Could Iraq EVER been a success?

[Bullypulpit]

clearly, Iraq is a mess, and i don't think it will ever get better.
But more importantly could iraq ever been great. Could we have sweep in
and then 1 yr everything been great?

While we wouldn't necessarily have swept in and made everything great in a year, had the Bush administration actually listened to General Shinseki, and other field commanders, we would have gone in with enough troops to have secured the peace, 300,000 to 400,000, as well as win the war. Had Chimpy and Co not tried to wage war on the cheap or, better yet...not invaded Iraq at all, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

As for the mess, the US has failed the citizens of occupied Iraq by failing to meet the standards set forth in the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions and the rules of customary international law for belligerent occupying powers. Given this, one could easily envision the perpetrators of this invasion and failed occupation broguht before the Hague to answer for their crimes. Will it happen? No. Should it happen? Yes. Most definitely, yes.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, we should grant US Constitutional rights and GC coverage to terrorists

Libs way of fighting a more "sensitive war" like Kerry wanted ot fight?

 

[maineman]

RSR: are you aware that part of the LAW of the land in the USA is a little something called the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ??

 

[maineman]

and do you know who was president when it became the law of the land?

 

[red states rule]

RSR: are you aware that part of the LAW of the land in the USA is a little something called the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ??

So now making the poor little terrorists uncomfortable is torture?

 

[maineman]

So now making the poor little terrorists uncomfortable is torture?

I asked you a question....can you answer it instead of avoiding it?

 

[red states rule]

I asked you a question....can you answer it instead of avoiding it?

Some libs consider yelling at the terrorists "torture"

 

[maineman]

Some libs consider yelling at the terrorists "torture"

not me.

some conservatives think that America would be a better place today if we had a racist segregationist in the white house.

 

[maineman]

are you going to answer questions ever?

will you retract your idiocy about a 60% reduction in american casualties?

will you tell me whether or not you support troops who violate the UCMJ?

 

[red states rule]

not me.

some conservatives think that America would be a better place today if we had a racist segregationist in the white house.

and Dems see blacks as waiters and maids

Which is more racist?

First the lib has to find out if a Republican or Dem made the statement before saying

 

[Bullypulpit]

are you going to answer questions ever?

will you retract your idiocy about a 60% reduction in american casualties?

will you tell me whether or not you support troops who violate the UCMJ?

He's not going to answer, as the answer would show just how morally and intellectually bankrupt he is. Just like the administration he continues to slavishly support.

 

[maineman]

and Dems see blacks as waiters and maids

Which is more racist?

First the lib has to find out if a Republican or Dem made the statement before saying

I have never condoned racist statements by anyone.. you have.

 

[red states rule]

I have never condoned racist statements by anyone.. you have.

Your silence is deafening over liberal racism

 

[maineman]

Your silence is deafening over liberal racism

your affirmative statements condoning conservative racism are much louder.

 

[Diuretic]

If you were not dizzy you would see libs for what they are

Appeasers

Oh, the nyah-nyah tactic.

 

[Diuretic]

He's not going to answer, as the answer would show just how morally and intellectually bankrupt he is. Just like the administration he continues to slavishly support.

I've come to the conclusion that RSR won't take a question. Disappointing.

Standing by for incoming nyah-nyahs.

 

[red states rule]

your affirmative statements condoning conservative racism are much louder.

Looking at blacks as maids must be a Dem thing

Now Hillary see them it that role as well

 

[red states rule]

Democrats Skipping Military Briefings -- Where's the MSM Outrage?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 23, 2007 - 14:34.
A few sources, not the least of which is Michael Barone, are reporting that the Democrats are ignoring important Iraq briefings conducted by General David Petraeus in an apparent effort to stymie efforts in Iraq. It is well known that they are not supportive of the troops in Iraq and the president's "surge" plan they are currently conducting, but whether they like the plan or not, to skip these briefings is an act of blatant negligence that borders on the criminal. So where is the MSM's outrage? Why are we not being told of this Democrat negligence?

Barone, one of the best political pundits out there today, closed his recent Real Clear Politics Report with the following:

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

It has also been reported that one recent meeting with Gen. Petraeus on the Hill only saw one Democrat in attendance, that being Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

It might be too early to say directly that it is some concerted effort or plan of the Democrat leadership to steer clear of Iraq briefings, but at the very least it certainly reveals their collective feeling that the war is already lost and that it's time to move on past it all.

But here is the thing; they simply cannot claim to "support the troops" if they won't even attend briefings held by the General in command of those troops. If the Democrats don't attend these briefings they simply cannot claim to have the knowledge they need to make decisions necessary for policy direction. Unless, that is, they have fully decided, regardless of what is actually going on on the ground where our troops are facing the enemy, that all is lost.

If they have, indeed, completely quit wanting to have the discussion of what is actually going on in theater, then it is downright abusive of our troops for Democrats to ignore them in this way. This unconcern over what is happening to our forces simply makes it impossible for the Democrats to claim they support the troops.

It should be remembered that General Petraeus was given a unanimous vote in Congress and he never made any bones about the fact that he intended to implement the president's surge plan, so Democrats simply cannot claim they didn't know he was going to do so. But, it appears that the support they gave him for the surge was a cynical attempt to allow the plan to crash and burn if their ignoring his efforts to inform them of the actual accomplishments of the plan is any indication.

I have seen a few pundits and commentators claiming that the Democrats are somehow putting themselves in a bad position by ignoring these briefings and to that I say pish tosh. They have surely weakened their moral position and made their claims of supporting the troops untenable, but this will probably not harm them at all -- not that it shouldn't. The problem with the feeling that this will harm the Democrat Party is that no one, by and large, will ever hear of this betrayal of our troops. It is doubtful whether the story will ever break through the din of the cycles controlled by a news media supportive of the Democrat agenda.

In any case, the Democrat Party is acting irresponsibly to say the least, criminally at the worst. The biggest question, however, is will the News Media allow the American people to become aware that the Democrats are so badly falling down on the job? Will they be held accountable for the harm they are causing our country, cause and our troops not to mention the harm they cause the Iraqi people by this turning away from their needs and concerns?

Sadly, my guess is no.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12244

 

[Diuretic]

"Who's he gonna call?

NEWSBUSTERS!!!!"

 

[red states rule]

"Who's he gonna call?

NEWSBUSTERS!!!!"

Do you have proof Dems are NOT skipping military briefings?