Harry Reid "I believe ... that this war is lost"

[tomywishbone]

Can't Harry read? (pun intended) "Mission Accomplished"

 

[Lemon law]

Can't Harry read? (pun intended) "Mission Accomplished"

No, the banner was the mistake---it should have read bungle started---and now reads bungle accomplished.

 

[Jhhnn]

It isn't the "War" that's been lost, but rather the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Every imaginable blunder has been made, as if total chaos were the objective all along.

Maybe it was. I can't imagine anybody being quite so stupid as to have created the current situation entirely by accident.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Enough of all this who's sending what signals bullshit. That's not how you fight a war, and that's not how you win a war.

We already won the war in Iraq...sticking around to secure the peace was our mistake.

I don't know, I think that's kind of a cop-out. Iraq wasn't even a tiny bit of a threat to the US, so beating their military into a bloody pulp isn't what I would call "winning the war", especially since it has made the region far more dangerous and far more of a long term concern for the US. I'd argue that securing the peace is, in this case, far more vital to "winning the war" than our defeat of Saddam's government.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

How does stating that you think the US has lost in Iraq is harmful or helpful "to the future of America"?

Except maybe this war will be an object lesson to future US leaders. Maybe in 30 or 40 years when another US president starts thinking that he can use US military force to install US democracy in another part of the world. Someone will smack him on the back of his head and say remember GWB's Iraq debacle? Remember how the US is still paying for that mess that will continue to pay for it decades.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
New on drudge. link

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

I don't see how these comments can be anything but harmful, unless you are a terrorist.

Can anyone explain how declaring that our military has 'lost' a war is helpful to the future of America?

How does stating that you think the US has lost in Iraq is harmful or helpful "to the future of America"?

Except maybe this war will be an object lesson to future US leaders. Maybe in 30 or 40 years when another US president starts thinking that he can use US military force to install US democracy in another part of the world. Someone will smack him on the back of his head and say remember GWB's Iraq debacle? Remember how the US is still paying for that mess that will continue to pay for it decades.

Nah...remember, we're talking about politicians here...Hell, we're probably STILL paying for Vietnam in one way or another...NOT counting what the VA spends treating Vets.


Anyone ELSE think it would have been nice if Dumbya had listened to his daddy on this?

"His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... "

"President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power ? America in an Arab land ? with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

 

[Mxylplyx]

Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

 

[GoPackGo]

As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

 

[galperi1]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

You are not smart. Part of me wants to write a reasoned response on why that idea is idiotic, but I have a feeling like it would just fall on deaf ears.

Seems to be a whole lot of treason flying around here lately though... any public figure who is against the war is apparently a traitor. In fact, if thinking we should get our troops out is treason then the 43% of the US that thinks we should stay should all go out and citizens arrest the other 57% of the population.

That'll learn em.

 

[Turkish]

Wow, thanks to everyone, this thread has been pretty much awesome. Fake Prof John got pounded in the butt pretty bad this time

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

Right! It's defintely a crime to stand up to a Traitor In Chief and his gang of mudering traitors who are directly and personally responsible for their WAR OF LIES that has cost over 3,300 American troops who died, tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced innocent Iraqi civilians, and the waste of trillions of dollars in debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

If you're so gung ho for the war, I volunteer YOU to join PrevaricatorJohn to go to Iraq and show us how to fight, up front and personally.

You're another one who is welcome to put your body where your mouth is, or STFU! :|

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't know, I think that's kind of a cop-out. Iraq wasn't even a tiny bit of a threat to the US, so beating their military into a bloody pulp isn't what I would call "winning the war", especially since it has made the region far more dangerous and far more of a long term concern for the US. I'd argue that securing the peace is, in this case, far more vital to "winning the war" than our defeat of Saddam's government.

If you use the traditional mental model for defining war, then you similarly claim victory based on the achievement of strategic objectives. If we examine the strategic objectives of the war in Iraq...

1. Elimination of Iraq's WMD Program: Considering that no evidence emerged suggesting that Saddam managed to develop WMD capabilities, kind of removes this strategic objective from the equation.

2. Elimination of Iraq as a state sponsor of Al Quaida: Same as the WMD talking point.

3. Removal of Saddam Hussein, and elimination of the Baathist regime: For all intents and purposes, this strategic objective was quickly achieved. However, given that Iraq did not pose a direct threat to America, the urgency for achieving this strategic objective becomes a bit confusing.

I really don't have an answer for the war in Iraq...I am not sure why we are there, but I don't necessarily believe some of the conspiracy theories and typical talking points from the anti-Bushites.

Like Vietnam, Iraq has become as much a political war on the home front as it is a military conflict...the NeoCons used the WoT and American fears after 9/11 to push their agenda and maintain their power base...once Americans became skeptical of the NeoCon agenda, the Democrats decided to go on the offensive once it became politically convenient to do so.

