Bush read a letter? That’s seriously funny.

In the immortal would of the Texas Governor Anne:

“Ann Richards on How to Be a Good Republican: 1. You have to believe that the nation’s current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but yesterday’s gasoline prices are all Clinton’s fault. 2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own. 3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.”

I’m really glad that your young people missed the Depression and missed the big war. But I do regret that they missed the leaders that I knew, leaders who told us when things were tough and that we’d have to sacrifice, and that these difficulties might last awhile. They brought us together and they gave us a sense of national purpose.”

Where is she going to put the tens of thousands of troops that she will need to keep in Iraq to continue the “military mission”, Chris? Where will she keep all the equipment and supplies they will need while continuing the “military mission”, Chris?

Sure he does! Haven’t you heard his plan? It goes like this: Bombombomb, bombomb Eyeran

After all this time, I am dubious as the whether Baghdad has an army. There is no effort to reconcile Sunni and Shi’ites. Bush managed to eliminate the buffer between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan. Iran is Farsi, not arab. (Bush should have read a book about the balance of power.) Eventually Iraq is going to have to defend itself, regardless of how many decades we spend there. As for the surge, most of Baghdad has been purged of mixed neighborhoods, so the violence would be reduced. Jordan and Syria have one big refugee problem. What a legacy for Bush! And now he is going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem before he leaves office. His visit to Jerusalem must have activated his Messiah Complex.

If he gets elected……

Intrade now has Clinton favored over McCain by better than 2:1.

See you and raise you one:
“Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason”

McCain mystifies me. Whereas a yuppie like Obama who has never been in uniform can have dewy-eyed visions of the world, McCain knows that sometimes the dragon wins —- this had to be impressed upon him as he was dangling from that chute over Truc Bach Lake.

My guess is that he is playing to the Republican electoral core with political bullshit. When he gets elected he’ll send his Kissinger to Paris.

Sigh!

As usual, you have made use of your favourite dishonest debate technique and misrepresented my position just enough to serve your purpose. In so doing you have also revealed the weakness - or rather nonexistence - of your argument.

What I have said is that she will be keeping those permanent bases well populated with American troops for the foreseeable future. I realize this might be too nuanced for you, but that is not at all the same thing as saying she supports permanent bases. She may or may not support them, but unless she does a magical turnaround and decides to make a full withdrawal (or at least the level of withdrawal Edwards has described, leaving only 3500-5000 troops), she WILL be using those permanent bases quite fully, and with no end in sight.

But I think you understand that very well, actually. Your problem is that you cannot effectively refute what I have said, and you are unwilling to admit that, so you make up something you think you CAN refute. This is an age-old favourite technique used widely - univerally actually - by the Israel uber alles crowd, whom I have been debating quite effectively for more decades than I care to admit. It is primitive, it is crude, it is a clear sign of desperation, and they have never stopped trying to use it because they don’t have a leg to stand on and if they debate honestly, they will lose every time.

I have not claimed that Hillary “supports bases in Iraq”. I don’t know whether she supports them or not, though I do know she has said she does not. What I HAVE suggested is that, while she might not “support bases in Iraq”, she has made it clear that she intends to continue indefinitely the United States’ “military and political mission” there. In addition, she has spelled out quite specifically what that “military mission” will consist of. Taking her statements in their totality, and applying a bit of logic, it becomes clear that the “military mission” is likely to require somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

So, Chris, where will she house those tens of thousands of troops if not in those extremely well-appointed, very expensive permanent military bases that are conveniently sitting there now, and are designed to accommodate just about the number of troops she will need to continue the “military mission” in Iraq? Will she leave the bases empty and put the troops in tents out in the desert? I doubt it. Will she spend yet more money building new, “temporary” bases and leave the beautifully appointed, multi-billion-dollar bases empty? I doubt it. It wouldn’t make sense, would it? Therefore, as long as she will keep tens of thousands of troops to continue the “military and political mission” in Iraq, she will be keeping those permanent bases populated, no matter whether she says she supports permanent bases in Iraq or not.

Just do the logic, Chris. Just do the logic.

Briefly, as the website says:

“The legislation’s aims are two-fold: to forestall the Bush-Cheney administration’s efforts to keep the war going even after it leaves office; and to thwart the Administration’s latest executive power grab.”

Are you so stupid as to believe that writing a letter to Bush has any clout?

Dude you are living in the same alternative reality that MCcCain and all the rest are. Because when it is all said and done next January and the Repukes still control, the economy is in the tank then I hope you still have a job in your alternate reality.

I think you are a fucking troll and you need to back in your troll cave with all the rest of the stupid fucking Republican trolls.

Yeh I am cursing and don’t give a damn if you or anyone else likes it. You never have anything constructive to say so until you do take this post and shove it up your ass and if Larry reads this and wants to kick me off this blog then so be it.

Your damn “girl’ is not qualified to be President just because she is a woman or a
Clinton. Big Bill though he had his problems will have to coach her every step of the way, and do you really believe he will let her be her own “woman”?

AND finally dude, if you want to deal with the real truth, NONE of the front runners are qualified to be President, and if you Hillary lovers are stupid enough to believe that those of us who are NOT blinded-by-the-all-hillary-all-the-time on this blog, will automatically lockstep behind her after Super Tuesday, then please use your Pay Pal account to put a downpayment on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The only two ppl whether they are qualified or not, who are talking about the REAL issues in this campaign are Dennis Kuncinich and Ron Paul and as of right now (unless Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent) those two candidates, who are real patriotic Americans not just opportunists like all the others, will get my vote.

So, she votes for legislation to deny funding for those permanent bases and writes a letter to Bush to remind him that permanent bases are not allowed.

Trying to throw us off track, no doubt.

Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?

Really, why don’t you just read it? It won’t hurt. You won’t go blind.

I promise.

[sigh]

Then it should present no problem to Shirin to back up with fact her claim that Hillary Clinton supports permanent bases in Iraq, should it?

But she didn’t, did she? And when confronted twice with contrary evidence, she offers no apology, instead restating a tired litany of Hillaryhatred which is well-known to all here.

Look, Bill, sorry, but Shirin has, like most of us, a blind spot. Hers has to do with the Clintons, and I won’t go into why, ’cause we’ve been through that a few times already.

She’s free of course to talk all the doody she wants about ‘em, although its tough to see why, but she can’t realistically expect that a lie will go untrapped.

Nobody can, if I have anything to say about it.

How could I have been so foolish?! That letter changes EVERYTHING!

Oh bah-ruther. From the letter she wrote to President Bush:

“As you know, in 2006, Congress explicitly passed a restriction on the use of any funds to establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of United States Forces in Iraq. However, the Declaration of Principles that you signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki does not explicitly rule out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.”

Like I said to Shirin, just follow the link and read the damn letter– before running your yap.

In the early months of the occupation, Robert Fisk, who was there at the time, wrote a very provocative piece about the type of destruction you are referring to, including the U.S. bombing, as well as the systematic gutting of all the civil ministries, and the records contained in them. He noted that he had watched busloads of men pull up to ministries, enter, and shortly thereafter he would see flames inside the building, the men would exit, and ride out of town in the same direction. He said the buses were always the same colour and configuration - yellow, as I recall. He asked some very pointed questions, as to the purpose for destroying the history, the monuments, the civil structure of a country. I will see if I can locate that piece.

Rania Masri put it exactly right when she recommended that when you hear the word reconstruction in reference to Iraq, you should translate that to “deconstruction and transformation”. She put into very clear words the sense that I and many others had of what “reconstruction” was really about.