Previous post
‘we can’t win. we’ve already lost.’
it’s been two years since the craven harry reid surrendered to al-qaeda, announcing of iraq, ‘this war is lost.’
this is how losers talk.
on the flipside, that means it’s also been two years since we told harry reid that he was quite wrong.
we haven’t lost in iraq, senator reid, despite your best efforts to deprive iraq and america’s troops of victory when it was almost within their grasp.
winning sometimes feels – in the early stages – like scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life. i’ve read that’s always how it feels in wartime before victory comes.
did you think it would be easy dingy harry when you voted to authorize the iraq war?
did you imagine that america would win a war against a vicious, determined enemy without any real loss of life, without enough funding to put a dent in the budget, and without any real inconvenience to anyone?
a wise leader, and a wise nation, is prepared and does not flinch from their duty because it’s hard. the blood of every american soldier who ever died on the battlefield, and those that loved them, cry out that winning a war is not always easy.
in iraq, we are fight terrorists who are evil enough to booby-trap children’s toys with shrapnel, saw off men’s heads to place them in fruit boxes around town, and blow up people standing in line for jobs.
and you, senator reid, would have let them win.
in fact, you wanted to make sure they won — by abandoning the battlefield.
no apologies; no ‘i was wrong.’
two years later to see you, a spineless jellyfish, still in power today truly amazes me. where are the thinking democrats? the ones with integrity? why have you allowed this disgrace to speak for you? is there not even one of you left to remove this shameful man?
orion says: Don’t hold your breath.
The left is incapable of integrity. To expect them to police themselves is absolutely not going to happen. They would rather hold onto power. They would rather not ruffle feathers. They hated GWB so much they even compromised the safety of our military by refusing their needs and minimizing their accomplishments.
If there are any leftists with integrity left, they aren’t “leftists” anymore.
BikerDan says: Harry Reid is a disgrace. Is there one “thinking” liberal reading this that can tell me why you like him?
PenniePan says: Really this is riculous: a faux incrimination. In fact it makes you all look pathetic for bringing it up.
Senator Reid was absolutely right, given the information he had, he did not know that Bush was implementing a second strategy (alongside the surge) of paying off militia leaders – that’s what really brought “success” in Iraq, and the country is still racked by car bombings and death.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge/print
Hardly what I would call “mission accomplished.” Remember that little banner situation on the aircraft carrier? Nobody fired him did they?
Roll back the clock to Dec. 8, 1941 and Reid would have said the same thing about fighting the Japanese. Nothing new about libs to be seen here. In fact, you’ll be able to write this same story 20 years from now about some other Dem/lib Congresscritter who’d rather blame America first than have a spine.
micky says: Typical.
The ole “mission accomplished” banner crap is just about as right on as Harry Reid was when he said the war is lost.
Nobody fired him because they were too intelligent to know that first..
The banner was the ships captains idea along with the crews family members and had been ok’d by the pentagon long before anyone even knew Bush would be on that ship. Upon arriving Bush had the idea to stand in front of it.
One White house official stated that in retrospect it wasnt such a good idea to have Bush standing in front of the baner because of exactly whats coming out moonbats mouths now.
Second, b y standing in front of the banner the implication given was that major battle operations has succeeded in taking down the Iraqi government and Saddam along with his sons had been ousted.
Only an idiot would construe the whole thing as saying that thew war was over.
Theres difference that anyone in the military and most latmaen know and the difference is the one between a “MISSION” and “THE WAR ITSELF”.
Really, you want us to believe a biased source from the “Rolling stone ” ?
The surge was a success based on many factors that came together at the same time and not just “payoffs”.
I will gladly supply you with all those factors if you would so care to educate yourself.
Remeber, Reid is the same schmuck who wanted illegal aliens to be called “undocumented citizens”. If that doesnt paint a picture of a suurrendering woosy then I dont know what does
micky says: wow, sorry bout the typos, rushin out the door
Jing says: May I say some of us really like Senator Reid even more so since he annoys all of you so much. Go Harry!
PickChi says: It’s patently absurb your assumption that Reid is spineless. You have completely taken him out of context and besmirched his reputation. His context was in the operation of the war and how badly it was going because it was rudderless. His context was also the lawlessness of the growing insurgency coupled with the deep loss of American soldiers and Iraqis. His context was finally because of the cost of the war. Someone had to be the conscience of the horrific was since Bushy was going full steam ahead with no plan for victory.