As the minority party, the Democrats had the responsibility to keep the Republicans in check...but the Democrats, by and large, caved to the political pressures of a President and a political party that had overwhelming public support after 9/11...once polls started to suggest otherwise, then the Democrats decided to go on the offensive.

I blame Bush, and his team of advisors, for pushing the war in Iraq and getting us stuck in a "no-win" situation...I blame the Democrats for not voicing opposition before things got out of hand...and don't give me the cliche line that "The President duped everyone." Bush cannot simultaneously be both an idiot and a strategic mastermind. There was skepticism against the war in Iraq before we even deployed troops to the region...no one had the courage to voice that skepticism when it mattered most.

As for Reid, I will take his comments with a grain of salt...it stinks more of political opportunism than anything else.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

You could, but there are better ways of going about it rather than handing a propoganda victory to the people shooting at our troops.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

Right! It's defintely a crime to stand up to a Traitor In Chief and his gang of mudering traitors who are directly and personally responsible for their WAR OF LIES that has cost over 3,300 American troops who died, tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced innocent Iraqi civilians, and the waste of trillions of dollars in debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

If you're so gung ho for the war, I volunteer YOU to join PrevaricatorJohn to go to Iraq and show us how to fight, up front and personally.

You're another one who is welcome to put your body where your mouth is, or STFU! :|

Be glad this isn't 1930s Germany or you would have been hauled away to camp.

War of Lies? Where do you get your information?

So when Clinton bombed Iraq in the 1990s it was "BOMBING OF LIES"???

Since you are so anti-war, anti-Bush...be sure to spit in a soldiers face every chance you get.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

You are not smart. Part of me wants to write a reasoned response on why that idea is idiotic, but I have a feeling like it would just fall on deaf ears.

Seems to be a whole lot of treason flying around here lately though... any public figure who is against the war is apparently a traitor. In fact, if thinking we should get our troops out is treason then the 43% of the US that thinks we should stay should all go out and citizens arrest the other 57% of the population.

That'll learn em.

As a member of Congress he is Aiding and Abbedding the enemy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

You are not smart. Part of me wants to write a reasoned response on why that idea is idiotic, but I have a feeling like it would just fall on deaf ears.

Seems to be a whole lot of treason flying around here lately though... any public figure who is against the war is apparently a traitor. In fact, if thinking we should get our troops out is treason then the 43% of the US that thinks we should stay should all go out and citizens arrest the other 57% of the population.

That'll learn em.

As a member of Congress he is Aiding and Abbedding the enemy.

A few problems here. First of all, I feel like you should probably learn how to spell the crimes you are accusing people of committing. It's not "Abbedding"... he's not helping them find a mattress. It's abetting... although it seems like you don't know what that is either. Abetting is when you assist someone in committing a crime, but don't actually do it yourself. So first of all what crime is being committed, under what criminal code (remember this code has to apply to good 'ol Harry and whoever you think the main criminal is), and where and when did it happen?

If you're going to say that the public statements and actions of officials carried out in good faith during their terms, then we've got a whole load of traitors we need to round up. Since Bush launched his war(s), recruitment for Al-Qaeda has increased. He's helping our enemies recruit! Traitor! Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney led the US into a disasterous war and occupation that sapped our ability to deal with our enemies! Traitors!

That line of reasoning is unbelievably stupid. If you want to say that Harry Reid is doing a bad job... that's fine. Maybe he is? I think Bush and Co. are doing a mind bogglingly terrible job but you would never find me calling them traitors, because i'm not incredibly ignorant.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
As a member of Congress he should be arrested and tried for treason.

You are not smart. Part of me wants to write a reasoned response on why that idea is idiotic, but I have a feeling like it would just fall on deaf ears.

Seems to be a whole lot of treason flying around here lately though... any public figure who is against the war is apparently a traitor. In fact, if thinking we should get our troops out is treason then the 43% of the US that thinks we should stay should all go out and citizens arrest the other 57% of the population.

That'll learn em.

As a member of Congress he is Aiding and Abbedding the enemy.

A few problems here. First of all, I feel like you should probably learn how to spell the crimes you are accusing people of committing. It's not "Abbedding"... he's not helping them find a mattress. It's abetting... although it seems like you don't know what that is either. Abetting is when you assist someone in committing a crime, but don't actually do it yourself. So first of all what crime is being committed, under what criminal code (remember this code has to apply to good 'ol Harry and whoever you think the main criminal is), and where and when did it happen?

If you're going to say that the public statements and actions of officials carried out in good faith during their terms, then we've got a whole load of traitors we need to round up. Since Bush launched his war(s), recruitment for Al-Qaeda has increased. He's helping our enemies recruit! Traitor! Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney led the US into a disasterous war and occupation that sapped our ability to deal with our enemies! Traitors!

That line of reasoning is unbelievably stupid. If you want to say that Harry Reid is doing a bad job... that's fine. Maybe he is? I think Bush and Co. are doing a mind bogglingly terrible job but you would never find me calling them traitors, because i'm not incredibly ignorant.

