Maybe we should start a new forum, one titled "Dumbest Statement of the Week." If we do (and I am fairly sure we won't), I think the fisrt week's winner is the CIA's own Director Porter Goss.
His entry?
In a rare television interview, Goss defended the CIA's track record, tarnished by allegations ranging from erroneous or hyped intelligence to reports of secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques amounting to torture. Al Qaeda leaders bin Laden and al-Zarqawi haven't been found "primarily because they don't want us to find them and they're going to great lengths to make sure we don't find them," Goss said in the interview broadcast Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
No Shinola, Sherlock. No wonder you are the head of an Intelligence agency.
Italics above from CNN.com +++++++++++++ 11-29-05, 03:01 PM coldfuse I would enjoy keeping this going at least as a thread. Who knows when we will next get Charles Barkley claiming he was misquoted in his autobiography, or Joshua Steiner claiming to have lied to his diary! 11-29-05, 08:47 PM newnickname The Canadian election hadn't even officially begun when the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper put his foot in it. The incumbent Liberals are in trouble over sponsorship kickbacks; all Harper has to do to win is act sensibly, and not scare off any voters.
Instead, in his Dumb Statement Of The Week, Harper said 'the Liberals were guilty of "breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime". (Dumber quotes followed as spin-doctors tried to soften the blow without an actual retraction - along the lines of 'well, it was crime and it was organised'.)
This has taken some pressure off the Liberals who are huffing and puffing about the enormity of the accusation, while it recalls Harper's implication in the last election that Paul Martin supported child pornography, throwing Harper's own judgement into doubt.
www.cbc.ca 12-05-05, 10:08 AM newnickname This week...
'Wolf Blitzer got up on his hind legs during his Sunday morning confab with Senator Biden on CNN and expressed his outrage that the Iraqi people and their so-called leaders have not thanked the United States for invading and occupying their country. There was not one word of appreciation," said Blitzer, "to the United States for liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein."' www.truthout.org 12-07-05, 08:51 PM newnickname More dumb statements:
'...Rumsfeld did start to low-ball the Administration’s definition of success.
“To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks,” he said.
But oddly, the Pentagon’s own “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” which Bush trumpeted last week, defines “longer term” success just that way: “An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.”
Rumsfeld is a blunderbuss.
Almost every time he opens his mouth, he inserts foot.
Just last week at a news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about the duty U.S. troops have to report abuse by Iraqi soldiers.
“Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of,” he said.
Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was standing right next to Rumsfeld and contradicted him point blank.
“If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it,” Pace told his boss.' progressive.org 05-10-06, 09:55 AM newnickname On Sunday, President Bush said he would "like to close the camp [Guantánamo]" and referring to the detainees, he added: "They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed." www.commondreams.org 05-10-06, 12:06 PM FredPuli Secretary Rumsfeld is right not to define success in terms of deaths. It could be embarrassing. According to the BBC just now, President Talabani has announced, through his office, that over 1,000 people have been killed in sectarian violence in the month of April in Baghdad alone. It turns out that the figure comes from the local morgue. The total is 1,091. 05-17-06, 07:39 PM newnickname "We have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our borders." GWB 05-17-06, 10:05 PM DvdGStwrt Government Intelligence Spot on! 05-19-06, 12:30 PM bik74 I think this comes here in this category:
In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." ____________________________________ If my understanding is right. He thinks he is a prophet. More benefits of freedom of speech Smile. 05-19-06, 12:33 PM bik74 Nice to make such statement when some scientific authorities are allready predicitng these storms.
The 2006 forecast calls for:
17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6. 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9. 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.
“When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime.” GWB
(As the article points out, Hussein '...had no weapons of mass destruction to disarm. Weapons inspectors were begging the Security Council for more time, but Bush refused to give it to them. And Bush acted like was doing the Security Council’s bidding by invading when, in actual fact, the Security Council refused to give its blessing to the invasion. That’s why Kofi Annan called it illegal.') 06-15-06, 09:44 AM newnickname Maybe not the dumbest, but puzzling...
