Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>I doubt a million civilians have been killed. Have you some proof?<<<
What proof do YOU have to back up YOUR figures? And why are they more accurate than the ones you diss?
An Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War (range of 733,158 to 1,446,063).
The 2006 Lancet survey of casualties of the Iraq War estimated 654,965 Iraqi deaths (range of 392,979-942,636) from March 2003 to the end of June 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
>>>Who says it was an invasion? I suppose Saadam and his sons thought it was. The Iraqi people might have a different opinion.<<<
Everyone except you say it was an invasion. And if you had bothered to do about 30 seconds of research on the subject you would know that the Iraqi people might NOT have a different opinion.
"Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262.html
What facts are incorrect? And explain again why Bush himself along with the rest of the world is wrong in referring to america's presence in Iraq as an invasion......if you don't mind.
>>>an invasion would be to take over the country. but that's not what we did.<<<
I've wondered about you for a while but no more.
Between 600,000 and 1 million civilians have been killed, 2.5 million have fled the country since the war started and 75 major american bases have been established around the country, staffed with 150,000 US troops and US contractors. But it's not an invasion?
Not even the retarded commander guy is dumb enough to get into that discussion.
"The United States was right to invade Iraq, but choices made after the initial invasion have eroded security in the country, President Bush said in a television interview to be broadcast today."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/01/14/bush_says_choices_made_after_invasion_eroded_iraqs_security/
Are you really this stupid or is this the price you pay for being loyal to George Bush? I know there's about 25% of em' out there.
The joke here is that McCain is playing the oldest court room trick in the book which the media report as "breaking news" and turn into a puff piece on McCain's integrity. Lawyers throw punches below the belt all the time and judges orders them "stricken from the records and ignored by the jury". Great.......except the seeds have already been planted and the trash talk won't be ignored anymore than the rest of what's said.
>>>Why John McCain can't win..............McCain should never have stuck his nose into North Carolina politics. But by decrying this ad, he shows his own limitations.<<<
Rabid, foam at the mouth RW analysis. Seems they all look at the world and worldly events through a keyhole, and a small one at that.
McCain didn't "stick his nose into NC politics". He stuck his nose into national politics telling voters he's an honorable, decent man (like Bush) and that he's helpless in trying to stop his surrogates from unfairly dragging his opponent through gutters and septic tanks between now and November. He can only hope nobody pays attention since he intends to take the high road. Wanna bet against there being at least 50% out there dumb enough to believe him?
Somebody could ask him him what kind of presidential stock is in him if he can't even control the message of his own party and his own campaign but we won't hear about it or it will die on page 19, lower left corner, 2 paragraphs.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey: "Iraq war unraveling"
General says Iraq 'starting to unravel'
By Jeremy Wallace
H-T POLITICAL WRITER
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
SARASOTA — A week after Gen. David Petraeus, commander of allied forces in Iraq, painted an optimistic picture of progress there, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey offered a much grimmer assessment to an audience here Wednesday night.
The Iraqi government is dysfunctional, its military force is inadequate and the war itself is "starting to unravel," McCaffrey told about 180 people at the annual banquet of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club.
No matter who wins the White House in November, U.S. troops will begin coming home within three years, McCaffrey predicted.
"We're not staying there much longer," said McCaffrey, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Clinton.
It was a stark contrast to what Petraeus told Congress last week during two days of testimony. Petraeus said there had been progress in Iraq and that the U.S. should not withdraw troops early because "we have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there."
But McCaffrey, who visits Iraq annually, said that although the U.S. military is battle-hardened, the force has been stretched too far. Too many units are on their fourth or fifth combat deployment, he said.
And recruiting has become so difficult, he said, that about 10 percent of the fighting force should not be in uniform.
"The Army is too small," said McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Infantry Division in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. "This thing has run up against the edge.
"The American people don't support this war," he said. "They think it's been mismanaged."
His statements echoed a similar message he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 2, a week before Petraeus delivered his latest assessment of the progress of the war.
McCaffrey, who retired as a four-star general, said Petraeus has done all that he can tactically on the ground, but it is the political will and military capability of the Iraqis that is the problem.
McCaffrey also said the next president has to be leery of too much tough talk directed at Iran. Though that nation is clearly trying to develop nuclear weapons, McCaffrey said, the solution to the issue has to come through dialogue with Iran.
"We don't want to threaten Iran militarily," said McCaffrey, who now runs his own consulting firm and is a military affairs analyst for NBC. "One of the things the next president has to do is to get in there and talk to them."
