believe anything. Even if I did believe things, unlike the Wingnuttian faithful, I would be even less likely to believe something ridiculous.
But just a few months ago, one of your fellow believers, Senator McCain claimed that it was safe for an American to walk down a street in Baghdad. He then proved it by visiting a market, clad in only full body armor, a squadron of attack helicopters, and several platoons of infantry. Was his statement another thing that you warhawks still "believe;" or is his story, in the immortal words of John Ehrlichman, "no longer operational?"
So now Schmuck if a Member of the US House of Representatives is a "high value target" would it make sense for the Military to err on the side of caution and have US Congress member not leave the zone and wear body armor during their trips to Iraq"?
I'll grant you that it makes sense to safeguard legislators, Mein Heir. (See how easy it is to admit to the obvious?)
But my point was this: Why was McCain able to leave the Green Zone while the Bachmann contingent was not? Have things deteriorated that much over the past few months? (Couldn't be. The enemy is on the run, right?) Or do you perchance "believe" that freshman representative Michelle Bachmann is a higher value target than presidential candidate Senator John McCain? (This must be it. It makes more sense than many of the things Reactionaries believe.)
Why was McCain able to leave the Green Zone while the Bachmann contingent was not?
Maybe McCain had enough "pull" for being as you would say "Chief warhawk in the Senate" to get a military escort outside of the green zone where as Bachmann did not have that much pull. Mccain may have been there longer as indicated by this quotes from your link.
"It hasn't had a chance to be in place long enough to offer a critique of how it's working,"
The Bush suppporters will cheerfully twist anything to demonstrate that things are improving, or at least not getting worse.
The fact that a member of Congress, by the Heir's own admission, is not safe in the the Green Zone shows just how far things have disintegrated.
The Green Zone, you will remember, was the place where everyone used to be safe enough not to need body armor.
Maybe McCain had enough "pull" for being as you would say "Chief warhawk in the Senate" to get a military escort outside of the green zone where as Bachmann did not have that much pull.
Maybe. And maybe Saddam had WMDs. And maybe he could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes. And maybe Scooter's sentence was too harsh. And maybe the surge is working. And maybe the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud. And maybe Brownie was doing a heckuva job. And maybe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. And maybe the FBI has never abused Security Letters. And maybe the enemy is on the run. And maybe it's a good idea to throw American citizens in jail for years with no charges and no access to legal advice. And maybe Gonzo really didn't recall what he had for breakfast last week. And maybe Ossama bin Laden can run but can't hide.
I almost envy the special kind of juvenile faith it takes to swallow all those whoppers, Mein Heir.
(Does anyone want to clue Mein Heir in on the real story about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?)
But is McCain's "pull" responsible for the second quarter of 2007 setting a record for the number of American military deaths in the occupation?
Is McCain's "pull" responsible for the Green Zone now being targeted for steady mortar and rocket fire?
You are not just a believer, Mein Heir. You are a True Believer (TM). According to Rassmussen, you're now one of only 19% who think the surge is working, 21% who support Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, and 33% who approve of Dubya in general. And even though Rassmussen is always among the polling services that give Bush his HIGHEST ratings, its the lowest approval rate they have EVER recorded. And the highest disapproval rating. Not just for the worst ever for Bush. The worst presidential approval ratings in the history of their polling.
So, in other words Heir, you're saying that McCain used his "pull" - sort of like the pull shit has with flies, I would venture to say - to orchestrate his little PR stunt. And, as you say, because he is such a high-value target (you hyphenate those kind of adjectives, BTW) who the "insurgents" would just love to shred with some Iranian-manufactured automatic weapons, you are admitting that he put the lives of brave soldiers (who volunteered for "combat duty," not PR tours by politicians) at even greater risk so he could backup his remarkably stupid comment that it was safe to walk the streets of Baghdad. Is this a man you hold in high regard, Heir?
And, please tell me, since you seem to think this war is so vital and that our president is such a fantastic leader, why aren't you there fighting? Heck, you could make a nice chunk of change as a private gun-for-hire. They are raking it in over there, I hear.
I know why. It's because you, just like McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in the Congress who won't even allow an up-or-down vote on whether troops should get adequate rest in between deployments (not to mention have the proper equipment and not be asked to return to combat when they obviously have PTSD), are a bunch of chicken shits who don't mind letting other people die so long as you don't have to ever admit that you were wrong about everything and that hundreds of thousands have died as a result.
You put all of your energy into defending George W. Bush and his partners in crime and don't give two shits about the troops. Look at every right-wing blog and you see ample evidence of it. Literally nothing about Walter Reed, the lack of body armor, PTSD, Republican votes against freakin' pay raises for troops, on and on and on. There's the occasional post to contribute to some organization or other started by a dead soldier's family to help send troops the equipment they need to survive, but that's about the extent of it.
