molson_golden2002

http://zfacts.com/p/87.html How about you show me where Bush said it was going to be a long bloody struggle to set up a democracy in Iraq. You can't do that. No, no! Where would I get the impression this administration said it would be a short conflict? Where? Bush, 5/2005. "Good news to the men and women who fought ... their mission is complete." Bush: Mission Accomplished May 1, 2003 George W. Bush "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Under the banner "Mission Accomplished." Presidential Documents Rumsfeld: WMD? We know where they are. Baghdad; east, west, south & north. Mar. 30, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (more) Wolfowitz: A country that can really finance its own reconstruction Mar. 27, 2003 Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” (more) Perle: days or weeks -- this will be a short war Mar. 25, 2003 Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by historical standards, this will be a short war. (more) Cheney: In weeks rather than months Mar. 16, 2003 Dick Cheney "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months." --on NBC's Meet the Press Rumsfeld: I Doubt Six Months Feb. 7, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: (more) Rumsfeld: Under $50 billion Jan. 10, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.” Rumsfeld: Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer Nov. 15, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." (more) Adelman: Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk Feb. 13, 2002 Ken Adelman "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” - Washington Post Ledeen: Just wage total war -- Children will sing great songs about us Oct. 29, 2001 Michael Leeden, American Enterprise Institute, research fellow "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Seems like 'delusional' applies to more than just those running the war. These were the people who led the invasion. You are just sticking your head in the sand again. Get over your emotions and actually think. BTW, I think I know why Tommy Franks got out while the getting was good. _____________________________________________________ The August 2002 material was obtained by the National Security Archive (NSA). Its officials said the plans were based on delusional assumptions. The US currently has some 132,000 troops in the violence-torn state. 'Completely unrealistic' The documents - in the former of PowerPoint slides - were prepared by the now-retired Gen Tommy Franks and other top commanders at the time. The documents were presented at a briefing in August 2002 - less than a year before the US invasion of Iraq in April 2003. The commanders predicted that after the fighting was over there would be a two- to three-month "stabilisation" phase, followed by an 18- to 24-month "recovery" stage. They projected that the US forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq at the end of the "transition" phase - within 45 months of invasion. "Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," NSA executive director Thomas Blanton said in a statement posted on the organisation's website. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere months'," Mr Blanton said. "All of these were delusions," he added. The NSA said it received the documents last month, after making a request in 2004. The NSA is an independent research institute at George Washington University. It obtained the papers under the Freedom of Information Act. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm Published: 2007/02/15 12:41:14 GMT

This is a joke right? You are seriously arguing that the Bush administration didn't make this sound easy? Cheney said on Meet the Press it would take weeks instead of months, that we would be welcomed as liberators. Please show me where Bush or anyone else in his administration said this was going to be a long hard bloody struggle to set up a stable government there before the war started. And your take on 'Mission Accomplished' is just plain wrong. They were having a !@#$ celebration, clueless to what was going on. You declare 'Mission Accomplished when you "know" its going to take years to stablize a country? You can blame the media all you want, but what you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand.

You know what is really stupid? Just showing up like an idiotic troll and tossing out childish insults. Just ask yourself one question: Do YOU have anything to contribute to the discussion? Being a troll is being stupid.

Well, you made the question open ended so don't criticize me when I use an open ended approach to answer. But ok, how about a consumption tax on energy that will be spent on developing alternative energy? Short term it might not help economy but long term it might. That better?

He just feels that Iran is behind all this: WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders. More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is the need to protect American forces against the new weapons and technology, including sophisticated new roadside bombs. "I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush Insanity personified.

Ah! But the point is, what connection? The point of my originally post was that there was a basic claim, and a very, very serious one that the Iranian leaders were basically killing American GIs. Right? The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that that was not clear and probably untrue, yet the media ran with the story before that. I think what you are saying--forgive if I am wrong--is "who cares? They are bad guys in Iran!" I say, let's have all the truth before we accuse people and then go to war. Isn't that where this is leading with this? Bombing Iran?

I think that's rather unfair of you to assume what I am thinking. Is that a fair criticism?

Ok, fine, I'm as nice as apple pie from now on. No name calling, I'll show patience and understanding.

So?

Don't worry, I won't! If people think bad of me because I disagree with their idiotic opinions that says more about them than me.