The United States must try to build a coalition to confront Iran, including Sunni Arab nations that would be threatened by a nuclear Iran, he said. That includes countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
He said the next president must try to wait out the Iranians, using economic and political tools, not the military.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080417/NEWS/804170388/1661/BREAKING01
>>>"Where is the outrage??" That's the question isn't it? The American public has gotten to like the taste of eating shit.<<<
And they've gotten used to being told that outrage about anything related to the WOT is unpatriotic so they choose to be patriotic and just shut up. Then there's the 30% morons who still think Iraq took down the twin towers. Everything goes for them.......including Iraq hoarding oil money in US banks while we're going broke baby sitting and rebuilding. Try to imagine a democrat being in charge of this fiasco. Large crowds would have marched on Washington for years by now.
>>>Democrats want to go back to the Clinton era when we view terrorism as a law enforcement action.<<<
You're saying the success in Iraq proves that fighting terrorism is a mission for the military?
Who's the one on the right? Some may take issue with her political judgement but who can fault her for dress code?
Sounds like you're in the mood for more joy so here:
Just out:
AP: Cheney Approved Harsh Interrogations
Senior Intel Officials Say Controversial Techniques OKd At Top-Level White House Meetings
"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."
The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."
The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.
Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.
The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/national/main4008207.shtml
Amazing. John Ashcroft emerges as the only true american and the only voice of reason in this administration. I'd never have guessed but credit where it's due.
Well said and here's proof of how it works:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28391359
I'll give you that much.......the scum you hang with don't bother much hiding their real agenda.
>>>No one can take away what I have,<<<
Some already have and you didn't even notice. Next time you go overseas, will you proudly announce or display your US citizenship?
>>>Well, you've forgotten that Bush will be gone and that the choice is between billary obama and nccain<<<
I know what the choices are and I also have a pretty good idea of who the author of the piece you shared with us think would be the best choice. Hence my response.
>>>The Obama staff does not trust their candidate to speak off the cuff, they try to limit him to prepared speeches. As a result, McCain is getting some free press he wouldn't otherwise have.<<<
He sure is......some of it while speaking off the cuff too. This one will be back this fall you can be sure:
>>>The glamour of Obama may be hard to resist, but could it get the country into trouble if he wins the presidency?<<<
Excellent point ed. Why risk the present glory for possible TROUBLE...?
Leave hillary alone. She told the truth!
What's your point? There are no people in red states that choose not to work? Only in blue states?
>>>Federal spending per state is more a reflection of social security benefits, federal employment, presence of military<<<
If that were the case why are California, Arizona and Florida among the most self sufficient states? Heavy retirement populations and large military presence in all three.
Also.......
The Red State welfare program, also known as the farm subsidy system, showers most of its tax dollars on the richest farmers, often people with no dirt under their fingernails, at the expense of everybody else trying to work the land. Like urban welfare before reform, agriculture subsidies reward those who can work the system -- farming the government, as they call it around the diner.
And when you dare ask about the farmer in Colorado who received more than $2 million in handouts, or all those absentee landowners collecting their $150,000 government checks in gilded urban ZIP codes, the reaction is: it's none of your business.
Thus, the American Farm Bureau, which represents some of the biggest corporate welfare recipients, is terrified that a motley mix of peasants are now at the door with pitchforks. On their Web page, the bureau warns members that ''forces outside of agriculture'' are demanding change. The audacity! The farm bureau's attitude to the taxpayer is: just write the check and shut up.
http://www.ewg.org/node/21934
>>>I am also not bound to any social programs that rely on government to decide my life for me.<<<
Which makes you a statistical anomaly.......if you're telling the truth that is.
Surprisingly, the "value conscious" Red States -- you know, the folks preaching independence and self reliance -- are the biggest hogs at the federal trough.
"The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States."
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_states_feed.html
>>>I don't know the answer to this worldwide phenomenon, but doubt that the answer is a secular one.<<<
Probably not the full answer but may be part of it. Prosperous couples don't care to bring children to a society dominated by children neglected by parents who can't afford them. I don't recall massacres with assault weapons, drug deals and rapes being regular occurrences in public and private schools 10-15 years ago. Something has changed.
>>>For crying out loud, the Democrats arent aware that propaganda is available to them? It's all they have. If it wasn't for propaganda, Obama would be just staring into the camera motionless. Get real.<<<
Read what I said again. The gist of it is that they don't know how to use it. Too timid and too polite so they do what democrats do best: They lecture - tactfully and tastefully - and bore people to death. Meanwhile, republicans use propaganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud and americans soak it up with a bucket of pop corn and a beer in hand.