PickChi says: “horrific was” should say horrific war
micky says: Pickchi.
Whatever his context may of been, he was wrong.
To say the war “is lost” is different from saying we are loosing it due the factors you mentioned.
I might add that at no time did I think we were loosing that war either.
What most people were no exposed, thanks to our bi partisan, media was the many successes that were taking place everyday in Iraq.
Gen Sanchez has an excellent take on this which coincidentally came out right as the surge was being implemented.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/10/15/gen-sanchez-hits-biased-agenda-driven-coverage-iraq-war
Along with eye witness acounts from our troops and a little research any fool could see just how far up his a$$ Harrys head was. Did we go in on the skinney ? Yea ! Did we lose Rummy and fix it ? Yea !
Were we ever loosing ? No way.
Marsha says: Oh Harry Reid… he looks like the grumpiest, most unhappy man alive! I mean we Republicans have a few, but NONE like Harry Reid thank G-D. Have you ever seen this youtube of Dennis Miller on Harry Reid? I just saw it on another blog. It is terrific!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmGO_bTgIf4
Rope says: two years later to see you, a spineless jellyfish, still in power today truly amazes me. where are the thinking democrats? the ones with integrity? why have you allowed this disgrace to speak for you? is there not even one of you left to remove this shameful man?
Kate, Jing answered you:May I say some of us really like Senator Reid even more so since he annoys all of you so much. Go Harry!
Amazing isn’t it.
Pat says: You may not want to go have a beer with him but Harry Reid is a very effective senator.
He has been known in the senate as a consensus builder and was quite well liked by both sides until Bush. He has worked hard on doing environmental cleanup in Nevada and other areas of the west for years. Just under the ARRA alone, he is bringing 1.5 billion to his state.
His statement about the war being lost was indeed misinterpreted and was actually instrumental in kicking Bush in the ass to do something there. He should be thanked instead of ridiculed but that’s too much to ask on a blog like this.
micky says: I find it very suspicious that within the stimulus Harry was getting funding for a high speed rail from Vegas to Disneyland and now Obama is saying we need a nationwide mass transit system on rail.
Harry motivated Bush to do something ?
I’m glad thats just an opinion. I’d rather think that Bush saw that the lack of boots on the ground was why were loosing so many troops.
If thats the case then why would Reid and the congress vote no on sending the additional troops required for the surge ?
I dont care how mean it sounds.
Deep down inside liberals wished for more troops to died so they could somehow use that as means to prove their position.
Pulling out, leaving Iraq to the wolves would not of bothered liberals in the least that it meant our troops will of died in vane. If just one soldier dies that war must be fought until victory is achieved or it will of all been for nothing.
Shame on Harry Reid.
Yea Rope, who cares if its good for the country or not.
The main thing is that it ticks off conservatives.
Amazing, these people are allowed to vote.
Pat says: “I dont care how mean it sounds.
Deep down inside liberals wished for more troops to died so they could somehow use that as means to prove their position.”
Mickey. What a sanctimonious SOB you are. As if you as a conservative have the corner on compassion, life or death, and right from wrong? What a freak you are. What a phoney, arrogant, jerk you are.
You excorriate people here. You shred them as if they mean nothing to you and have no value whatsoever simply because they disagree with you politically. You treat them like a cigarette butt to be stepped on. I laugh when I read you talk about pro life issues. You can’t even treat the liberals in this room decently much less care about their wellbeing. Prolife? LMFAO.
Nobody be it liberal or conservative wants someone’s kid to be killed in war. My God. And if there are some that actually do, that number is miniscule and really its a serious mental thing not a strategic political issue.
Good God Micky. Do you have no self control over the things you write?? You need to take that back and apologize to this room. YOU are the craven one.
micky says: Yea, I have pretty good managment of my facilities Pat.
It only makes sense to me after hearing 7 years of all the crap from the left that in order for some of you to relish in the failure of Bush they would first need more deaths on the battle field. I dont doubt it for a second
I will not apologize to the millions of liberals who have done more than any generation in the history of our country to demean demoralize and endanger our troops than any other before them. Your papers reveal security secrets, you vote no on funding, you offered support to the enemy and their allies.
Theres a good part of your majority that would rather see Bush fail even if it meant soldiers dying in order to convey that sentiment.
If anyone should apologize it should be the liberals who voted no on funding for our troops so they could have the equipment that would save their lives.
If anyone should apologize it should be Harry Reid.
