Soros has invested heavily into Fund for Investigative Journalism and Center for Public Integrity, the two nonprofit journalism organizations that conducted this study.
Remember, Soros is all about shaping policy
RobertCrockumentary…
SashaI think the categories would be: Best Mockumentary Best Lying Sack
snowy egretI suppose they nominate it for a oscar since its nothing but left-wing propeganda
Fred Daweswithout going on and on about our system which will make it to the other side of this little rat obama time...
joyceThis is getting ridiculous — it does not matter to this government to be throwing all this money around...
SashaThe timing does suck, but the subsidy doesn’t bother me too much. The long-term strategy behind the...
RobertWell now that just makes so much sense—Michigan, in financial trouble and struggling to keep its head...
snowy egretWe birds are happy about that now maybe they,ll seriously consiter nucular power and tell those jerks from...
RobertThey don’t care about existing laws, they always want to to do more, to get more control over everything....
The Pink FlamingoUPDATED: It has recently come to my attention that there are indeed two John Brimelows in this...
SashaA nice idea, except for the fact that the alternative fuel sources have to be backed up by the more reliable...
Fred DawesA guy who is in this business said we need 50 million just to have 3 percent of this nation power needs.
SashaI’m amazed this could be found on CNN, tv and website. All this when truck related fatalities are actually...
PamWe are or did enact a ban on texting while driving..Mi was going to ban the use of cell phones for kids between 16...
Tom FlaneganI love this?.lol
snowy egretToo bad liberal airheads but the parties over and you lost the pin the tail on the donkey contest becuase...
The Pink FlamingoYou want proof of a double standard? It’s right here. It is quite acceptable for rappers to...
Right Voices Information By Abouthere to read the rest: Study: Cell Phone Laws Don't Reduce Accidents | Right...
AngryD“The President’s speech lasted 70 minutes and, to me, sounded just like everything else he says. A...
aboutmore here: Study: Cell Phone Laws Don't Reduce Accidents | Right Voices tags: all-been, facebook, mobile,...
January 22, 2008 - 09:17 PM on January 22nd, 2008
[...] More at Right Voices. [...]
January 22, 2008 - 11:18 PM on January 22nd, 2008
Its time to have GEORGE SOROS banished from america for good we dont need this wealthy socialists living among decent patriotic americans
January 23, 2008 - 12:57 AM on January 23rd, 2008
And Rupert Murdock, will do his best to cover this up… so?
Facts can be checked.
All those statements in this study are on record.
Of course facts have a liberal bias now don’t they.
January 23, 2008 - 08:14 AM on January 23rd, 2008
David, get me the link to the actual statements to support the study. When I went to open the link, I got a page that told me to put a key word in, much like google does. Where is the actual bibliography?
January 23, 2008 - 08:54 AM on January 23rd, 2008
Facts can be checked.
The Left can be checked.
The Left typically lies…
January 23, 2008 - 01:01 PM on January 23rd, 2008
I see this so-called “study” trumpeted all over the news pages in banner headlines. It is clearly another propaganda pos driven by Soros money.
Hopefully not too many people will be suckered by it.
January 23, 2008 - 01:56 PM on January 23rd, 2008
I saw it last night and called it for what it was!
January 23, 2008 - 03:43 PM on January 23rd, 2008
“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
—————————
I don’t think all this pre-war MISinformation comes as much of a surprise to most Americans, and certainly not to our friends and allies in other countries.
January 23, 2008 - 05:43 PM on January 23rd, 2008
Depends on what your definition of weapons of mass destruction is SFL. There were more than a million Iraqis and Iranians killed by chemicals after the first Gulf war. It’s documented that trucks, capable in size to house labs were hustled across Syrias border. My definition of a wmd is just that, it kills many. Chemical and biological weapons fall into that category.
Having said that I believe the intelligence was correct. Saddam had wmd and used them frequently.
Most Americans understand that.
January 23, 2008 - 05:52 PM on January 23rd, 2008
SFL, How about we open one of those found WMD shells in your living room in front of you, your wife, and friends? You don’t think they exist, so you have nothing to fear. The reality is that you, your wife, and your friends would die horrible deaths in minutes.
January 23, 2008 - 05:54 PM on January 23rd, 2008
PCD…love, peace and all the rest will save them.
