Bush hits a new low

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Given the behavior of the Democratic Party for the last fifteen straight years, I want them to lose and lose a lot.

Rather amazing how extremists will routinely rewrite history they cannot defend. Let's see. Who tried to subvert the US government? Who attacked other sovereign nations unilaterally and lied about it? Who censored mail TO the troops? Whose adminstration covered up massacres? Whose administration performed illegal wiretapping? Which party attempted to subvert the other by intentionally violating the law? Who used government agencies to undermine and spy on honest American civilians? Who atttempted to subvert the national government of another sovereign nation (Australia)?

That was Nixon. Then we add international kidnapping, imprisonment without judicial review, unrestricted wire tapping, lies about enemies that did not exist, the protection of bin Laden, secret prisons, perverting science for self serving political gains, protecting the 40% high profits on prescription drugs, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of American popularity all over the world, unilateral destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, undermining of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, outright perversion of basic science even concerning global warming (lawyers rewrite the science), protection of top corporate management from prosecution (Enron, Global Crossing, Qwest, Tyco) until all but embarrassed when the states started prosecuting, replacing the Statue of Liberty as a symbol with pictures of Guantanamo, advocating the destructive of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, instability everywhere in the Middle East like never before seen in history, making even Castro popular again, suspension of Habeas Corpus, contempt for the American soldier, protection of the Steel manufacturers with illegal tariffs so that other and productive American industries would have to fire workers, torture in complete violation of Geneva conventions, first failure ever of international trade (Doha round of GATT), stifling at least four separate FBI investigations into what would be called September 11 by openly denying the threat even existed, making it legal to kidnap and hide from their nation anyone who is not American, killing half as many Iraqis in less than two years compared to what Saddam did in ten, threatening to restart the cold war, doing absolutely nothing to protect America all day on 11 September (not just the President but everyone every senior staff menber of George Jr's administration), President does not even read his own memos, undermining American relationships even with Canada and Mexico, silly Man to Mars program, never once asking GM what happened to all that money what was supposed to create a hybrid and new American jobs, .....

Just a small sample of what Urbane Guerrilla calls good. Urbane Guerrilla even approved of Nixon. Pres Cheney can be worse - and Urbane Guerrilla approves of that also. Urbane Guerrilla even calls himself a libertarian - but preaches fascism.

Is this a criticism of UG. No. Demonstrated is how extremists say one thing but really mean something completely different. No wonder Urbane Guerrilla even rewrites history to prove the Domino Theory. Notice the genocide that occurred in Vietnam in 1975 - according to UG.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"

The Democrats do--it's called the timetable for troop withdrawal. I believe the latest date they want to set now is Fall 2008, which is not exactly "leave tomorrow."

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw is unaware, I see, that the current number of Guantanamo inmates is down to about 375.

Which means something less than 450 who were held for years, lost even to their own families and the Red Cross, tortured, no judicial review ... and now are free because they were guilty of *nothing*? Urbane Guerrilla and the Nazi party would both call that acceptable? American gulags - and UG approved.

But again, UG demonstrates how dangerous the world is when extremists have power. Even lie about being Libertarians.

Oh. They also fear to answer a simple question - "when will we go after bin Laden?" Why bother. Leaving bin Laden free only justifies fascist fears.

A larger worry. Nothing in this post is an exaggeration. UG type extremists are so dangerous as to believe their own myths. Scary is that these are George Jr's strongest supporters.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Dana - I tried to be very careful and not promote the extreme right either - I am for getting whatever need be done over there done so we can get the hell out. We cannot just walk away, that is obvious to all - I hope. Its just the motivation behind the democratic party seems to be simply to gain power at too great an expense to our country. Does anyoneone have any ideas other than simply "stay the course" or "leave tomorrow?"

First, the reasons for leaving are very different for each person. Yes, leaving would be devastating for Iraq but that is not the question, we already know that. The question is, can we stop the civil war and genocide even if we stayed? Most Democrats will say no and most Republicans will say yes.

I have a very hard time believing that we can help Iraq at all unless we use martial law, and we missed our chance at that already. So, in my opinion, the best thing we can do is pull out and hope for the best, we are doing nothing except prolonging the killings and creating more hate by staying there.

I believe Joe Biden of the Democratic party and one other Republican (can't think of the name) have an idea for splitting up Iraq into 3 countries but I don't see any support for that from either side.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job. This is known as DamnoCraps Behaving Badly, and it's appalling. A Democrat-controlled Congress fucked South Vietnam over -- and had to wait until Democrats controlled Congress to do that -- and now these sons of poodles want to fuck over another people?? Fools. UnDemocrats is what they truly are. Myopia cases -- if this creates a Democratic Presidency, it will be that President that actually loses the War, and do they know that? They aren't bright enough to accept and understand that PNAC is probably the best political idea going, and too weakwilled -- without faith that democracy is what humans will do, particularly if they can kill off the fascists -- to implement it.