Look at how the dems handled the Obama uproar. They've allowed a week's worth of non-stop reruns of the pastor screaming while not with a single word mentioning McCain's love fest at Jerry Falwell's Liberty university of hatred. You can argue about the differences but that's beside the point which is that they didn't even bother to divert some attention with a legitimate parallel.
>>>The propaganda machine is difficult to overcome too...<<<
Well......what's missing is that the dems don't seem to realize that propaganda is available for them too. Or they realize it but choose not to use it while the right chooses it as their only campaign tool. As well they should since it works.
Considering the republican score card for the past 7 1/2 years any democratic candidate should hold a 20 point lead over any republican candidate at this point. But they're not. Instead, according to fresh polls out today, McCain leads both Clinton and Obama by 4-6 points. Which means a good chunk of people who don't want another day of the war are lining up behind a candidate who promises 100 more years of it. Go figure....
>>>Politically, I don't see how he overcomes this<<<
I agree. John Kerry can tell him all about the odds of beating back charges of being a poor patriot. Politicians can trash individuals and organizations almost without consequence but don't even touch anything that suggests America isn't perfect. A lot of voters can't handle it and revolt. Republicans know it and know how to exploit it while democrats have no clue. If they did they may have pointed out that McCain had a close relationship with Jerry Falwell who among other things said this:
“The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”
“If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being”
“Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America”
“Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions”
“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jerry_falwell/
>>>If you ask the average American on the street what issue is most pressing for this nation, most will tell you it is the war in Iraq. That is just how poorly informed Americans are.<<<
looks like you're the one who's uninformed. The economy tops iraq 2 to 1.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
McCain unplugged.
>>>Are you saying you'd feel more confident having Billary or Obama handle a crisis?<<<
I'm saying that "foreign policy experience" is worthless if you don't understand how to apply it or if you're too steeped in ideology to see straight. Cheney and Rumsfeld have more foreign policy experience than most in Washington and will be remembered for being in charge of the biggest foreign policy fiasco in US history.
>>>but it seems as if an attack were to occur it would bolster his chances as he's vastly more experienced in foreign policy<<<
Right.........almost as experienced as Rumsfeld and Cheney.
>>>pay with the lives and treasure now or pay it latter in multiples of thousands<<<
That doesn't address my question. I asked you......aren't you bothered in the least by your tax dollars being used towards welfare programs in Iraq? They're hoarding billions from oil revenue and can brag about a budget surplus now while america is falling apart over $110 crude AND the cost of the war.
The fact that this scenario only triggers terror rhetoric from conservatives only proves again that they (including you) are no longer conservatives but scared into submission cowards who abandoned independent thought as of 9/11/2001.
"Iraq is not spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus, U.S. auditors told Congress on Tuesday.
The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/
Bush Intervened For Weaker Smog Rule
March 14, 2008
(AP) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President George W. Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.
They show tense exchanges between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget in the days before the smog air quality standard was announced Wednesday.
Changes directed by the White House were made only hours before the agency issued the regulation. The late activity forced the EPA to delay the announcement for five hours.
"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/tech/main3938100.shtml
>>>it may be that many of us know the cost of war -- one day's toll June 6, 1944 -- 5,100<<<
If you think this fiasco should be held up against WW2 you don't know jack s#it hap. You think it's a noble effort and I think it's fraud, deceit and waste on a scale never seen before in US history. I'm paying for it under duress and you pay for it with a smile on your face......which makes you a fool imo. Here:
Iraq oil revenue soars, creating surplus
But U.S. still investing billions in rebuilding, facing squeeze at home
The Associated Press
updated 6:16 p.m. ET, Tues., March. 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - Iraq is not spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus, U.S. auditors told Congress on Tuesday.
The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices.
"The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. ... One of the questions is who should be paying."
Walker and the other auditors did not give a figure for the likely surplus. U.S. officials contend that Iraq's lack of spending is due primarily to Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently. Two senators have called for an investigation into the matter.
Democrats say the assessment is proof that the Iraq war as a waste of time and money. The U.S. has spent more than $45 billion on rebuilding Iraq. And while officials in Iraq contend that much progress is being made, many projects remain unfinished and U.S. troops are still needed to provide security.
"They ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own costs and not keep sending the bill to the United States," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.
In recent months, Iraq experienced its highest oil production and export levels since the war began five years ago, said Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
That spike in revenue combined with the highest oil prices in history, "coalesce into an enormous revenue windfall for the Iraqi government," Bowen told the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Whereas Iraqi officials estimated $35 billion in oil revenues last fall, Bowen said the final number is likely to be closer to $60 billion.