January 23, 2008 - 05:55 PM on January 23rd, 2008
11, BonBon, they’re all so high on MaryJane that they won’t know the difference, but we will.
January 23, 2008 - 06:45 PM on January 23rd, 2008
Watch this video and let’s talk about lies SFL!
January 23, 2008 - 07:32 PM on January 23rd, 2008
Careful guys…keep on talking about those “WMD’s in Iraq” and people will start looking at you funny.
Kind of like they do when anyone mentions UFO’s or the like…
EVERYBODY (except a shrinking minority that apparently you few belong in) now fully understands that the WMD threat to the US and its allies, hyped before the war for the purpose of starting a war, was false.
sorry.
January 23, 2008 - 07:45 PM on January 23rd, 2008
Still didn’t watch that video huh?
January 23, 2008 - 08:33 PM on January 23rd, 2008
SFL can you explain just what happened to the WMDs that the U.N. catalogued (and why they kept sending inspectors)??? No one who says what you say has EVER been able to answer that question.
Klinton’s missile strikes did not destroy them. Saddam did not destroy them. What happened to them??? Can you answer that? See answer below when you run out of guesses.
ans> They were moved, likely to Syria.
January 23, 2008 - 09:19 PM on January 23rd, 2008
OK, just watched the video; heard and seen it all before…
Pre-war democratic opinion is irrelevant.
Bush, the one and only C.I.C, had two main choices: invasion, or more time for weapons inspections.
“He chose…poorly.”
Clinton also had much of the same intel…and chose not to invade Iraq.
And don’t say 9/11 because, as we all now know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
January 23, 2008 - 09:31 PM on January 23rd, 2008
“SFL can you explain just what happened to the WMDs that the U.N. catalogued (and why they kept sending inspectors)??? No one who says what you say has EVER been able to answer that question.”
——————-
Here’s the official report: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
And I found this…
“The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration’s case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.
“Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War,” the report states.
The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: “Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991″ and the survey team found “no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
January 23, 2008 - 10:18 PM on January 23rd, 2008
Intelligence is NEVER perfect. To make idiotic commentary about it after the fact is just stupid. After the fact, you analyze the end results and formulate a plan of action based on the new intelligence. The question is: ” What would’ve been the possible outcome if the intelligence had been correct?”
This much we know:
Saddam had ties to terrorists (maybe not Al Quaeda, but definitely other terrorist groups.)
Saddam had a history of supporting terrorist organizations ( He was providing money to support the families of suicide bombers in Israel)
Saddam had a history of producing and USING chemical weapons
Saddam had a score to settle with the US for the humiliation of Desert Storm. (He had sent Iraqi intelligence hit squads after President George H. W. Bush.)
Islamic terrorists had asked for and gotten permission from their spiritual leaders to use WMDs on US soil if they were able to obtain them.
With those FACTS, the question becomes: “What action should be taken to prevent a WMD attack on US soil, if the intelligence is correct and Saddam has reconstituted his WMD program and is preparing to provide WMDs to a terrorist group?”
Obviously, if he has reconstituted his program in secret, sanctions (aided by the corruption in the UN oil for food program) have failed.
Securing the US border is simply not going to happen as is evidenced by the idiotic lawsuits over putting a fence along it to keep the criminal illegal aliens, and illicit drugs and other contraband out because it might have a negative environmental impact.
Use military force to remove him from office and work towards building a democratic type nation where Iraq now stands.
The fourth option is the BJ Billy stance, and do nothing despite the risk of mass US civilian casualties. Or for that matter even thereafter.
There is one very important fact that has been completely ignored by the MSM. The fact that Saddam had purchased thousands of new chemical warfare suits and tens of thousands of doses of Atropine since the inspectors had left. If he had no intention of being involved in a war wherein chemical weapons were going to be present on the battlefield (weapons that no western nation has used since WWI), why had he spent tens of millions of dollars to purchase protective suits and nerve agent antidote? Can anyone explain that?
January 24, 2008 - 07:05 AM on January 24th, 2008
Good point FAO, but the other thing getting ignored is SFL’s refusal to watch the video that I provided in 13..If they were “lies” that’s where it all began and those people should be given credit for it!
January 24, 2008 - 09:27 AM on January 24th, 2008
What SFL seems to forget is that these politicians work on foreign policy committees and know the things like Saddam did possess wmd and choose to use an issue for political purposes. But aside from the nuclear aspect, by definition wmd can also be chemical or biological. That also is a point SFL won’t address.