In effect, everything you write on this blog is just an alternative way of sticking your fingers in your ears and hollering "la, la, la, la" so you don't have to hear the truth.
Your bravery starts and ends in your mom's basement on the keyboard of a computer, occasionally taking your hands out of your pants to regurgitate anything that will make you forget what a cluster fuck this war is.
Now, now, Whigs. It's not nice to call people names (except Master Lie). At least Mein Heir stayed on topic. This time.
Just to bolster one of your points: Today, Senate Republicans blocked Jim Webb's amendment that would have limited National Guard and Reserve rotations to Iraq and Afganistan and extended down-time at home. This is what they call "supporting the troops." Another way Republicans have supported the troops is to extend their deployments from 12 up to 15 months. Oh, and by sending the same ones back to the Mid-East three, even four times. So far.
Your bravery starts and ends in your mom's basement on the keyboard of a computer, occasionally taking your hands out of your pants to regurgitate anything that will make you forget what a cluster fuck this war is.
...
At least Mein Heir stayed on topic. This time.
Time to go off topic.
The Iraq war is lost. Afterall the New York Times and John Murtha says so.
They have never been wrong about anything else.
Murtha's "In Cold Blood" Slur Fails to Impress Marine Hearing Officer"
The New York Times is still victimizing innocent Dukies.
Time to go off topic. The Iraq war is lost.
No, you're on-topic this time. And correct.
But you didn't need the right-leaning Murtha nor the right-leaning Times to tell you that, did you Mein Heir? Rising casualty rates told you. Collapsing security told you. Public opinion told you. An exhausted military told you. Common sense told you.
Congratulations on opening your eyes.
Joe lives in a dream world. I can't believe that I pushed a ticket with his name on it.
Lieberman isn't a U.S. Senator representing the State of Connecticut. He is a U.S. Senator representing the State of Israel.
Funny....you all backed Joe during the 2000 election, but now since Joe has the backbone to stand with our President and our efforts in Iraq, you all turn you back on him.
The liberal party = "you're either with us, or against us."
Just like all of those generals who Dubya stood by when they didn't agree with the Iraq policy, huh, DL? You know, those "generals on the ground" who we're supposed to listen to, until, that is, they say what the King (aka, shooter cheney and his little puppet Dumbya) doesn't want to hear, and then they're gone.
As for my earlier comment going off topic, once somebody of Heir's ilk has 3, 4, 5 delusional replies in the same thread, that invokes an off-topic waiver, IMO.
Funny....you all backed Joe during the 2000 election
It's not a bit funny, Master Lie. I hope you were using "you all" in the redneck sense, because otherwise you were, ah, lying again. I never liked LIEberman, I never "backed" LIEberman, and I never voted for LIEberman.
you all turn you back on him
Actually, he turned his back on the Democratic Party as I recall. Umm, about 9 months ago? Maybe you heard? Ran against the Democratic candidate? Formed the LIEberman Party? Republicans turned THEIR backs on their own candidate to vote him into office? News to you, huh? Figures.
Joe has the backbone
Backbone! Good one! The man won't even campaign on Saturdays and you're talking about his backbone! LIEberman has a backbone like a slug, but lacks the engaging personality.
Wait a sec, Schmuk... you honestly didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman in the 2000 presidential election? Then who did you vote for? Nader?
Joey Leebie is a special kind of war-coward, a pathetic wimp who wouldn't have lasted a day in the easiest basic training. Ya know--same as Four-Flush Rush.
Double-U and friends have been in "1984" mode for years now:
CHAOS IS PROGRESS
OIL IS DEMOCRACY
stuff like that there.
Wait a sec, Schmuk... you honestly didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman in the 2000 presidential election? Then who did you vote for? Nader?
I didn't say I didn't vote for Gore, Admiral. I said I didn't vote for LIEberman.
In 2006, I didn't vote for Casey and I didn't vote for Doyle. I never will vote for either of them.
If the Democrats have the idiocy to nominate Clinton, I won't vote for her.
BTW, there are two C's in my first name.
Pardon my misspelling. I'm still scratching my head about how you could have managed to vote for Al Gore, but somehow avoided voting for his running mate. Is this just some kind of a mental thing, where you told yourself that you were only voting for one of the two people on the ticket. Did you do a write-in for "Gore but not Lieberman"?
We're going to have to demote you to Commander, Admiral. Didn't you ever write in a candidate's name? You can write "Mickey Mouse" if you wish. In fact, many do.
No problem about the name. I'm used to having people leave Cs out of my various names.
Post a Comment