'President Bush reiterated Wednesday that he'd like to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but his administration is facing an awkward political and legal quandary over what to do with the estimated 460 detainees being held there...
..."It's a little bit of a Catch 22, but we are working through this," Bush said at a news conference on Wednesday at which he repeated his desire "to close Guantanamo." Knight Ridder
How is it a Catch 22 (rather than straightforwardly a problem, or foul-up)? If it is, didn't Bush & Co create it themselves with their new category of prisoner, and off-shore prison? 06-15-06, 07:13 PM coldfuse "Get the virgins ready" - New York Post
Admit it - you laughed no matter how inappropriate this was. 07-15-06, 10:40 PM newnickname '"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion," Bush said at the news conference, "and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
Putin, in a barbed reply, said: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly." Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. "Just wait," Bush replied about Iraq.' www.commondreams.org
Free religion in Iraq? Does he really believe that? Or does he mean "free" in the sense "free to murder people of other religious factions"? Or "free to impose barbaric rules and behaviour on women"? "Free to 'ethnically cleanse' along religious lines"?
What limits on religious freedom were there under Hussein's dictatorship? I know he gave preference to 'his own', Sunnis from his birthplace, but weren't some high-rankers in his regime Christian? 07-15-06, 11:04 PM DorianGreyed December 24, 2004
Tolerated by Saddam; Targets Under Occupation
Iraq's Christian Minority Loses Its Innocence
By BORZOU DARAGAHI The Independent
Baghdad.
The school year in Baghdad always began the same way for Sister Beninia Hermes Shoukwana. The Christian nun and headteacher of the Hebtikar School near Palestine Street would be peppered with innocent questions from her mostly Muslim charges.
"Madame headmistress, why don't you dress like mummy?" they would ask. "Why do you always wear the same white dress?"
This year, the age of innocence has ended and the remarks from parents and students have become more cutting than curious. "I've been accused of trying to convert little Muslims to Christianity," says the 64-year-old nun, with deep worry lines on her forehead. "Leaflets have been distributed asking the parents to withdraw their children."
This is not a happy Christmas for the country's troubled Christians. Many of the churches have cancelled midnight mass for fear of drawing the attention of terrorists.
After decades of living in relative harmony with the Muslim majority, Iraq's ancient Christian minority ? who include Chaldeans, with allegiance to the Pope, as well as Orthodox Assyrians and Armenians ? is threatened as never before.
A spate of bombings directed at churches, apparently the work of Muslim extremists, has led many to the painful conclusion that Christians are now equated with the US-led occupation regardless of their actual views. They insist that they are Arab nationalists who oppose the American presence just as much as resistance fighters in Fallujah or Mosul. One in 10 Iraqi Christians has fled Iraq.
Five Baghdad churches were attacked in October. In August, similar attacks killed at least 10 and wounded nearly 50 Iraqi Christians. Father Saad Hanna's small church was recently attacked. His parish is now one-third of its pre-war size. "The people are terrified about what is happening," he says. "The people no longer come to church. The truth is, we are in trouble, and we don't know how to overcome this."
Gone are the days when Christians' Muslim friends would join them carol singing, and Christmas trees are definitely out. In fact, few Iraqis are buying the traditional trees. Mohammad Noori sold 35 last year. With two days to go this year he had sold only one.
In Sister Beninia's three decades as head of the 3,000-student school, she has witnessed wars, bombings and the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein. But these, she says, are the worst of times, and she is unable to hide her distress over the fate of her country and fellow-Christians, mostly Chaldeans, members of the Nestorian sect who converted to Catholicism in the 16th century.
First came the pamphlets distributed in her hometown of Mosul during Ramadan, ordering Christian women to wear the headscarf. There were the August and October attacks on Baghdad churches. Among the victims was a young, newly engaged couple close to Sister Beninia. "For years, Christians and Muslims lived like brothers and sisters," she says. "Today the extremists are trying to separate us." But she has no plans to leave Iraq, vowing to continue her efforts to educate Iraqi children and build bridges between the different faiths.