January 24, 2008 - 10:57 AM on January 24th, 2008
I read that report SFL linked to and while it is very interesting, all it says about saddam’s known WMD is that available evidence suggests Saddam destroyed them after the first Gulf War.
But no hard evidence, no proof. And that report was written before Saddam’s former right-hand military guy came out publicly and stated the WMD were moved to Syria with the help of Russian Special Forces just before the 2003 invasion.
Further, the report goes into detail about how Saddam was rebuilding and reequipping his chemical industry to restart WMD production, leading right up to the 2003 invasion.
If anything, SFL, the report you linked to makes a strong case FOR the invasion of Iraq.
Your turn.
January 24, 2008 - 06:16 PM on January 24th, 2008
“WMD were moved to Syria with the help of Russian Special Forces just before the 2003 invasion”
———–
LOL…what?!?
You people cannot and will not be able to get around the simple fact that MULTIPLE intel agencies NOW agree that Iraq did not have massive stockpiles of WMD’s that threatened the US and its allies.
That report I linked to is the United States official and final say on the matter.
…and it does not agree with what you folks are saying.
Anything else you offer on the issue is pretty much non-credible conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
My proof is the offical report on the matter. What’s yours? The opinion of some obscure Iraqi military officer?
January 24, 2008 - 06:17 PM on January 24th, 2008
PS – the person I support for president did not vote for the war to begin with, was not swayed or seduced by the pre-war political theatre and has a record of opposing it.
January 24, 2008 - 06:20 PM on January 24th, 2008
This just in on Drudge, not sure if true but interesting none the less:
“Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
January 24, 2008 - 07:06 PM on January 24th, 2008
That news came out in November. A few hundred thousand American troops were massing across the border in Kuwait to knock him out ” and Saddam was worried about Iran?
Could this just be a case of CBS knowing how silly that really is and chose not to run it in November, so they instead figured what the hell, and ran it after Soros had his lies published?
AP:
January 24, 2008 - 10:03 PM on January 24th, 2008
“A few hundred thousand American troops were massing across the border in Kuwait to knock him out ” and Saddam was worried about Iran?”
————-
First of all, Hot Air? Why are you sourcing another blog for opinion?
Second, Saddam thought the US wouldn’t invade. He was, with good reason, more “afraid” of Iran it seems.
If Iran still believed Iraq had WMD’s, Saddam probably thought they’d think twice about coming after him.
Again…I don’t know. However, this sounds more plausible than Russian Special Forces smuggling convoys or truckloads of Iraqs WMD’s into Syria or wherever…all under the watchful (or blind?) eyes up in air and space.
January 25, 2008 - 03:29 AM on January 25th, 2008
You may not want to acknowledge it, as the Democraps and the MSM don’t but that is what happened:
#2 in Iraqi Air Force says so:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
Not some obscure Iraqi. Saddam had plenty of time to do this, and it would have been extremely easy to do so.
January 25, 2008 - 04:06 AM on January 25th, 2008
And frankly, I would take his word over that of the Democrap leadership and the MSM Leftists, especially in light of the lack of proof that Saddam destroyed the WMD.
January 25, 2008 - 05:33 AM on January 25th, 2008
27- Uhmm we knocked his door down before and he didn’t think we would be coming? Even after Russia and France gave him all the info from the security council meetings at the UN?
That really sound more plausible to you? Uh Huh! Keep trying SFL..
January 25, 2008 - 09:54 AM on January 25th, 2008
Awww, Saddam was just a big teddy bear! It was all a misunderstanding! He never REALLY had any WMD to speak of, and he never meant to harm anyone. But everyone kept hassling him, and he had to do something! He was more afraid of those Iranians than the U.S. because, in his mind he won the Gulf War, at least that’s what he announced publicly in Iraq!
So yes, it is quite plausible…you just need to look at it the right way!