The 3-states idea isn't favored because nobody thinks it would be stable. The three ministates would end up becoming puppets for neighboring states and a proxy-wars zone. We're trying to get it all over and done with rather than creating a permanent abscess in the body politic through a failure of imagination.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Scary? Only for the America-must-lose variety of extremist, as is currently on display right here in post # 63. Of course, his sort deserves to be kept afraid and frustrated and impotent. Or kept within the bounds of the DPRK.

I see you display a singular care all of a sudden for the tender feelings of the kind of sociopathic brutes who not only hate America but are unacceptable in their own countries because they were such Kacsinskis, such Malvos. God damn, you're such a slutboy for the fascists. You know why you smell so bad? It's because your shirt is brown, you Untermensch.

And you fear to answer a simple question I've posed you, moldy-mind, so I'll pose the question again and watch you run from it: Do you really want America to win?

You can't give me the answer I want to hear, because it's not how you feel. You can't give the answer according to how you feel because everyone else's patriotism will be outraged and they'll run you right out of the Cellar, ravening for your blood.

[DanaC]

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals.

You mean the fired ones? Seems to me any suggestion that we were going in with too few troops lead to public smack downs.

As we build Caesar at home and take the lid off religous and ethnic rivalries abroad, I ask, what service is this administration doing democracy? I'm no big democrat. I really think a republic better serves humanity, but if your administration's goal is world-wide democracy, what has it done toward that end?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

He's moving from denial to anger. Then we'll see bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It won't be pretty but eventually he'll call for a troop pullout, as he realizes our countrymen are dying to no good end.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Urbane, my friend, I think you popped a vein.

That rhymes!

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Seems the main people who are interested in finding whatever strategy is functional are the generals. The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.

Umm...read.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

http://www.votevets.org/index.php?op...=249&Itemid=16

This was a letter to President Bush on May 1, 2007 from retired USA Major General Paul D. Eaton.

[Undertoad]

Shinseki's Wikipedia entry confirms that the administration overrode Gen. Shinseki's advice for a greater number of troops. However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

However it says that he retired as planned at the end of his four-year term, not that he was "forced out".

In April 2002, 14 months before Shinseki was due to retire, The Washington Post reported, quoting "Pentagon officials", that his replacement had already been selected. ... This reported departure from precedent somewhat undercut Shinseki's authority within the Army.

Shinseki was all but removed from office more than one year earlier because Shinseki was demanding what the Generals needed. George Jr administration was shorting the military at every turn - in complete contradiction to an obscenity laced post by Urbane Guerrilla.

Worse, neither Sec of Defense Rumsfeld nor Asst Sec of Defense Wolfovitz appeared at Shinseki's retirement party. As a result of doing harm to the military, Shinseki's farewell speech stated, first, that there was a difference between being a boss and a leader. Second, Shinseki noted how he started and ended his career the same way. He was wounded three times in Nam including loss of half a foot to a land mine. He was leaving as Chief of the Army the same unhappy way.

George Jr's administration so harmed the military that General Keane, selected to replace Shinseki, instead turned down the job for good reason - the civilian bosses. That knowledge is so understood in the military that Rumsfeld had to bypass all three and four star generals to find a replacement for Shinseki. Rumsfeld had to find a general in of retirement - Shoomaker. Why?

Urbane Guerrilla rewrote history to post this 'mother of all lies'

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Administration at least tries to let the generals do the job, as it's done since the beginning of fighting (instead of ignoring) the War. The Democrat-controlled Congress is now launching try after try at preventing the generals from doing the job.

Disrespect for the military did not stop there. George Jr could not find a general to command "Mission Accomplished". The most junior commander in country - having only limited experience as a division commander - Gen Sanchez - eventually became commander in Iraq. Those with better experience knew how much contempt the George Jr administration has for the military.

Let's look again at the numbers. Military doctrine said 600,000 troops were neeed to create the peace - after the fall of Baghdad. Scowcroft and other well respected military experts said we needed 500,000 in Iraq last summer. Shinseki only wanted a very conservative 300,000. Therefore Shinseki had to be compromised. George Jr only provided a paltry 130,000 and started reducing that numbers when the number of troops required should have been increasing.

Urbane Guerrilla rewrites history. He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops. We know Urbane Guerrilla is lying. Even his profanity increases when UG knows he is lying.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that the same Gen Sanchez that did the Abu Ghraib report?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

DanaC, I never pop a vein in the course of rubbing tw's nose in his own nature. Think about it: would that be difficult?

Regard, too, his improbable exaggeration about "obscenity-laced" -- slut doesn't rise to the level of obscenity in anyone's book, not when we all can see what it is tw rolls over for.

He says George Jr never shorted the General of troops.

Did I? Show where.

Something else that's been rather lost in the dust raised by all the aiders and comforters of the enemy in time of war using troop levels as a stick to bash a Republican Administration with is that there aren't 500,000 deployable troops in the entire Army, and there haven't been for the entire Iraq campaign.