"That certainly gives them resources to carry forward with an extensive reconstruction plan," Bowen said.
But according to other U.S. officials, a major problem is that Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials.
"I think they are beginning to do more," particularly in improving its military and buying new weapon systems, said Claude Kicklighter, the Pentagon's inspector general. "And I think that's certainly the trend that we should be following."
'U.S. taxpayer money is involved'
The Government Accountability Office estimates that the U.S. has designated $6 billion to rebuild Iraq's energy sector and $300 million to develop Iraq's government ministries. But GAO contends that the U.S. does not have a strategic plan on how to accomplish either goal.
The State Department told investigators it believes the Iraqis should be responsible for devising such a plan. GAO disagreed.
"In our view, it's a shared responsibility. U.S. taxpayer money is involved," Walker said.
Last week, Sens. Carl Levin, a Democrat, and John Warner, a Republican, asked GAO to investigate what Iraq is doing with its oil revenue. The senators estimated that Iraq will realize "at least $100 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/
See? So called liberals as opposed to conservatives are asking the obvious questions here......like, why should US taxpayers, on their knees from $110 crude, write welfare checks to oil rich arabs? And what's the definition of today's conservative anyway.....except stupid and scared?
Support For Iraq War Highest Since 2006
"American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
Almost half of registered voters now believe it is “very likely” that McCain would be an “effective commander in chief,” according to CBS polling. Less than one-quarter said the same of Obama and Clinton.
In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” - 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/politico/main3933699.shtml
So the media stops reporting on Iraq and in an instant.........the average moron american thinks the war is a success and despised, dinosaur conservatives are heroes again. How the hell can you have a constructive election in an environment like this?
(These two stories were reported the same day, by the same source but not together and only the pro-war piece made the front page.)
Iraq Fades From View For Many Americans
Poll Shows Only 28 Percent Know That Nearly 4,000 U.S. Troops Have Been Killed
(AP) Fewer people know how many U.S. troops have died in the war in Iraq, even as public attention to the conflict has gradually diminished, a poll showed Wednesday.
Only 28 percent correctly said that about 4,000 Americans have died in the war, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
That's down from last August, when 54 percent gave the accurate casualty figure, which was about 3,500 dead at the time. In previous Pew surveys dating to 2004, about half have correctly given the rough figure for the approximate number of deaths at the time.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/national/main3933818.shtml
>>>where are disgusted Obama types going?" - There is a danger they will stay home.<<<
That's possible......until they start thinking about how it'll play into the hands of McBush. I think 4 more years of Bush politics is completely unimaginable to most Obama voters.
>>>Clinton just signed the bills...He was pulled kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform.<<<
Isn't that simplifying over the edge?
"Clinton, once elected, worked with a Republican congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable. The stage was already set by 1996. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform
>>>Thinking people might question who they aren't willing to throw under the bus to return to power.<<<
I agree. The whole Clinton campaign.....top-brass, surrogates and all are showing an ugly side that's caught a lot of democrats off guard, especially those who don't follow politics between elections. May not matter though. If she wins, where are disgusted Obama types going? To McCain?
>>>I am not a republican- or Bush fan.<<<
Got me fooled.
>>>Her actions were clearly meant to stimulate the racism in this country and garner the votes of those backward people<<<
Maybe so but how smart was that on the day of the MS primary? See what happened?
>>>So you're Ok voting for a candidate that preys on racism of the lowest type to get elected? I guess integrity and ethics don't enter into your voting equation<<<
So tell us eddy.......how many black congressmen and senators in the party you side with? I come up with ZERO republicans and 39 democrats. And you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress
Maybe there are better subjects for a die hard right wing apologist like yourself than race, ethics and integrity?
>>>What's wrong with comedy?<<<
Not enough of it but is repeated mechanical laughter at political commentary you just made "comedy"? If he was really that funny, wouldn't his show still be aired or wouldn't he have a new gig as a comedian? Like I said, I don't even think he aims at being funny......he just uses laughter to highlight what he just said which obviously doesn't work for the broader audience. Plenty of places to go for genuine political comedy/satire.
>>>No, not at all. He laughs at himself, too.<<<
Maybe so but it's phony. He uses phony laughter as a communication tool.....to put his own brand of emphasis on points he's making. For someone who doesn't like phony anything, it gets a bit too much. He's articulate and smart enough to make good arguments without theatrics so why all this bogus comedy?