January 25, 2008 - 09:29 PM on January 25th, 2008
There is another factor here that the liberal left and the main stream media refuse to address. The portability of chemical weapons and the lethality of man portable sized amounts. It doesn’t take tons of chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. A couple of five gallon buckets are more than enough. There’s also the idea that Saddam could’ve reinstituted his programs simply to train terrorists in chemical weapon production. The basic chemicals are not regulated, nor is the equipment to process them. Any college or good high school chem lab has the equipment and science hobby shops sell the necessary labware mail order. The air filtration and other specialty equipment would have to be adapted from other sources but is still possible. Most of the basic chemicals are readily available in the US. I personally wouldn’t bother smuggling large quantities of hazardous chemicals across the border when I could reproduce them here from readily available materials. It’s not like sneaking across the US – Mexican border is all that difficult. They estimate that 10,000 sneak across it nightly. They’ve caught hundreds who are from Islamic countries crossing into the US illegally. If they only catch 10% of the illegal crossers, how many have gotten through?
January 26, 2008 - 07:53 AM on January 26th, 2008
FAO…San Fran refuses to address that issue.
January 26, 2008 - 08:09 AM on January 26th, 2008
24, Kook-cinich is out SFL. What ya gonna do, brother????
January 26, 2008 - 09:26 AM on January 26th, 2008
30,31,32,33,
The Democrats are not honest, so why should SFL be?
January 26, 2008 - 01:50 PM on January 26th, 2008
“And frankly, I would take his word over that of the Democrap leadership and the MSM Leftists”
————————-
Except, Robert, that my source on the Non-Existance of Iraqi WMD didn’t come from the Democrats, but from over a dozen American Intel agencies, most of which if not all report to the Bush Administration.
Soooo….not sure where you’re coming from on this one.
January 26, 2008 - 01:58 PM on January 26th, 2008
“..we knocked his door down before and he didn’t think we would be coming?”
“That really sound more plausible to you?”
——————————-
Does Saddam fearing Iran (four times the size of Iraq and filled with fanaticaly religious Shi’ites, and still pissed off at Iraq for starting the Iraq/Iran War) more than the United States who has no history of “pre-emptive” invasion, seem more plausible than Russian Special Forces SNEAKING out massive amounts of Iraqi WMDs into Syria right under the noses of western powers in the most extensively electronicaly surveiled region on the planet?
…Yes.
January 26, 2008 - 02:04 PM on January 26th, 2008
“Kook-cinich is out SFL. What ya gonna do, brother????”
—————–
Yeah, PCD, I’m really shedding some tears out into the Bay on that one…
But since you ask, my wife was going to protest-vote for him in the primary, because they are both vegans.
(SFL Lib is NOT a vegan.)
January 26, 2008 - 02:11 PM on January 26th, 2008
“There is another factor here that the liberal left and the main stream media refuse to address. The portability of chemical weapons and the lethality of man portable sized amounts. It doesn’t take tons of chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.”
—————————-
I am not disputing that, FAO, but as we ALL know the Iraq War was sold to us by the Bush Administration because of its fears about Massive-Stockpiles of Iraqi WMD.
The lives and money spent on the American Invasion and 5+ year occupation of Iraq would not be justified because of the “possible” threat of “small amounts” of 20 year old gas and non-functioning weapons programs.
There is no way around it.
Since there are no, and most importantly were no massive stockpiles of WMDs, the Iraq Invasion/Occupation was a MISTAKE.
A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake.
Look it up.
January 26, 2008 - 06:53 PM on January 26th, 2008
SFL, only losers like you want to cut and run. Look it up.
January 27, 2008 - 08:44 AM on January 27th, 2008
“The lives and money spent on the American Invasion and 5+ year occupation of Iraq would not be justified because of the “possible”threat of “small amounts”of 20 year old gas and non-functioning weapons programs.”
This is quite possibly the most naive statement you have ever made here SFL. Putting it into perspective Saddam gassed more than 1 million people after the Gulf War. To you this is an acceptable amount? His wmd program was fully funded by the Oil for Food program and you can look up the numbers of BILLIONS of dollars he received from it. That’s alot of money to maintain ‘outdated’ programs. But be that as it may are you really okay with a population bigger than the city of San Francisco being wiped out?
January 27, 2008 - 08:45 AM on January 27th, 2008
Or maybe that’s a dumb question because we know there were 4 million murders in Kosovo before Clinton took action and another 1 million in Rwanda where he never took action.
Just something to think about.
January 27, 2008 - 12:25 PM on January 27th, 2008
“Putting it into perspective Saddam gassed more than 1 million people after the Gulf War.”
—————
That simply is not true, BonBon.
The chemical weapons Saddam used, given to him by Ronald Reagan, were used in the early 1980’s against the Iranians and later some Kurds in the north.
