Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 1:47 PM:
A goverment official lied? That's unprecidented. I can hardly believe it.
Thanks HiD, now I won't be able to sleep tonight.
Replies (23)
What part of what she said is a lie? I'm not saying she did or didn't, just asking.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 3:12 PM
I don't see any lies in what she said. She mostly stated her opinion, and an opinion is just that, an opinion.
In fact, I agree with her comments on the missteps. Wasn't that the Democrats argument after the "Mission Accomplished" Speech - That President Bush had a plan to win the war but no plan to win the peace? That is, in essence, what she said, except that she said there was a plan, it was just a wrong plan (Baghdad-out vs. Outside-in).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 3:19 PM
Shapley Hunter,
You used a term that I find interesting - "win the peace". What does this mean? Thanks.
Hope,
There can be no doubt that Bush sets a mean table.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Mar 20, 2010, at 8:59 AM
Vandeven 2010 wrote:
"You used a term that I find interesting - "win the peace". What does this mean?"
I was repeating at term used against him by the left after the insurgency began to rise in Iraq: "He had a plan to win the war, but no plan to win the peace". I think it used before, against Nixon, in Vietnam.
Both times, the naysayers were wrong, the plan existed. In Iraq, it appears to have been a wrong plan, but it was a plan - stabilize Baghdad and the rest of Iraq will fall in line. In Vietnam the plan was to train and supply the South Vietnamese to handle their own defenses, supported by our air power. The Congress cut the funds for supply and banned air support, leaving the South Vietnamese to their own resources. The plan to win the peace there was undermined by the US Congress.
Interestingly, it was the Nixon 'Vietnamization' plan that provided the model for the plan that President Bush finally employed in Iraq, apparently with much success.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Mar 20, 2010, at 7:42 PM
Shapley Hunter,
Thanks for the reply.
Speaking of Iraq, did you realize that yesterday was the seventh anniversary of our invasion of that country?
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 8:13 AM
Vandeven 2010 wrote:
"Speaking of Iraq, did you realize that yesterday was the seventh anniversary of our invasion of that country?"
I didn't realize it until I saw the news articles on the web. It seems they are protesting against Mr. Obama for not ending it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 9:32 AM
Shapley,
Wish that I was there.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM
"Wish that I was there."
In Iraq, or at the protest?
I gather you mean at the protest. Why? The war is winding down. In fact, the news on the protests is the first coverage that I've seen of Iraq since the elections. The war seems to be drawing to a successful conclusion, even if it is overdue. The drawdown is proceeding on schedule, or ahead of schedule. The election seems to indicate that the people there are capable of self rule, and they aren't going to be intimidated by threats to their newly-won democracy. They may vote away their freedoms (like we're apparently doing here), but they seem unwilling to let it be taken from them by force. Good for them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 10:25 AM
Hunter, that's what I've seen and heard in recent reports as well.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM
Shapely,
I meant that I wish that I was attending the protests.
Just as in Korea in the late 40's when Congress also skirted their constituional duties by granting the Executive the power to wage war unchecked; the result in Iraq is that there will be a permanent US military presence, and the continued establishment of a puppet government.
I agree that war protests have largely died down since the election of Obama. Invasion, occupation, and nation building is more palatable now that we have a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for President.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 12:49 PM
I agree that war protests have largely died down since the election of Obama. Invasion, occupation, and nation building is more palatable now that we have a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for President.
-- Posted by Vandeven 2010 on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 12:49 PM
Van, I think it has more to do with President Obama doing what he said he'd do in Iraq...end the war.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 1:27 PM
Curious what President Obama has done to end the war in Iraq.
-- Posted by RA on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 2:12 PM
Ike wrote:
"Bush's "surge" was a tacit admission of failure." It was an admission that the previous strategy was failing, which is the same that Condoleeza Rice is saying. However, the 'surge' strategy has been successful. Iraq has been greatly stabilized, the Iraqi military has stepped up and taken charge, the Iraqi people are showing conficence in the political process, and our troops are coming home. This, of course, was President Bush plan all along, but the 'surge's strategy has made it possible.
