McOld's comment illustrates exactly how ignorant he is about Iraq and the Mid East. Does he not realize that al Sadr's followers hold a large voting block in the democratically elected Iraqi govt? Does he not understand that al Sadr is a religious leader of the Shia who comprise the majority of people in the Iraq "country"? No. he does not. No clue. He's just gonna get them all in a room and tell them to "stop this shit". Bush II.
Posted by T2 at April 2, 2008 10:04 AMThanks for posting this about McBush.
I am getting SOOOOOOO tired of eriposte's posting of non-stop hysterical anti-Obama stuff. Good to see TLC focus again on the common enemy.
Posted by Ren at April 2, 2008 10:10 AMExactly, T2.
And (as always) so much for the supposed "reason" for the invasion and occupation of Iraq: democratization. Sadr is not waning but waxing as a political force and party, he has supporters--millions of 'em---but "his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated", ha-ha---and as though that's somehow a legitimate "job" for the "democracy's little helper" BushAmerica.
On the other hand, Hothead McRube's statement is exactly the kind of nonsense a would-be imperial hegemon would utter. Bushco II indeed.
Posted by euzoius at April 2, 2008 10:15 AMJust goes to show what happens when ones short term memory starts to go while on their way to becoming completely senile.
Posted by Joe B at April 2, 2008 10:24 AMHey, why doesn't one of our fab independent "journalists" ask the Great Expert McRube what he understands to be the political positions of Sadr and why McRube disagrees with them? That, I'd love to hear!
Then they can ask what business is it of ours to determine what's an "acceptable" position for a leading Iraqi politician to take.
That they simply refuse to do anything like this---ask informed questions, the most basic functions of a "press"--proves they are controlled and complicit. No actual independent journalists would behave the way ours do, day after day, issue after issue.
So much that could be done IF our country had a legitimate "press" with integrity---instead all it does is listen and blather back the candidate's talking point.....
Posted by euzoius at April 2, 2008 10:38 AM"Mr. McCain said he had not expected Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to try to oust Shiite militias from Basra without consulting the Americans..."
"'Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,' Mr. McCain said..."
"'I just am surprised that he would take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive,' he said. 'I had not anticipated that he would do that.'"
McCain 'Surprised' by Iraq Developments by Michael Cooper
The Caucus, New York Times, March 31, 2008
McBush's line is "Not our fault. Someone else made that decision. So?"
So the facts of the matter are:
"These suggestions that it was Maliki who miscalculated in Basra are clearly false. No significant Iraqi military action can be planned without a range of military support functions being undertaken by the US command. On March 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, US military spokesman Colonel Bill Buckner said "coalition forces" were providing intelligence, surveillance and support aircraft for the operation."
"Furthermore, the embedded role of the US Military Transition Teams makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement.
A US adviser to the Iraqi security forces involved in the operation told a Washington Post reporter by telephone on March 25 he expected the operation to take a week to 10 days.
"Operation Knights Assault also involved actual US-Iraqi joint combat operations...Only on March 30 did the US command confirm that a joint raid by Iraqi and US special forces units had "killed 22 suspected militants" in Basra."
"Some observers have expressed doubt the Bush administration would have chosen to have Maliki launch such a risky campaign against well-entrenched Shi'ite militiamen in Basra until after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony had been completed. But that assumes that Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon recognized the potential danger of a large-scale effort to eliminate or severely weaken the Mahdi Army in Basra."
Muqtada's fight puts US to flight by Gareth Porter, Asia Times, Apr 2, 2008
So try anticipating this, McBush:
"Sadr’s not afraid of us, he and his commanders just see us as a dangerous nuisance, like a chained pit bull they have to step around. Ten years from now, every player in the current game will still be playing this slow, shady game, except one: the Americans."
Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle? by Gary Brecher, Exile, April 2, 2008
So McBush, how's that Cheney, Lieberman & Gramm help working out?
Sadsack.
well, McSame knows about as much about Iraq as Dear Leader does......OMG
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 2, 2008 11:49 AMGay Ray ! You up already?