Can you imagine how our soldiers must of felt the day they heard that crap coming from Harrys mouth ?
And thens theres the lie you all propelled, still do. The ever so fake “we support the troops”
Yea right.
You dont support anything about this war from the ethical motivation to the moral implications and all across the spectrum of the entities that make it what it is.
“But we support the troops”
Not once did I hear any of you say you wanted them to win and build Iraq to the flourishing democracy that it is today, not once.
I believe there is a certain amount of vindication within the liberal ranks everytime a soldier dies.
Period.
>>micky said: Deep down inside liberals wished for more troops to die so they could somehow use that as means to prove their position.
Why else kept a running total of how many had died like so many lib pols sites and blogs did? The overwhelming majority I read keep looking forward to a specific number of dead (1000, then 1500, then 2000, etc…) as earmarks hoping that would somehow trigger a response from USA citizens to throw up their hands and give up. So to say they wanted soldiers to die in order to try and gain political points is completely accurate, all other explanations fall flat upon examination.
And not a surprise, but the amount of comments on lib pol sites and blogs regarding the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the TV coverage of these two theaters by the MSM since the Bower-in-Chief was sworn in, have become virtually non-existent. These wars are all OK now as evidenced by the “I trust our Dear Leader” comments from the same libs who were all against it not long ago and who may lie and claim they still are just to save face. Unfortunately in this coutry, we have a Zombie Leader and even if he were to go away we’d still have to deal with his cult followers.
Liberals are liberals first. I’d even go further and say that liberals are liberals first, second, third, fourth, all the way to pretty much infinity. What’s best for the country, or groups, or the family, or individuals has always and will always take a backseat to what advances their political ideology. Observing their words compared to their actions gives them away and is all you need to do to see they’re hypocrites. And saying it is not being mean, it’s not even close to being mean, it’s just plain true.
pickchi i disagree. i think harry reid was being as political as possible and it was directed at president bush. the troops in the field and their morale was expendable if president bush and the political will for the war was wounded even more. it was a constant drumbeat for reid and his cronies and you know it.
rope yep. harry reid is just vile and that is an amazingly hateful reason to support him.
micky ‘Deep down inside liberals wished for more troops to died…’
i don’t think that’s true about liberals. i actually have many liberal friends who weep when we weep about our losses in iraq and afghanistan. but i DO think its true for the unhinged far leftist crowd who is so full of hate that life – anyone’s – means nothing. i think there is a definate distinction.
pat no namecalling or personal attacks period. say what you need to say without becoming personal here.
Jimbo says: Why would anyone say that liberals wish for the death of American soldiers? Because that is basically the genesis behind the comments above. Let me say how cruel a comment that is:
My little brother died in Vietnam in ’69. He will forever be 18. He had only been in country 3 weeks. I was a tank commander in Vietnam at the time of his death serving in another company. I escorted his body home.
I am liberal and always have been. My whole family are Democrats and Northeast liberals for several generations. I am a member of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club and participated in the annual Rolling Thunder parade of motorcycles to Arlington for 10 years now. The idea of being glad for an American’s death, much less a military death for political scores isn’t even in my data base. You are inflaming something personal for political bashing.
I hope you re-think yourselves.
On another note, I came in here to read about the article on the President’s healthcare for wounded vets. Thanks for the care you gave the subject. I’m finished.
micky says: In all fairness I’ll rephrase that comment because I to do not believe “ALL” liberals are of that mindset.
But I will say that I’ve come to believe that a good part of them do feel that way.
For those of you who are sincere I’ll apologize to you. But to the others, (you know who you are) I will not apologze.
Teds statement only reafirms what I feel in that for many liberals every dead soldier represented another “Bush failure” which is exactly what a lot of these morons would rather see than victory for our troops.
Those of you on this blog who are liberals are the ones that need to address those in your party who cant seem to distinguish between winning a war (whether you agree with it or not) and the lives of our soldiers, Iraqis, Americans and their ideological bigotry thats gone to hateful extremes.
You can deny that you’re the party of hate and I’ll assume you will because your warped interpretations always seem to somehow justify the violence and anarchy you commit in just about every liberal protest rally theres been but the stats and the numbers make it clear thats exactly what you are.
In all of the thousands of tea parties across the nation last week there was not one “NOT ONE” ! episode of violence.