She has stubbornly refused to bow to the extremists, putting up Christmas trees at her school and getting her students to sing carols. She will attend Christmas mass at her convent. "I will pray for peace in the country," she says.
Sister Beninia had plenty of experience facing down troubles, beginning with the Baath Party's 1974 decision to nationalise all schools including Hebtikar, which was originally run by her convent. "They wanted to force me to join the Baath party, but I always refused," she says.
Despite her refusal to sign up to Saddam Hussein's political machinery, she kept her job because of her organisational skills and popularity with students and parents. Another challenge came during the 1980s war with Iran. -------- Note the date. This was well over a year ago. I can't believe that things have improved for Christians. -------- From Publishers Weekly Former Iraqi General Sada delivers a riveting inside account of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, including confirmation of the existence and hiding of weapons of mass destruction. Despite being a Christian and refusing to join the Baath Party, Sada was promoted to Saddam's inner circle for his honest advice. Sada criticizes most countries and the United Nations (whose workers he accuses of accepting bribes) for their complicity in propagating Saddam's regime. But he strongly praises Operation Iraqi Freedom, pointing out that no other country would take the first step. The book has an unexpectedly religious angle, being slightly Christian-centric and paranoid over Muslim population growth in the West. Regardless, Sada blames Saddam for destroying Iraq, but remains hopeful the nation will have a chance to become a modern society, fulfilling its great historical legacy. --- He was Saddam Hussein's top military advisor . . . and a truth-teller in a regime where truth was relative. He was also a devout Christian in an anti-Christian country. --- One interesting note: as a Christian, General Sada was in a tiny minority among Saddam's inner circle , surrounded by Iraqi leaders who cynically and callously used Islam as a mask for their own twisted and sadistic ends. (Bold mine - DG)
The above three paragraphs are from an Amazon.com page. -------- THE NUMBERS OF Christians living in Iraq, mostly Catholic and Orthodox, have been dwindling for more than two decades. One exodus of Christians began during the prolonged Iran-Iraq war that stretched from 1979 to '88. The short, violent gulf war of 1991 was followed by 11 years of United Nations economic sanctions, which church leaders say have made life miserable and survival tenuous for many. Christians, once a notable minority in a land where according to tradition the apostles Peter, Thomas and Thaddeus planted the seeds of the gospel, constitute about 5 percent of the nation's population, said a Catholic source.
Church officials in Iraq and U.S.-based church relief workers are quick to say that they are not the victims of persecution by the regime of Saddam Hussein. - Find Articles.com
The above article goes on to say that the government does not discriminate against Christians, even providing help at times, and buying equipment. But the date of that article is October 23, 2002. Now, since we invaded, it is obviously a different story, as evidenced in the other links. 07-16-06, 03:10 PM Kelleygirl Just felt that this thread wouldn't be complete without ----
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."--G.W.Bush, Washington, D.C.; September 21, 2003. 07-19-06, 10:27 PM newnickname 'Bombs were exploding and innocents dying, from Beirut to Haifa to Baghdad, and yet George Bush managed to pose for yet another photo op, smiling as he gave the thumbs up at the close of the G8 summit. Thanks to an unsuspected open mic, however, we could also glimpse the mindset of a leader unaccountably pleased with his ignorance of the world.
What seemed to interest him most at that farewell get together of leaders bitterly divided over a disintegrating Mideast was not some last-minute proposal for peace but rather the fact that it would take China President Hu Jintao eight hours to fly home from St. Petersburg to Beijing.
Bush had started the exchange by noting, absurdly, that, "This is your neighborhood, doesn't take you long to get home." Uh, yeah, incurious George, sure thing. Never mind that St. Petersburg is in Europe, on Russia's northwestern corner, due north of Turkey, and Beijing is on the eastern edge of mainland Asia.