Over 20 years ago – before the Gulf War.
And the numbers of dead do not even come close to being near 1 million.
You can’t just make shit up like that and expect people to swallow it.
Seriously, the Iraq War was unnecessary and was a mistake.
Thousands of dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of wounded Americans with limbs blown off…and for what?
My childhood buddy, Captain Frank, died in Iraq for nothing.
January 27, 2008 - 02:37 PM on January 27th, 2008
43, Capt. Frank only dies for nothing if *SSH*LES like you prevail and the US cuts and runs.
January 27, 2008 - 07:26 PM on January 27th, 2008
“…The chemical weapons Saddam used, given to him by Ronald Reagan,”
I hear this nonsense, in various permutations, repeated endlessly. Yes we favored Iraq by assisting them with Intel, and they were also able to buy weapons and commodities on the international market during their war with Iran.
I’ve hear assertions ranging from “we gave Saddam the WMD” to “we built Saddam up and made him so powerful”. I’ve even heard some mentally-ill folks state that Saddam was a CIA operative then.
Utter balderdash.
January 28, 2008 - 06:56 AM on January 28th, 2008
45, Robert, SFL monicas any anti-american notion he can find. He and the other anti-american moonbats take some medical aid we gave him under UN auspicices as we gave him WMDs.
SFL is officially declared a loon.
January 28, 2008 - 01:16 PM on January 28th, 2008
“Utter Balderdash”
—————————
Maybe in your make-believe world Robert, where truthiness is subjective, but not in this real one.
During the 1980’s, the Reagan Admin gave military and economic aid to Saddam – including information on WMD programs (chem and bio).
It’s all in the public record, feel free to look it up.
January 28, 2008 - 01:20 PM on January 28th, 2008
I’m such a nice guy Robert, I’ll make it easy for you:
———————————-
In a September 26, 2002, article entitled “Following Iraq’s Bioweapons Trail,” columnist Robert Novak wrote,
“An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.”
————————–
Now. Once again, I offer proof to back up my claim.
What proof do YOU have that Reagan DID NOT assist Iraqi WMD programs in the 1980’s?
January 28, 2008 - 02:01 PM on January 28th, 2008
I do not trust Novak, so I would have to read that report for myself. Kind of the like the “polls show…” with no detail of the polling questions themselves.
But even if :…disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported” that provides no information on what, by whom, and under what circumstances.
Details, details, details. Without them any conclusion can be drawn. You’ve shown no proof that RR was rsponsible for anything.
January 28, 2008 - 02:05 PM on January 28th, 2008
Now I’ll help you out, SFL. Here’s a link to a posting that absolutely supports you:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
Except that, well, it is the work of a fringe lunatuc organization. A bunch of whackjobs. I wouldn’t be surprised if they reported all having been abducted by Extra-Terrestrials, and are having their next general meeting on the Hale-Bopp Comet.
January 28, 2008 - 02:25 PM on January 28th, 2008
One more question SFL: If Saddam had indeed destroyed his WMD, then why didn’t he have documentation (proof) and why didn’t he secretly let us know to avoid the impending invasion? He could have backchannelled it so Iran wouldn’t know. We would not tell Iran; we hated Iran at least as much as he did.
I’ll tell you why: Because Saddam had chem and bio WMD. He never destroyed them precisely because of the Iranian threat. It wouldn’t take more than a half-dozen semitrucks to move them to Syria. Easily done. And again, we have the Air Force General #2 man in Iraqi military, who says so. Just because the Leftists in the MSM chose to ignore his statements does not mean they are not true.
I think it is your side that is still grappling for answers. We know what happened.
January 28, 2008 - 02:36 PM on January 28th, 2008
#50…I saw that FFF link when I was searching, and passed over it.
I don’t source political foundations with ideological leanings…
Since you posted it, I looked them up.
Apparently they are a Libertarian organization. Anti-Tax, etc…
Not my cup of tea.
January 28, 2008 - 02:40 PM on January 28th, 2008
“You’ve shown no proof that RR was rsponsible for anything.”
———————-
Actually, what I’ve shown is that during the Ronald Reagan presidency, a cabinet level (Health and Human Services) federal agency GAVE BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES TO IRAQ which were used in its WMD programs in the late 1980’s.