Oh boy, back to media bashing again. Could it be the media was simply repeating the "cakewalk," "Oil will pay for the war," "Weeks rather than moths," "mission accomplished" mantra the Bush administrtion was feeding it? And your 5-8 years time frame is complete fantasy. There is a sectarian war(s) going on, there is massive corruption and many other factors dividing that 'nation' and they are not going to get a national army together anytime soon and probably not ever. The middle class has fled the country. You know what that means? No technichans, no administratiors, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, managers etc. Try running a country without those people. We can keep our people there until kingdom come and that place will still be a sh--hole

That's such an open ended question. Alexander Hamilton's financial plan raised taxes to build the original infrastructure, fund a national bank and get the country's finances on a good footing so other nations would invest in it. It very much created economic growth. Or, during World War Two when taxes were sky high, but everyone had a job, saved up money and after the war spent it on consumer goods which created one of the biggest economic booms in history.

The big problem with your post is that people ARE arguing against my positions. If you have been following along you would see that. Why should I change my MO to make someone like you happy?

1) Whether or not we are there for the oil, it is a propaganda point we should have taken into consideration before invading, namely that it would be the dominate perception of why we are there. 2) I have to guess at what your point is here. You are saying Iran is behind this? Or is supplying the arms or something? Can't disagree that might be happening, but they have been fighting there for a very long time and the hate runs deep. More to the point, what does that have to do with the super secret media briefing--ya, that sort of doesn't make sense, super secret media briefing?--that was given one day, directly linking Iranian leadership to killing American GIs, which was splashed all over the 'Liberal' media, only to have the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that that was not true?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251712,00.html It was headline news! I guess the White House got the media message they wanted, the truth be damned! JAKARTA, Indonesia — The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday the discovery that roadside bombs in Iraq contained material made in Iran does not necessarily mean the Iranian government was involved in supplying insurgents. The comments by Gen.Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called into question assertions by three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad on Sunday who said the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 troops in the U.S.-led coalition. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday he was confident the weaponry was coming with the approval of the Iranian government. Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, that U.S. forces hunting militant networks in Iraq that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and some of the materials used in the devices were made in Iran. "That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace said. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

Sometimes you make sense and then there are times like this. Totally ignorant BS. Never think I'm anywhere near as stupid as you, that would be a mistake. I never said anything that would lead you to this conclusion. Just like others on this board you emotionally feel your way to a conclusion. Boycotts are fine with me. I have never said otherwise.

But then you did waste some time. And wasted it badly, too. No one is cheering for failure, I am just pointing out failure and calling it what it is, namely, failure. Two days into the invasion someone in the media asked Tommy Franks if it was Vietnam yet? The Conservatives blew a fuse. TWO DAYS!! But really so many of us understood what was taking place and what was going to happen that the question of course made sense. You don't invade suicide bomber land if you don't have to. The mob of ignorant garbage that cheered this adventure on and now refuses to see it for what it is simply wants to avoid reality. I have to admit that I am amazed that telling the truth, backing it up with proof and not backing down causes so many irrational posts like yours. Because I show whats going on "I'm cheering for failure." In reality--oh mean old Mr. Reality!!-you are cheering for illusion, for what you wish was happening instead, for unreality, grasping at straws and cursing the world for not giving you what you think should be right.

http://research.lawyers.com/Article-One-of...nstitution.html

Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. So was all the hatemail threatening their lives

I knew the Senate was part of the Cogress, unlike you. And I knew that you don't invade suicide bomber land, just like Bush's dad knew. I also saw that Colin Powell's BS UN address was a joke, ya, drone aircraft will come and get us. Forged documents on Niger Yellow Cake were a tip off. People telling me, "Well they attacked us on 9-11" was somewhat dishartening, since Saddam wasn't behind it. Ya, I knew better. Not going to appologize was knowing better. May I also suggest a United States Government class at a local college so you can learn how the government is set up? Might help you a bit.

LOL, now where do I do with this post? Let me start by saying your ignorance concering how our country went to war is beyond belief. So here: 'The entire Congress?' BTW, the Senate is part of Congress. I mean how ignorant are you? Try again. And the whole point of my post you ingrate was that the Intelligence community did not get it wrong. The White House simply dismissed them and set up their own 'Intelligence' committee and reached their own findings--surprise, surprise--that the CIA said was wrong. Some would call that lying. You just want to say they made a tiny little mistake, but that's ok.

So basically, "stop picking on my lying President!" No, you need to grow up. When politicians !@#$ up this bad they need to be held accountable. And when people like you love them so much, hate criticism of them so much, you need what hurts the most, the truth. And the Iran briefing was a joke, a total joke, but you wouldn't even consider to question it becuase. Just because, that's all. If Bush told you his sh-- was chocolate you would eat it and compliment him on how sweet it was. You were born done

So your trying to say that a guy denying he is running for President 3 years ago is more important than a guy being a flaming racist, with lots of evidence to back it up?

It is new, the IG report came out thursday.