I think as many of us have been saying all along (since the war started), the goal is to have a large presence in Iraq to pacify that part of the world by keeping a large strike force ready to act quickly when problems arise.
Or as Repubs are wont to do, to create problems then react militarily to them.
A. They're catapulting something, all right. As the Imperious leader said, they are catapulting the propaganda.
B. Everybody in Iraq knows that Iran is the problem? Is thay why Ahmadinejad can walk openly in the streets in Iraq and any member of the cheney/bush regime has to sneak in with many bodyguards?
C. There is one other thing that Petraeus is good at - repeating what cheney/bush told him to say.
I watched the entire question and answer while sitting on egg shells session on the Bush "Herding cats in Iraq experiment".
So predictable. So pathetic. So Petraeus.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 8, 2008 11:24 AMnothing can possibly change in Iraq vis a vis the US involvement until a Democrat becomes president, if then. Anyone with a TV can see the reality over there, and it's just not a reality that Bush or McOld is going to recognize. end of subject.
Posted by T2 at April 8, 2008 11:36 AMAnother day of mostly worthless questions which elicited no new facts at all, with no background research being done to expose GenPet and his lies.
Sitting there and telling senators that he both knew about the Basra "offensive" before it happened and that it was a "surprise". No questiona about what he said to Maliki if he thought it was indeed a "bad plan". No questions about his decisions to order tactical US air missions into crowded city centers, no questions about why exactly we should get involved with suppressing just one Iraqi militia, Sadr's.
No questions about whether all members of the chain of command agreed with his troop numbers and demands in Iraq over the past year (Fallon didn't), no questions about why we are involved in harrassing a political party's militia that seeks to defeat the government's party in upcoming elections (but no other militia), no questions about whether we determined there was a good reason to attack the Mahdi Army last week---simply just the usual recitations about "radical cleric" Sadr, who has a big block of MPs in parliament and at one time was part of the government, not that you'd know that from GenPet.
It's all wait till 2009---and let Cheney and GenPet do whatever they want in Iraq till then.
Posted by euzoius at April 8, 2008 01:14 PM"nothing can possibly change in Iraq vis a vis the US involvement until a Democrat becomes president..."
There will be no significant change in Iraq vis a vis the US involvement no matter who becomes president. Both democratic candidates have made it clear that they intend to continue the occupation, but with a reduced force. Whether you have 150,000 troops or 50-75,000 troops there, it is just as much an occupation. The two Democrats are just hoping to draw down to a more "tolerable" size so people won't notice it or object to it so much. Out of sight, out of mind, you know.
Posted by Shirin at April 8, 2008 03:00 PM"And one thing Petraeus is definitely good at: posturing."
Well, this does not quite have the ring of the General Betray Us" ad, but it is only slghtly less reprehensible.
shirin,
absolutely right. i wrote about it here. and we'd better be prepared to push whichever democrat wins, because either will need it.
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 04:40 PMbagley,
coming from you, that's high praise! thanks! hope i didn't violate the alien and sedition acts!
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 04:42 PM"... that's high praise!"
Given your sympathies and preferences in the war against Muslim Terrorism (viz the Western World), I am not surprised that you consider my comment "praise."
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 04:50 PMbagley,
given your delusions, i'm surprised you can type.
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 04:57 PM"...given your delusions..."
No delusions: your sympathies and preferences have been apparent for quite some time.
But, hey, you share these sympathies and preferences with most Leftists.
(That and raising taxes to support a cradle-to-grave welfare state.)
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 05:02 PMbagley,
you talk in right wing boilerplate bumperstickers. it's almost cute.
btw- everyone's still wondering why you're so traitorously avoiding service in the great war.
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 05:10 PM"you talk in right wing boilerplate bumperstickers."
Sometimes the "boilerplate bumperstickers" captures perfectly the nature of the argument.
"... why you're so traitorously avoiding service in the great war..."
I served in the first one and, unfortunately, I am too old and do not have the required military training to meet the needs and serve in the current Gulf War.
By the way, Turkana, I would be interested in learning more about your military service: what branch of the armed forces of the US and for how long did you serve?
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 05:23 PMPetraeus is just shoveling the shit that his master ordered him to do.
and what about the BENCHMARKS? remember them? then entire purpose of Bush's escalation/surge
and bagless bagley, you're not too old to pay more taxes to actually pay for this occupation, but then you aren't going to sacrifice anything you yellow cur
Posted by gay veteran at April 8, 2008 05:39 PMboggled,
i don't support wars i wouldn't willingly participate in. btw- the state department ias having trouble finding people willing to work in iraq. there are plenty of ways you can serve. if you believe in service in causes you support, and are willing to watch others get maimed and killed for.