"You, eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country," he said when corrected, sounding for all the world like an earnest kindergartner, processing new information. "Russia's big and so is China."' www.truthdig.com
So, is it an act, or is he really that dumb? 07-20-06, 05:54 PM DorianGreyed "There is a civil war going on in Iraq." - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Thursday, July 20, 2006
No shinola, Sherlock. How very observant of you. This ranks with "If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure," spoken by Vice President Dan Quayle, to the Phoenix Republican Forum, March 1990. These guys get paid with tax dollars. Roll Eyes 08-04-06, 10:33 AM newnickname It's a tie this week:
'...But it seems to me that it is not a classic civil war at this stage.
It certainly isn't like our Civil War...' Rumsfeld holds out for a classic civil war.
"I am concerned about loss of innocent life, and we will do everything we can to help move equipment... I mean, food and medicines, to help the people who have been displaced and the people who suffer." Bush gets confused. No, George - the equipment goes to Israel. They drop it on Lebanon, where the food and medicines go. Maybe Dick can draw you a diagram.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16222 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'Testifying before the Senate today, Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that he has “never painted a rosy picture” about Iraq. Rumsfeld insisted that he has been “very measured” and told Clinton “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”
Here’s just a few of the “overly optimistic” comments made by Rumsfeld (and no, we did not have a “dickens of a time” finding them):
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”'thinkprogress.org ++++++++++++ 08-17-06, 09:36 AM newnickname ''Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.'Curious George
As the linked page points out, 'An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month'.
'...a summing-up confidential cable by William Patey, the departing British Ambassador to Iraq, found its way into the newspapers. “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” Patey wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq—a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror—must remain in doubt.” Asked about Patey’s assessment during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John P. Abizaid, the over-all American commander in the Middle East, replied carefully (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sitting next to him), “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that, if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” Last Monday, in an interview with ABC News, General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for the past two years, agreed, saying that “the six last weeks or so have been the highest levels of sectarian violence that I’ve seen since I’ve been here” and that “a countrywide civil war” is “the most significant threat right now.”'
08-18-06, 05:40 PM newnickname A follow up...
"Sometimes it takes people awhile to come to the sober realisation of what forces create stability and what don't..." George Bush - architect of that exemplary stability in Iraq - on support for Hezbollah
08-18-06, 06:47 PM DorianGreyed It's easy to see why he wanted to make sure that No Child (was) Left Behind.
08-31-06, 09:59 AM newnickname "If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities."George
Because, obviously, terrorists can only operate in one country at a time. That's the rule.
You have to wonder if Bush is an idiot or if he's just reaching desperately out to anyone who might be idiot - or uninterested - enough to accept this nonsense.
He also said, "These are important times, and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicise these issues that I'm going to talk about." Seriously?
08-31-06, 11:15 AM FredPuli "A spokesman" (didn't catch his name, but it hardly matters as he was speaking for the Administration so using a set script Wink) has just said on the BBC " We are not going to be intimidated by Iran". Interesting. So the text is " We shall try to intimidate Iran, which is fine, but if they reply they are trying to intimidate us, which is wrong".Yes, and how exactly does anyone think they have any hope whatever of stopping Iran from proceeding with whatever nuclear programme Iran chooses? He didn't condescend into particulars on that matter Big Grin In the meantime, making loud noises in Iran's direction merely serves to strengthen Iran in the eyes of our enemies. She has already become, thanks to the foreign policy of the US in eliminating Saddam, the strongest and most influential force in the region. She doesn't need any more help from those uttering meaningless threats, veiled or otherwise.
09-01-06, 04:55 AM FredPuli Here's one which can be posted under this heading without any comment at all Roll Eyes:
" If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities" - President G W Bush , 31st August 2006.
09-01-06, 09:52 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Here's one which can be posted under this heading without any comment at all Roll Eyes:
" If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities"
President G W Bush , 31st August 2006.
the thing is i believe that lots of americans believe the above statement , so maybe it cannot be classfied as a dumb statement.