If you study the history of most wars, you'll find that they are a study in failures, re-evaluations, and changes of strategy. President Nixon arrived on the scene too late to save public support for the Vietnam war, and as a result the Congress stripped him of his power to leave a stable country, or at least a free one, in our wake. President Bush, fortunately, was not so blind as President Johnson & Robert McNamara that he wouldn't re-evaluate the strategy. As a result, President Bush was able to achieve stability and withdrawal while saving face.
I agree with Ms. Rice, history will regard President Bush more highly than he is regarded now. Of course, having Mr. Obama for a successor appears to be doing a great deal to help President Bush look good.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 6:38 PM
Hunter...time will tell.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 6:46 PM
concerned4all wrote:
"Hunter...time will tell."
True. But, you have to acknowledge that we have come a long way from the time when Harry Reid erroneously stated that "the war is lost".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 6:51 PM
Hunter wroite:
True. But, you have to acknowledge that we have come a long way from the time when Harry Reid erroneously stated that "the war is lost".
And nearly 7 years since Bush said "mission accomplished". And Cheney said, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators". 7 years and how may lives...
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 7:16 PM
James, wonder how the Kurds felt under Sadam?
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 7:21 PM
What withdrawl? There are over 130,000 US troops currently stationed in Iraq. Who knows how many mercenaries are there.
c4all,
Is it really liberty if it is somebody else's version of liberty?
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 7:39 PM
What withdrawl? There are over 130,000 US troops currently stationed in Iraq. Who knows how many mercenaries are there.
c4all,
Is it really liberty if it is somebody else's version of liberty?
-- Posted by Vandeven 2010 on Sun, Mar 21, 2010,
Van, based on our military leaders, including Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is a withdrawl.
You'd have to ask the Iraqi, especially the Iraqi Kurds if they feel they have more liberty now. But,I haven't heard that any of them have been gassed lately.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 8:15 PM
I don't know what to say about the Jews and Christians. The Jews and Christians in Iran also have been impacted and many have left. In Lebanon, they also experienced a change after Reagan took the position he did. We've mucked up a lot of peoples lives with our shenanigans in the Middle East.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 8:33 PM
Vandeven 2010 wrote:
"What withdrawl? There are over 130,000 US troops currently stationed in Iraq. Who knows how many mercenaries are there."
Where did you get that figure. According to CBS News:
"The U.S. has about 96,000 troops in Iraq nearly seven years after the American-led invasion that overthrew the dictator Saddam Hussein. That is the lowest number of American forces in the country since the invasion."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 8:47 PM
"Why were those helicopters flying remnant off the roof of the embassy in Saigon? Doesn't sound like a sound plan to me."
Do you really not know? They were flying out because the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians were betrayed by the U.S. Congress. President Nixon negotiated a combat troop withdrawal, in which we would provide air support and arms for the South Vietnamese, but the Congress pulled the rug out form under us, and them.
President Ford begged the Congress for money to supply the South Vietnamese as Saigon was surrounded, but they were adamant that no more funding would be spent in Southeast Asia. Millions died in the name of peace.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 8:53 PM
"We've mucked up a lot of peoples lives with our shenanigans in the Middle East."
And its not getting any better. We're supporting a 'Palestinian State' and demanding even more concessions from Israel because of a minor gaffe.
The 'Palestinian State' was a Roman creation, imposed by Hadrian after the Jews rose up against the Roman Occupation. Judea was wiped out, and Palestine was created. The Jews were driven from their homeland. The creation of Israel righted an 1,800 year old wrong. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is now playing the Part of Caesar.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 21, 2010, at 9:00 PM
Menu
A goverment official lied? That's unprecidented. I can hardly believe it.
Thanks HiD, now I won't be able to sleep tonight.
Replies (23)