Say Anything Blog

Or as President Bush would say, As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Yeah, right.  I love his inane and general comments that mean absolutely nothing.

Colin Powell said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave we would leave.  Did he or did he not say that?

And he didn’t say it would be when anyone ‘stood up’.

Can we believe anyone associated with this administration, past or present?  I’m talking, of course, of people who aren’t indicted at this time.

As far as I know, Colin Powell hasn’t been a part of this administration for some time now.

I said past or present.

What is Colin Powell’s relevance to this administration?  The statement you mentioned is way in the past, which was my point.

So, your point is that a high ranking official in the administration can make a statement and its’ voracity, credibility and viability is judged by and contingent upon how long ago it was made? If so, do you have a definite cut-off date?

No. I’ll ‘splain it to you.  You implied current dishonesty by going back years to a former admin official who has been let go to try to prove that the entire admin is dishonest, which is your constant meme.  Understand now?  It is time that makes the statement obsolete in the context of today and what is being said today about the war.  I was never a fan of CP, btw, so none of his statements cut any ice with me. 
Instead of always using mouthpieces, why not share your reasoning with us?

. I was never a fan of CP, btw, so none of his statements cut any ice with me.

Oh WELL, then that’s the determining factor.  If things ‘cut any ice’ with Robert108.  If not, they’re out.

Instead of always using mouthpieces, why not share your reasoning with us?

1) I have, many times.

2) When I do, the response is usually name-calling and insults, so it makes alot of sense to quote other sources than just my own reasoning.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I must bid you goodnight.

Since I have no respect for CP, considering him a non-warrior who cost us the real victory in Gulf One, I don’t regard what he says as being important.  I think you only use his words because you can twist them into your anti-administration hatespew.  I haven’t seen any logical or reasoned arguments from you, ever.  Your victimspew is also laughable, because it is you who came on here spewing insults and namecalling, and some have responded to you in kind.  You have no one to blame for it but yourself.

More blogger Robert108 ass-uming:

I think you only use his words because you can twist them into your anti-administration hatespew

If I’ve twisted them, bring them here and I’ll apologize for twisting them.

Never mind, I’ll go find them.

by Glenn Kessler,
Washington Post

May 15, 2004

WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.

His statement, which was echoed by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and the foreign ministers of Britain, Italy and Japan, came one day after conflicting testimony by administration officials on the issue.

Now granted, first he said ordered, but then he called it a request immediately thereafter.  So you were wrong in saying I ‘twisted’ his words, Robert108.  Shame on you.  I’d say requested and asked are synonyms.

Here’s all the mess in one tidy package:
http://www.unknownnews.net/040518whollyownedsubsidiary.html

Nite. 

Once again, a mouthpiece.  You usually use cherry-picking to mislead, so you choose the parts that support your agenda, and leave out the rest.  In this case, you are using someone else’s paraphrase of what they claim CP said, which simply makes my point.  However, since I have already stated that I don’t care what CP is said(because I think he is a self-serving weasel), what you say someone else says he says is irrelevant to me.  Try another way to make your point.  How about a logical argument, after stating your assumptions, your basic premises.

Since I have no respect for CP, considering him a non-warrior

Then what must you think of George Bush and Dick Cheney? 

I guess they are true warriors, sending all those troops into battle.

Of course, the truth is General Powell was not hired by the Bush administration for his military expertise at all.  Not as secretary of State he wasn’t.

There is also a rather sad but nonetheless convincig argument that Powell’s failure as our nation’s chief diplomat was in large part responsible for the rise of the “insurgency” in Iraq.  Had Powell done his job, and secured passage for the USA 4th ID through Turkey, those forces would have been in the the so-called Sunni Triangle when they were originally planned to be, and not some 6 weeks or so later after the “insurgency” had developed some serious momentum.

Moving those forces down the Med, through the Suez Canal, around the Arabian penninsula, and then up to Baghdad through Kuwait at the very last moment was probably all the time the Ba’athist Sunnis needed to foment their revolt.  Had the 4th been in place, as planned, things may well have been quite different.

And Colin Powell knows it.

disbanding the army… fanned the flames of their resentment

Failing to establish an interim government within the first six months… major failure

US troops are on the streets… magnet to attract foreign fighters

Moonbat talking points…why do you hate America?

"I guess they are true warriors, sending all those troops into battle.”

That was not my argument, as you know, but it is a good point.  I simply stated CP was a non-warrior.  That is not the same as asserting someone else is a warrior.  You make the typical leftie logical error of assuming the opposite to advance your President-hating agenda.  Shame on you!