I cant say that for even the last 3 or 4 liberal protests that have resulted in churchs being vandalized, old ladys being assaulted, property being destroyed etc…so it comes as no surprise to me that I feel many of you carry the same justification for your feeling that a dead soldier marks success for you in that its a failure for Bush.
Jane says: ‘Why would anyone say that liberals wish for the death of American soldiers? Because that is basically the genesis behind the comments above’
Because that is the way it is around here Jimbo. You can’t talk sense into them. Sorry about your brother hon. Even though it’s been a long time. My dad died when I was 3 and I have no real memories of him, just made up ones. So I know the pain never goes away.
Ken says: Only the neo-socialists can say the phrase “We can’t win. We’ve already lost.” is take out of context. How is that taken out of context? He said “WE CAN’T WIN”, and we are currently winning.
It’s absolutely laughable that Reid’s statement put pressure on Bush to change his plans. Bush’s generals did that. It is an absolute testimonial about how deluded the left is.
Don’t think the dems wanted us to lose the war? Check out this quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said.”
Get that? “THEN IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR US”, just in case you missed it. I have no problem believing that the dems wanted us to fail in Iraq because, as you’ve just read, a victory would be a problem for them. Now, this is not to say that they wished for the deaths of U.S. military, because I don’t believe that.
PenniePan, that was an interesting article you posted. Now I have one for you.
“Barack Obama said the surge of American forces in Iraq has “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,” though Iraqis still haven’t done enough to take responsibility for their country.”
Succeeded beyond our wildest dreams? Not according to your article Pennie. So was Obama lying or did he get some bad intelligence???
Not to mention, if you’re going to use an author that appears in Rolling Stone, you might want to research him.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/
Frankly I don’t believe a man who has helped the Taliban with propaganda as well as sneak through government checkpoints with them, considering their goal is to kill U.S. soldiers. Is that still ok with the dems, or is it different now that Obama’s in charge???
Unreal. You really do make it easy.
Ken says: “You can’t talk sense into them.”
I know exactly how you feel Jane.
‘for many liberals every dead soldier represented another “Bush failure”’
micky i agree. there is a hate group that disconnects real lives (brothers, sons, daughters, fathers) from the stat that shouts ‘bush lied people died’.
‘Because that is the way it is around here Jimbo. You can’t talk sense into them.’
jane don’t make me laugh.
lisab says: “It’s patently absurb your assumption that Reid is spineless. You have completely taken him out of context and besmirched his reputation. ”
yeah … you are taking him out of context …
back when bush was president every dead usa soldier was a good thing … now that obama is in charge … we don’t like to talk about it
micky says: Hey soldier.
We all think what you’re doing is wrong.
The war you’re fighting is all a lie.
The people there dont want you.
You’re occupying a sovereign state.
You’re supporting a hegemonious regime.
You’re making things worse.
You’re creating more enemies.
You’re murdering innocent civilians in cold blood.
You’re fighting just for oil.
The man that led the call is an evil idiot liar.
You volunteered to follow that man in that call knowing exactly what you were volunteering for because you saw the same moral and ethical justifications for it.
You’re making us look bad in the eyes of the world.
People hate us because of what you’re doing.
We wont give you the funding to protect yourselves.
We will print articles that make the leaders you fight in the name of look bad
You have lost the war.
You cant win…
But we support you.
———————
PenniePan says: Ken. “Succeeded beyond our wildest dreams? Not according to your article Pennie. So was Obama lying or did he get some bad intelligence???” I don’t believe that article. I believe Barack has been totally consistent with not being overwhelmed by Iraq. He has been guarded at best. At his recent trip I believe he saw progress – finally – after all the money and lost lives.
Mickey. Where did you steal that from? It’s a complete charicature of the left and you know it. Liar. Do you actually think we don’t care about those kids over there? Do NOT accuse me of that. God you are ridiculous, a joke, and a real nut job.
micky says: Charicature of the left my a$$.
You and your merry bunch of deluded freaks have all said those things over the years and any iodiot with half a memory will tell you that.
You mean to tell me that your bunch hasnt made the “blood for oil ” cry, or Murtha didnt say our troops were cold blooded murderers or that Bush was an idiot and a liar or that we werent an occupation and that the Iraqis dont want us there ?
Get real, please.
To deny any of it clearly makes you look like the joke.
These have practically been the call letters for left and any fool knoes that.