09-19-06, 10:11 AM newnickname In bold...
'Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.'
Kieth Olbermann explains...
'Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."
And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.
Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.
Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.
And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
Olbermann doesn't mention it but Bush did, in fact, in ordering the invasion of Iraq, "kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective". I know we're supposed to pretend that no innocents died in "shock and awe", and their deaths weren't an inevitable consequence of it, but they did, and they were.
09-19-06, 02:33 PM sid1114 I guess the answer is this: if innocent women and children die by unintended but absolutely predictable consequence of certain methods of war, it's less bad than when they die by intended consequences of certain methods. Saying you didn't mean to kill those people immunized you (inference: in the eyes of your god), even if the war in which it happened was ill-advised, wrongly-justified, and poorly executed. To coin a phrase. And, I guess, in the case of the ones that actually intended it, it gives extra credit in the eyes of their god. These gods: they work in mysterious ways.
09-21-06, 04:08 PM DorianGreyed Somehow, I missed this one,
"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., March 21, 2006
I didn't know that radiation helped reproduction.
I can't shake this vision of millions of Iranians running around, proliferating everywhere.
10-01-06, 07:13 PM newnickname This week, a joint effort:
'[Bush] said that for Al-Qaeda and its allies, a safe haven in Iraq "would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan."
However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview published Saturday, offered a different rationale for continued US military presence in Iraq, saying it was needed to counter the growing influence of neighboring Iran.
"We just have to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want Iranian influence in their daily lives," she told The Wall Street Journal. "We've got a chance to resist the Iranian push into the region, but we better get about it."' Agence France-Presse
And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion? 10-01-06, 08:07 PM Scotty
quote: And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion?
Apparently very good since everyone says that Iraq didn't have weapons to defend itself.
10-01-06, 08:22 PM newnickname Good point, but would the Iranians have been dumb enough to risk getting themselves bogged down in an unwinnable war against a nationalist insurgency by invading?
10-01-06, 08:59 PM DorianGreyed It is highly unlikely that Iran would have tried anything against Iraq, since the no-fly zones covered about half of their common border. Any attack would have been noticed before it crossed the border.
10-01-06, 11:05 PM newnickname It was an unstable, or unsustainable situation, though. The no-fly zones, and the sanctions, couldn't last forever. Hussein himself was getting old, and his heirs seem to have been brutal idiots. At some point in the next ten years or so, Iran might have seen an opportunity to step in - although the opportunity may not have been handed to them on a plate, as it was by Bush & Co.
Is the Bush doctrine, then, to invade countries in danger of being dominated by their neighbours? How does that help?
10-01-06, 11:20 PM DorianGreyed I don't think either of Saddam's sons would have survived him by more than a few days. If we knew how bad they were, think of what Saddam's generals knew. Neither were strong enough to hold the country together, and surely the generals knew that. Whether out of patriotism or just a normal power grab (You have to remember where this is taking place.), the sons would have been "neutralized" and one of the military would have taken over. It is quite possible that Iraq, at that point, might have used Saddam's death to seek out US friendship. It would have been to a military leader's benefit to do so. We prop up dictators all the time, as long as they are our dictators.
10-02-06, 01:56 AM newnickname Wait a minute, here's a dumber statement from the week:
'Oh dear. I'm sure he didn't mean it. In Illinois' Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to "cut and run" on Iraq.
Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. "I just could not believe he would say that to me," said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?' www.truthdig.com
Ouch.
10-02-06, 09:00 AM DorianGreyed It sounds as if Duckworth has found that most vicious of animals, the Compassionate Conservative. Every other year, they leave their rookery (a House in Washington, DC), and descend throughout the land to prey on the weak and defenseless. Fierce, savage beasts, they will attack anyone who attempts to come to the aid of their victims. Duckworth must have placed herself between the beast and prey.