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

I'm trying to stay with your string of arguments on this one, but they are jumping all over the place. So by not supporting the war Harry Reid is emboldening the Evildoers... and by emboldening he is an accomplice to their crimes? Does this mean that if someone passes a law that is shown to cause an increase in crime that he is an accessory to all those crimes and should be jailed? Abetting aside (as it's obviously not that) How is this treason again? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that being against the war is treasonous? Does this apply to all policies of the executive in relation to foreign governments? If you are against NAFTA, is that treason? If you were against the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo, was that treason? Maybe you can outline what the scope of acceptable political thought is so that we can be sure to stay out of jail.

Also if you think the war is over... you should definitely let the President, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know because they keep calling it a war. Even worse, they keep passing these emergency funding bills for the war. These things are really expensive, so if the war is over someone PLEASE let them know so we can save a ton of cash!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Be glad this isn't 1930s Germany or you would have been hauled away to camp.

I'm 65, and I come from Jewish families from Hungary and Lithuania. WTF would you know about that?

War of Lies? Where do you get your information?

From reality readily available to anyone with a link to Google and an IQ greater than that of a rock. Where do you get yours? :shocked:

So when Clinton bombed Iraq in the 1990s it was "BOMBING OF LIES"???

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :roll:

Did Clinton act on bad info? Probably. Did he continue by invading Iraq, wasting thousands of American lives, wounding, scarring and disabling tens of thousands more? If you can prove that, post the links. Otherwise, STFU.

Did Bush LIE? Every one of their ever shifting, ever evasive excuses for starting it was a LIE.

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

I hope they're all hauled before the World Court and tried for Crimes Against Humanity.

Since you are so anti-war, anti-Bush...be sure to spit in a soldiers face every chance you get.

Adminstration sycophant liars like you don't stop at spitting in the face of every American who died in Iraq. You piss on their graves!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

You could, but there are better ways of going about it rather than handing a propoganda victory to the people shooting at our troops.

We handed them a victory by attacking Iraq in the first place.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

So sue me for spelling.

The thing most people don't get around here is the war is over. As in 1945 WW2 was over, but there were still soldiers deployed (and still are) all over the world.

The war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is over. He and his boys are dead and so are a bunch of his cronies.

Our soldiers right now are acting as police. There in lies the problem.

By the way, Harry Reid emboldens the criminals. Every time a soldier or an Iraqi citizen is killed by these thugs and cowards a crime is committed.

Are these criminals organized and funded? If so, then by whom? My guess is Iran.

I'm trying to stay with your string of arguments on this one, but they are jumping all over the place. So by not supporting the war Harry Reid is emboldening the Evildoers... and by emboldening he is an accomplice to their crimes? Does this mean that if someone passes a law that is shown to cause an increase in crime that he is an accessory to all those crimes and should be jailed? Abetting aside (as it's obviously not that) How is this treason again? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that being against the war is treasonous? Does this apply to all policies of the executive in relation to foreign governments? If you are against NAFTA, is that treason? If you were against the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo, was that treason? Maybe you can outline what the scope of acceptable political thought is so that we can be sure to stay out of jail.

Also if you think the war is over... you should definitely let the President, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know because they keep calling it a war. Even worse, they keep passing these emergency funding bills for the war. These things are really expensive, so if the war is over someone PLEASE let them know so we can save a ton of cash!

My Grandparents come from Czechoslovakia. Their villages were targeted by the Germans. In alot of ways they didn't care who they killed.

In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

Don't you think it was our policies of the 1930s that made Japan and Germany think they could get away with Pearl Harbor?

EDIT - Sorry this was to the other guy.
You talk about money? What did the Marshall Plan and us keeping troops in Europe for 60 years cost?

They keep calling it war for political reasons. Don't get me wrong...i disagree with many things on how we have handled things after 9/11

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Clue -- If Clinton did such a bad job, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal gang have only had six years to do it right. Why have they only made everything far worse and LIED about it the entire time? :|

While we're asking questions, what made them think they had to shred the rights of every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution to do it? :shocked:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, this is a wreckless thing to say when we have troops in the field. This is why democrats will never have the support of the military.

One could argue that the Democrats are actually supporting the troops in trying to save their lives by removing them from the center of a secretarian war.

You could, but there are better ways of going about it rather than handing a propoganda victory to the people shooting at our troops.

We handed them a victory by attacking Iraq in the first place.

That is irrelevant. There are troops in the field at this very moment getting shot at, and they dont need to believe that they are there for a lost cause. Calling a spade a spade often times isnt the wisest thing to do in politics. The troops need to believe they are there for a reason until their commanders decide otherwise.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In many ways this was Clintons fault. All of the events of the 1990s that were left unresponded to gave the enemy the confidence to attempt 9/11.

HEY, EVERYONE! Look at the PUTZ trying to recycle the "IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT" diversion, yet again. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

I guess we'll wait and see if you and many others here are hypocrites once Bush is out of office.