Ever notice how listening to a liberal is like listening to your wife or girlfirend during an argument?  There is no logic involved, no rational dissertation of facts and conclusions, no orderly progression of ideas.  Merely a stream of emotional pronouncements in favor of this, or opposed to that, all based on the singular, simplistic notion that the end justifies the means.

To paraphrse Tina Turner, “What’s logic got to do with it?”

Ok, before I beging this rant, let me preface it by saying, at first I wasn’t going to post this at all, because some of it may sound a little “over the top”, but since the Tour d’France, which promised to be the best tours in 7 years, was relagated to nothing because of the disqualifications of Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich, and the illogic of Bat One’s last comment, I thought this might get the debate going in a different direction.  So here goes.

We have many problems in the US, i.e. illegal immigration, an over burdened health care system, corrupt politicians, just to mention a few, but instead of dealing with those problems, we continue to debate the Iraq war, becoming a more polarized country, and at the same time spending (wasting) billions of dollars on a war that should never have been fought in the first place.

Just where do everyone’s loyalties lie?  With the Iraqi’s? or with American’s? 

I know where my loyalties lie, and it is not the Iraqi people.  I say, take care of American first, then worry about the rest of the world. 

Who appointed the US the police force for the world?

It’s not our (the US) fault the Iraqi people were living under a ruthless dictator, and it wasn’t our responsibility to relieve them of that burden, killing 2500 American soldiers, and countless Iraqi civilians in the process.

Why should my tax dollars be spent on the Iraqi people instead of the American people?  Many of you have expressed your displeasure with your tax dollars being spent on the social welfare system in the US, yet you are willing to see the government waste billions in Iraq on Iraqi’s.

That money would have been better spent on homeland security, protecting America from within, i.e. stepped up port and border security, and heightened intelligence gathering in the US and around the world. 

Then if Iraq, or any other country, were caught building weapons of mass destruction, or planning a terrorist attack, and was perceived as a threat to the US, we could easily justify going in and taking them out, and yes, leaving the people in those countries to deal with the after effects on their own.

Now after undertaking this endeavor, we are not any safer, at least in my opinion.  Our borders are still wide open, and now we’re dealing with two real threats, i.e. North Korea and Iran, and we are powerless to do anything about it.  We’ve used all our political capital in Iraq.

Call it what you want!  The Iraq war was a mistake.  Why can’t you just admit it?

And while this rant did get a little off topic, long winded, and I know, even a little “over the top” , I have no problem with the Iraqi government government granting amnesty to all the insurgents.

I say do it, and then cut our losses and get out of Iraq, “cut and run” as you like to call it. 

Then we can start dealing with the real problems facing the US.

A leftie isolationist.  How quaint!

Marc said, ...at the same time spending (wasting) billions of dollars on a war that should never have been fought in the first place.

You’re right! The war should have been finished in 1991!

Call it what you want! The Iraq war was a mistake. Why can’t you just admit it?

Call it what you want! The Iraq war is not a mistake. Why can’t you just admit it?

BTW, the only reason our “healthcare system” is overburdened is because it is highly socialized. The primary method of socialism to control a market is to restrict supply.  The only way to cure the present problems with healthcare is to return it to the free enterprise system.  We will have plenty of healthcare at an affordable price.

That’s right sticking up for Bush no matter what.

Our involvement in Iraq is directly involved with the security of our country. We bail out of Iraq, we not only lose face in the international community,

That wouldn’t have been a problem if we hadn’t started the war in the first place.

RBB, your snarkish nonsense aside, you have to admit those were valid criticisms.  Many on this blog besides myself would agree with them, but as I said ... water over the dam.  We have to decide where to go from here, since we can’t roll back time.

"That’s right sticking up for Bush no matter what.”

No, Marc; it’s not about partisanship, it’s about defeating worldwide terrorism.  I support any President who does that.  It’s the right thing to do.  Your isolationism would be fatal to us, just like it would have been with the Axis in WWII.

Marc said, That’s right sticking up for Bush no matter what.

Is this supposed to be an argument? Do you not pay attention to what is written here by the regulars? Apparently not or you wouldn’t say such an ignorant thing.

That wouldn’t have been a problem if we hadn’t started the war in the first place.

We didn’t start it. Iraq started it in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait. The current engagement is but a continuation of that war.

Marc:

That wouldn’t have been a problem if we hadn’t started the war in the first place.

Marc, that dog won’t hunt no matter how much you beat it.

You obviously think this, others on the blog disagree.  I seriously doubt you’re going to change their minds or vice versus at this point.

In any case, whether it was a good idea to invade or not, we’re there now.  So the question should be “Where do we go from here?”, not “was it a good idea?”.