10-02-06, 09:45 AM newnickname Or he just read from the latest 'Here Is What To Say About Iraq' memo without a glance at his opponent.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'...a summing-up confidential cable by William Patey, the departing British Ambassador to Iraq, found its way into the newspapers. “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” Patey wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq—a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror—must remain in doubt.” Asked about Patey’s assessment during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John P. Abizaid, the over-all American commander in the Middle East, replied carefully (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sitting next to him), “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that, if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” Last Monday, in an interview with ABC News, General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for the past two years, agreed, saying that “the six last weeks or so have been the highest levels of sectarian violence that I’ve seen since I’ve been here” and that “a countrywide civil war” is “the most significant threat right now.”'
"If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities."George
Because, obviously, terrorists can only operate in one country at a time. That's the rule.
You have to wonder if Bush is an idiot or if he's just reaching desperately out to anyone who might be idiot - or uninterested - enough to accept this nonsense.
He also said, "These are important times, and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicise these issues that I'm going to talk about." Seriously?
'Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.'
Kieth Olbermann explains...
'Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."
And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.
Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.
Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.
And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
Olbermann doesn't mention it but Bush did, in fact, in ordering the invasion of Iraq, "kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective". I know we're supposed to pretend that no innocents died in "shock and awe", and their deaths weren't an inevitable consequence of it, but they did, and they were.
I guess the answer is this: if innocent women and children die by unintended but absolutely predictable consequence of certain methods of war, it's less bad than when they die by intended consequences of certain methods. Saying you didn't mean to kill those people immunized you (inference: in the eyes of your god), even if the war in which it happened was ill-advised, wrongly-justified, and poorly executed. To coin a phrase. And, I guess, in the case of the ones that actually intended it, it gives extra credit in the eyes of their god. These gods: they work in mysterious ways.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'[Bush] said that for Al-Qaeda and its allies, a safe haven in Iraq "would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan."
However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview published Saturday, offered a different rationale for continued US military presence in Iraq, saying it was needed to counter the growing influence of neighboring Iran.
"We just have to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want Iranian influence in their daily lives," she told The Wall Street Journal. "We've got a chance to resist the Iranian push into the region, but we better get about it."'Agence France-Presse
And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion?
Good point, but would the Iranians have been dumb enough to risk getting themselves bogged down in an unwinnable war against a nationalist insurgency by invading?
It is highly unlikely that Iran would have tried anything against Iraq, since the no-fly zones covered about half of their common border. Any attack would have been noticed before it crossed the border.
Posts: 16222 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
It was an unstable, or unsustainable situation, though. The no-fly zones, and the sanctions, couldn't last forever. Hussein himself was getting old, and his heirs seem to have been brutal idiots. At some point in the next ten years or so, Iran might have seen an opportunity to step in - although the opportunity may not have been handed to them on a plate, as it was by Bush & Co.
Is the Bush doctrine, then, to invade countries in danger of being dominated by their neighbours? How does that help?
I don't think either of Saddam's sons would have survived him by more than a few days. If we knew how bad they were, think of what Saddam's generals knew. Neither were strong enough to hold the country together, and surely the generals knew that. Whether out of patriotism or just a normal power grab (You have to remember where this is taking place.), the sons would have been "neutralized" and one of the military would have taken over. It is quite possible that Iraq, at that point, might have used Saddam's death to seek out US friendship. It would have been to a military leader's benefit to do so. We prop up dictators all the time, as long as they are our dictators.
Posts: 16222 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Wait a minute, here's a dumber statement from the week:
'Oh dear. I'm sure he didn't mean it. In Illinois' Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to "cut and run" on Iraq.
Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. "I just could not believe he would say that to me," said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?'www.truthdig.com
It sounds as if Duckworth has found that most vicious of animals, the Compassionate Conservative. Every other year, they leave their rookery (a House in Washington, DC), and descend throughout the land to prey on the weak and defenseless. Fierce, savage beasts, they will attack anyone who attempts to come to the aid of their victims. Duckworth must have placed herself between the beast and prey.
Posts: 16222 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