Go ahead, try me, I’ll tie each and everyone of those statements to the left, piece o cake.
micky says: By the way, I dont steal anything. Any conservative on this or any blog will tell you that any of us could of written that in our sleep
micky says: “Do you actually think we don’t care about those kids over there? ”
Now you do.
lisab says: “Why would anyone say that liberals wish for the death of American soldiers?”
not liberals … dem toadies.
if you thought invading iraq was a good idea but then changed your mind after we invaded and the dem party decided to leave the iraqis in the lurch to get slaughtered … then you are a dem toady. (of course you now say you were always against the war or say you were lied to by bush).
if you were against the invasion in the beginning, but then once we invaded were determined to see it through even if it cost us a lot of money, political brownie points with other countries and blood … because to leave would mean up to a million innocent iraqis would be slaughtered in the ensuing civil war … you are a probably liberal.
liberals don’t do what is politically popular they have principles. if you were insistent that bush leave iraq in 2007 but now are ok with obama being in iraq … you are a hypocrite.
“I don’t believe that article.”
Oh really, why? Is it because it blows your argument out of the water? I think so. Once again the left is in action. The article “doesn’t exist” because they don’t agree with it. I never thought that kind of ignorance and hypocrisy existed, yet its on display here. So are you saying Obama never said that?
Keep quoting America hating journalists and shut your eyes and ears to things you don’t agree with Pennie. Your’re the textbook definition of the modern liberal.
“Do you actually think we don’t care about those kids over there?”
Yes. Any other questions?
Rope says: Penni said> I don’t believe that article. I believe Barack has been totally consistent with not being overwhelmed by Iraq. He has been guarded at best. At his recent trip I believe he saw progress – finally – after all the money and lost lives.
Progress finally, oh please. That would be like me kissing the baby after someone else changed his dirty diaper and saying good job Rope.
PenniePan says: “So are you saying Obama never said that?”
Ken I think he was misrepresented in that article. Wasn’t Shrub frequently misrepresented?? At least that’s what all the righties said. I thjink Barack is very anti war and very anti Iraq/Afghanistan but sees he must deal with it to end it since Shrub didn’t.
Nice attempt at drudging up Bush again, but it didn’t work. If you are saying that Obama never said that, then post a link to prove it. Certainly if Obama was misquoted on something as important as the surge in Iraq I’m sure there would be a sea of denials and articles on it, right? I look forward to you posting them so I can read them.
“I thjink Barack is very anti war and very anti Iraq/Afghanistan but sees he must deal with it to end it since Shrub didn’t.”
Anti-Afghanistan? First of all, he sent 17,000 troops into Afghanistan, that hardly sounds “anti-” to me. Second, are you saying that he doesn’t believe we should have invaded Afghanistan? What should we have done after 9/11? What would Obama have done after 9/11?
micky says: ” I thjink Barack is very anti war and very anti Iraq/Afghanistan but sees he must deal with it to end it since Shrub didn’t.”
I’m gonna have to give credit to Obama in respect to him retaining almost all of Bushs security policies.
Anti war Liberals were lied to by this man during the campaign by being told everything they wanted to hear. The fact is that many moderate liberals are starting to get a little upset with him and his following through on most of the Bush defense campaigns that were already in place. The bombings in Pakistan were planned with intelligence gathered on Bushs watch way in advance to Obama executing them. He could of pulled the plug on those and he didnt just as he kept renditions in place as well as wiretapping. Code pink, Moveon and many on the far left that were under the impression we would be out of Iraq in 60 days or whatever that ridiculous number was at first are speaking out in protest against him.
Then there’s that sham where he went to Iraq the day after Bush left and the media painted every newspaper with headlines saying how Maliki approved of Obamas withdrawal plans. Little known secret is that the day before Bush and Maliki had already agreed on a withdrawal plan with no set dates but did call it a “time horizon”.
The time horizon is the exact same plan that Obama brags about whiles its actually the same as Bushs just with a different title. At that time, BUSH WAS SETTING POLICY, NOT OBAMA !
The real killer that no one on the left seems to want to bring up is that Obama will still have 50,000 troops remain in Iraq for at least the next 3 years.
He’s not “ant war ” Pennie. Its just that in his naive little world he thinks he can avoid it by means different than that of ours, that’s all.
Obama will not end anything but his presidential run in 2010.
Iraq has been pretty much won as it is and Afghanistan is just one small neighborhood in the GWOT which carry on long after Obama is voted out. The only things left to do in Iraq now is to finish getting Iraqi forces up to speed and complete repairs to the infrastructure, determine how the Iraqis oil revenues will be dispersed and utilized.