Sooo…
If you think Reagan had no power or control over his own cabinet, then maybe I can see your point that Reagan had nothing to do with this.
LOL…
January 28, 2008 - 02:42 PM on January 28th, 2008
I mean, when has a President ever been responsible for actions taken by a cabinet level agency?
Right?
January 28, 2008 - 02:44 PM on January 28th, 2008
“why didn’t he secretly let us know to avoid the impending invasion?”
————–
We’ve covered this already, Robert.
Rumor has it that he was convinced the US would not be stupid enough to invade Iraq.
January 28, 2008 - 03:10 PM on January 28th, 2008
“Rumor”? That’s it?
January 28, 2008 - 03:15 PM on January 28th, 2008
Again, we’ve covered this ground.
The FBI agent who worked with the captured Saddam, remember?
But hey, it’s only a Primary Source, right? What do they know?!
January 28, 2008 - 03:17 PM on January 28th, 2008
You are taking pieces here and there, out of context, and asserting a conclusion.
January 28, 2008 - 03:23 PM on January 28th, 2008
Oh, and SFL, are you willing to admit now that Pelosi and the Defeatocrats are/were WRONG about Iraq? That we are absolutely winning the second war (after winning the first one in less time and with less difficulty than the BHDS crowd predicted)? That the terrorists are having their asses handed to them? That HilLiary Klinton should be publicly humiliated and disgraced for her attack on Gen. Petraeus, who is a true American Patriot?
You got lots of admittin’ to do…
January 28, 2008 - 03:28 PM on January 28th, 2008
With American soldier deaths higher in 2007 than in any other year, I don’t think I or any Democrat will be quick to say we are “winning” in Iraq anytime soon.
Does anyone even know or agree on what “victory” in Iraq will look like?
Seems pretty subjective to me…
Is a US created shi’ite led Iraqi government, closely allied with Iranian millitant leadership, much of a victory for American/Western interests?
January 28, 2008 - 03:35 PM on January 28th, 2008
So you’re not aware of the change in tactics Gen. Petraeus initiated? And the results of that change? You REALLY need to access some better news sources!
Of course we all know what victory in Iraq looks like. It is a U.S.-friendly Iraq that is a permanent base for the U.S. military in the heart of the M.E. It is infiltrators killed at the border; it is an Al Qaeda in full retreat licking its wounds and having completely lost face, being revealed as the cowards they are able only to plant bombs and send suicide bombers in to kill soft targets. Not man enough to fight like real men because they know they lose every time they go up against the best.
Huahhh!!! That answer your question?
January 28, 2008 - 03:39 PM on January 28th, 2008
“Of course we all know what victory in Iraq looks like. It is a U.S.-friendly Iraq that is a permanent base for the U.S. military in the heart of the M.E. It is infiltrators killed at the border; it is an Al Qaeda in full retreat licking its wounds and having completely lost face, being revealed as the cowards they are…”
————————-
LOL…OK, big guy. You let me know WHEN that all happens.
January 28, 2008 - 03:41 PM on January 28th, 2008
Regarding permanent US bases in Iraq:
———————
Iraq will never allow the United States to have permanent military bases on its soil, the government’s national security adviser said.
“We need the United States in our war against terrorism, we need them to guard our border sometimes, we need them for economic support and we need them for diplomatic and political support,”Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said.
“But I say one thing, permanent forces or bases in Iraq for any foreign forces is a red line that cannot be accepted by any nationalist Iraqi,â€
January 28, 2008 - 03:44 PM on January 28th, 2008
My prediction?
We will walk away from disaster in Iraq like we did in Vietnam.
When the US leaves, sooner or later it doesn’t matter, Shit will hit the fan and we’ll be forced to deal with whoever comes out on top there and just accept the situation as what it is.
And all our efforts will have been in vain. And all the lives and money lost will mean nothing. Just like in Vietnam.
January 28, 2008 - 03:45 PM on January 28th, 2008
#62 It isn’t that far away…
#63 That might be said publicly, but trust me, they will be there.
January 28, 2008 - 03:49 PM on January 28th, 2008
#65 A defeatist attitude for sure.
January 28, 2008 - 03:49 PM on January 28th, 2008
#64 A defeatist attitude for sure.
January 28, 2008 - 03:53 PM on January 28th, 2008
Time will tell which one of us will be proved right in the end, Robert.
Not defeatist…Realist.