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 05:50 PMTurkana,
When did you serve in the military: another question you will not answer?
How 'bout this one: what day of the week is it?
P.S. State Department? Not looking for my skill set.
P.S.S. "...there are plenty of ways you can serve..." One way is to actually support the troops and their mission. (But this is beyond your understanding....your hatred of the Western World being so blinding.)
P.S.S.S. Ok, let's try again. A real easy question: what is the name of this planet?
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 06:05 PMbagless bagley: "State Department? Not looking for my skill set."
They aren't looking for fucktards? Try Condi's office.
btw, you willing to pay higher taxes to support our horribly wounded veterans? of course not, you think of veterans as dog shit on your shoes
hope the RNC is paying you by the word, yellow cur
Posted by gay veteran at April 8, 2008 06:23 PMWhat is that single note I hear? It has become very boring.
On another subject: Turkana, check your DD-214.
(The sound you hear is a dozen Leftists googling "DD-214.")
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 06:31 PMboggled,
as i said- if i supported a war, i'd volunteer for it. i don't think others should suffer and die for a cause i claim to believe in but aren't willing to risk suffering and dying for. and btw- playing video games doesn't count as volunteering.
Posted by Turkana at April 8, 2008 06:39 PM"as i said- if i supported a war, i'd volunteer for it. i don't think others should suffer and die for a cause i claim to believe in but aren't willing to risk suffering and dying for. and btw- playing video games doesn't count as volunteering."
Weak. Very weak. But...
"...if i supported a war..."
Clearly you do not support the present war on Muslim Terrorism, and the element of this war that is the battle in Iraq.
As such, then, I can only surmise that you do not support the effort that is going into this war on Muslim Terrorism, and the element of this war that is the battle in Iraq.
As such, I do think that it is not possible for you to support the individuals that are waging this war on Muslim Terrorism, and the element of this war that is the battle in Iraq.
So, it is clear that you cannot "support the troops." (Well, at least the US and allied troops, but that has been clear for quite awhile.)
P.S. So what does it say on your DD-214? Box #2 (I think) identifies the branch of service. Navy? Marine Corps? Air Force? Maybe it was Army?
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 07:00 PMbagley,
Turkana is a tax-payer and entitled to the opinion that YOU swore to protect.
Military service has NOTHING to do with being able to comment on war, rumors of or against any war.
Even the troops are begining to support Obama
Posted by Airborne Ranger at April 8, 2008 07:09 PMOh boy! It's a dick swinging contest!
Posted by snark at April 8, 2008 07:12 PM"Turkana is a tax-payer and entitled to the opinion that YOU swore to protect."
I never posted that he could not have an opinion. I simply stipulated that he does not support those who have (pardon the paraphrase) sworn to protect him and his "authority" to have an opinion.
"Military service has NOTHING to do with being able to comment on war, rumors of or against any war."
You are correct: witness this blog.
"Oh boy! It's a dick swinging contest!"
How do you think the eunuchs will fare?
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 07:23 PMOh boy! It's a dick swinging contest!
Quick! Hand me my magnifying glass!
Ba dum bum!
Posted by iamcoyote at April 8, 2008 07:44 PMHa!
You forgot: "Thanks, folks, I'll be appearing all week!
:-)
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 07:48 PMThanks to TLC for the bandwidth.
Turkana, have a good evening ;-)
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2008 08:14 PMIt's a dick swinging contest!
I used to have a Drill Instructor who always used the term, "I want every swinging Richard...", he was the religious type.
It was funny because I had another DI named Richard Dick. Sick redundant parents I guess.
Oy, I have to say that Bagley's recent appearances really result in a pretty severe juvenilization of the threads.
Bagley, you really have nothing substantive to say when you show up here any more, and your latest ploy, the "Do you support the side of western civilization" question is repetitive, lame, tendentious and tiresome. With all the exciting "action" going on by our Imperial Sturmtruppen in Iraq, have you really nothing to say about the substance of the posts? Are you that shallow---for all your pretensions of advanced education?
As Turkana observed, you have become a simple mouther of conservative bumper-stickers and banal platitudes---and you happily agree!
As you would say, weak, really weak.
Please get some new material and notch up your game, it's really in sad decline. Or else get a different "conservative" hobby, like high tech BBQing or roaring around on a noisy ATV---those seem more your style. I'd suggest perhaps reading an occasional book, but that seems likely now to be beyond you. cheers.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2008 05:59 AMP.S. I think bagless has truly started to drink heavily.
P.S.S. That was meant for you euzoius.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 9, 2008 07:03 AM....the fact that McOld thinks that al Qaeda in Iraq is Shi'ite should make a great Dem campaign slogan.....he's as stupid as Shrub and you Bags!
Posted by Goyo at April 9, 2008 07:59 AM