Your saying that and the country is still ” racked by car bombings and death” is a gross exaggeration backed by the fact that today you can count on one hand the amount of attacks we’ve had in the last month as opposed to having up to 5 or 10 a day for years.
For those like Pennie who want to minimize the incredible work that’s been done in Iraq and only until now start handing credit for any of it to Obama here’s a list of what Bush and our troops had achieved only as late as 2006, never mind what’s been done since.
For further updates you can go to “Sangs blog” and see just how much the left cant say sh*t when it comes to the accomplishments of the Bush administration.
Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1… 2006
(thats was what the “mission accomplished” banner represented. Only a fool would think he was saying the war was over)
… The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.
… Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.
… Nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.
… The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
.. On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts, exceeding the prewar average.
… All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
… By October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools – 500 more than scheduled.
… Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
… All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
… Doctor’s salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
… Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
… The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.
… A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
… We have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.
… There are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.
… The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.
… 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
… Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
… The central bank is fully independent.
… Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.
… Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
… Satellite TV dishes are legal.
… Foreign journalists aren’t on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and other government spies.
… There is no Ministry of Information.
… There are more than 170 newspapers.
… You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
… Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
… A nation that had not one single element — legislative, judicial or executive — of a representative government now does.
… In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
… Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
… 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.
… The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
… Shiva religious festivals that were all but banned, aren’t anymore.
… For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
… The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
… Uday and Queasy are dead – and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq’s soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
… Children aren’t imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
… Political opponents aren’t imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
… Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
… Saudis will hold municipal elections.
… Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.
… Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
… The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian
— A Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
.. Saddam is gone.
… Iraq is free.
….Terrorists are being drawn to an arena in which our military can kill or capture them
Sovereignty is restored to Iraq”
SUCK ON THAT HARRY REID
Jane says: Nice spamming Micky. Can you say anything without activating your chronic blowhard syndrome?
Where’s the new post btw? Maybe the Obama brown shirts picked up Kate in the middle of the night. Aahahhahahaha.
micky says: Jane.
What is it with you guys whenever you have to read something longer than a pre schoolers attention span you get all upset ?
What you call “blowhard syndrome” is actually whats called making a valid point with truthful sources to back it up. You should try it sometime if you ever want to be taken seriously. If theres anything thats spam on this blog it comes from those like you that just like to post little one liners in their kiddy pi$$ing contests.
New post ? For what ? so you can dazzle us with your irrefutable claims ?
ha.
Jane says: No need to be rude Micky. This is a blog for comments. It isn’t a place for personal manifesto’s. Or am I wrong?
You obviously like the sound of your own voice (words).
That’s fine. I will just scroll over yours because frankly I don’t have time to sit all day long on blogs with long, long rants. I like to just come in and check things and then pop out.
micky says: JANE
What don’t you understand about being on topic and posting stupid insults like yours ?
Tell me, how do get to “personal manifesto” when my post was a substantial rebuttal Harry Reids saying we’ve lost ? HUH ?
Not to be rude but I will anyway.
You’re a hypocrite. You come on here accusing me of doing something that any idiot can see didn’t happen, yet its all that you have done, and that is to drop personal attacks no better than the garbage spam that your intellect will allow you post or understand.
You couldn’t post a coherent argument if your life depended on it so instead all you do is fart around here and there dropping your snide little comments that amount to nothing but half a$$ critiques of sh*t no one cares about that usually make you sound like you dont have a clue what you’re talking about
micky says: “That’s fine. I will just scroll over yours because frankly I don’t have time to sit all day long on blogs with long, long rants. I like to just come in and check things and then pop out.”
Gee, I’ll make sure I have your comfort in mind next time I post something.
I’ll keep it short and sweet so you dont get lost.
>>Jimbo said: Why would anyone say that liberals wish for the death of American soldiers?
Then don’t take it personally if it doesn’t apply to you. But instead, you did. Why did you do that? This “victim card” things gets old.
Now if you were among the plethora of libs who were keeping count of the number of soldiers who were dying, then it does apply to you, because you were hoping to score political points and to change public perception of the GWOT via observing a death count, which is disgusting. One can’t offer enough excuses or explanations to be forgiven of conducting oneself in such an anti-American fashion. The only possible remedy is a statement of “I’m sorry, it was wrong of me to mention the number of deaths and I promise never to do it again regardless of who’s in office,” which would be a first step towards redemption.
No Comments