How's the job hunt going?
Posted by jj at April 2, 2008 02:06 PMjj, I think GV's taken. You'll have more luck cruising right wing sites; most of them guys are available for "dates" in the Larry Craig tradition. I hear Ace o' Spades is looking for a partner.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 2, 2008 02:28 PMTurkana,
Please practice saying President McCain: it will be helpful in the future.
Regards,
Bagley
P.S. As I asked in a previous thread (I am sure that you were to far to busy to respond to such an inconsequential question): what side do you think should win, Muslim Terrorism or the Western World?
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 03:47 PMbagley,
which side do yuo think should win- reality and truth, or your delusions and lies?
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 04:09 PMTurkana,
It is a very, very simple question: Muslim Terrorism or the Western World?
And, may I note, refusing to answer is an answer.
bagley,
when did you stop beating your wife? refusal to answer is an answer.
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 04:55 PM"when did you stop beating your wife? refusal to answer is an answer."
I never have beaten my wife and never will: but it is an approved marital activity in some "religious" circles.
(See, an easy answer to a simple question.)
Weak, very weak.
Try again.
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 05:06 PMyou didn't answer the question, you evaded it. i asked when, and you provided no date.
see how easy it is to be as insipid as you are?
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 05:14 PM"you didn't answer the question, you evaded it. i asked when, and you provided no date."
No, I provided a definitive answer: no date is necessary if the action you implied never occurred.
But, let's return to the original question (the one you will not answer): Muslim Terrorism or the Western World?
It is a very simple question.
P.S. Just a curiosity...any lurkers out there that would like Turkana to answer this question?
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 05:27 PMlet me explain it in simple terms that even you can understand, bagley- it's a false question based on a false premise. and you still haven't provided a date, so i assume it continues.
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 05:33 PM"let me explain it in simple terms that even you can understand, bagley- it's a false question based on a false premise. and you still haven't provided a date, so i assume it continues."
Turkana, if an action never occurred then there is no associated date when it did not occur, but for every date.; it simply never happened (e.g. on what day did the sun not rise in the East).
Come on! Quit with the straw-man.
I asked you a simple question based upon your observation that there is an ongoing war: what side do you think should win, Muslim Terrorism or the Western World?
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 05:41 PMbagley,
my question is as honest as yours, and you still haven't given a date. we can play this all night, and you'll still be delusional.
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 05:49 PM"...my question is as honest as yours..."
No. (And you know it.)
"...we can play this all night..."
Or you could simply answer the question. Is it really that difficult? What do you not want to admit?
"...and you'll still be delusional."
Did I miss the answer to your question?
Here is the question, once again (if you have already answered the question, feel free to cut & paste): in the ongoing war between the Western World and Muslim Terrorism, which adversary do you, Turkana, support?
turkana: "...it's a false question based on a false premise..."
now turkana, don't confuse bagless bagley with two syllable words
hey bagless! where's Osama? you remember him? the guy Bush LET escape
Posted by gay veteran at April 2, 2008 06:02 PMbagley,
out of sympathy for your poor wife, i don't think i can continue this discussion.
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 06:23 PM"i don't think i can continue this discussion."
Actually straw man, you do not want to "show your hand" and answer the question. Fair enough, you support "your side" and I will support the Western World.
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 06:31 PMbagley,
you need help. your poor wife!
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 06:36 PMTurkana,
An easy question for you: during daylight hours, what glowing celestial body in the sky provides us here on the Earth with what is called sunlight?
Come on, straw man...easier than my previous question.
P.S. Thanks to TLC for the bandwidth and, Turkana, thanks for "supporting the troops."
Posted by Bagley at April 2, 2008 06:50 PMA whole fucking comment section hijacked with nonsense by none other than Baggy.
Posted by Judith at April 3, 2008 08:19 AMlet me finish bagless bagley's sentence: I will support the Western World....from my mommy's basement (unless the Cheetoes run out)
yellow cur, you like Bush use our troops as a political prop
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 3, 2008 12:08 PM