It's Over Guys....

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
An open letter to Bush fans...

by prominent conservative writer and pundit ANDREW SULLIVEN, addressing his former comrades at arms:


Iraq....It's over, guys.

Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did.

You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.



http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/denialists_dig_.html
 
????

Never heard of this guy before today...however I agree GW and Donald blew it by not listening to their Generals at the beginning...should have annilated them(Insurgents)from the start..and it's not too late...imho!
 
Cypress said:
An open letter to Bush fans...

by prominent conservative writer and pundit ANDREW SULLIVEN, addressing his former comrades at arms:


Iraq....It's over, guys.

Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did.

You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.



http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/denialists_dig_.html
Click to expand...

Of course, Sullivan is just another rat scurrying from the ship. He did after all, call people who were against this war from the beginning - in other words, the only ones who were right - traitors.

It's amusing to watch them eat each other now. However, before I'd read a word Sullivan has to say, I'd expect an apology. And I'm not getting one.
 
BB, Prissy is right, it's over. The Democraps won the election, and their mantra has been 'Failure is the ONLY option!' So, now, regardless of what we do, Iraq has to be a failure, it simply can't be anything else. If Sunnis and Shiites miraculously signed a peace accord tomorrow, alQaeda surrendered, and the Iraqis proclaimed it National Kite Flying and Blue Skies Day, the Democrats would have to find another way to make Iraq fail, because that is the only possible solution for them, they will refuse to settle for anything more. They control Congress, so this now has to be the direction we go, and what's best for America be damned, Iraq is going to be a failure, regardless.

There is really no point in arguing it anymore, we should just start withdrawing and coming home, maybe pay the Iraqis some reparations to say we're sorry, go kiss France's Ass and admit they were right and we were wrong, let the radical nuts keep building their nukes, let the tyrant madmen take over the bulk of the world's oil supply... hey, think of the environmental impact of not running all those internal combustion engines? Kick Bolton out of the UN and replace him with John Kerry, and tell our allies across the globe, about our new foreign policy of isolationism and minding our own business.

This is where we're headed, and we might as well face it, BB. The sooner we just throw up our hands and give up, the sooner we can get on with impeachment, don't you understand? The first priority is to establish Iraq as a failure completely, and we can do this by continuing to repeat it, and insist that it is a failure regardless of what happens. Ohhh... have you tried that really sweet red stuff in the dixie cups? Mmmmmmmm..... Guuuuuuuuuud!
 
I notice you failed to address the article linked at the beginning, Dixie. Why is that?

Look.... if the sunnis and shiites decided to bury their millenium long hatred for each other and embrace each other's "sumerian-ness" or "babylonian-ness", I would applaud their actions and see it as a sign that things might, in fact, end up better in Iraq and in the region than they were before we invaded.

If I won Powerball, I would be fucking rich.

I think the chance of either of those things happening is about the same....but I don't give up hope for either....I just wouldn't bet a lot of money on the latter, and I would NOT have bet the lives of 25K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars on the former...like YOU were perfectly willing to do.
 
and...do you honestly think that the trend line of violence and death is going in the RIGHT direction? Do you really think that our presence there is incrementally improving the lives of Iraqis or making them worse?
 
Rotflmao...

Dixie said:
BB, Prissy is right, it's over. The Democraps won the election, and their mantra has been 'Failure is the ONLY option!' So, now, regardless of what we do, Iraq has to be a failure, it simply can't be anything else. If Sunnis and Shiites miraculously signed a peace accord tomorrow, alQaeda surrendered, and the Iraqis proclaimed it National Kite Flying and Blue Skies Day, the Democrats would have to find another way to make Iraq fail, because that is the only possible solution for them, they will refuse to settle for anything more. They control Congress, so this now has to be the direction we go, and what's best for America be damned, Iraq is going to be a failure, regardless.

There is really no point in arguing it anymore, we should just start withdrawing and coming home, maybe pay the Iraqis some reparations to say we're sorry, go kiss France's Ass and admit they were right and we were wrong, let the radical nuts keep building their nukes, let the tyrant madmen take over the bulk of the world's oil supply... hey, think of the environmental impact of not running all those internal combustion engines? Kick Bolton out of the UN and replace him with John Kerry, and tell our allies across the globe, about our new foreign policy of isolationism and minding our own business.

This is where we're headed, and we might as well face it, BB. The sooner we just throw up our hands and give up, the sooner we can get on with impeachment, don't you understand? The first priority is to establish Iraq as a failure completely, and we can do this by continuing to repeat it, and insist that it is a failure regardless of what happens. Ohhh... have you tried that really sweet red stuff in the dixie cups? Mmmmmmmm..... Guuuuuuuuuud!
Click to expand...


you're probably right...wave the white flag and drink the vino or is that blood?
Nah I live in a really conservative little town...lotsa concealled weapons permits and heck even carry open on the street...so the libs can fight the battle in their own getto when Islam comes a knocking... don't come to me to protect their sorry asses!:tongout:
 
Battleborne said:
you're probably right...wave the white flag and drink the vino or is that blood?
Nah I live in a really conservative little town...lotsa concealled weapons permits and heck even carry open on the street...so the libs can fight the battle in their own getto when Islam comes a knocking... don't come to me to protect their sorry asses!:tongout:
Click to expand...


such a thoughtful and mature point of view.
 
Yah....

maineman said:
such a thoughtful and mature point of view.
Click to expand...



hitting the golden years really sucks...gotta sit at the sidelines and let the 'yuppies' take us into hell once again! ahhh 'Kumbia' is a familiar song along with tie dyed 'T'shirts and flower power...not to forget the wonderful spitters!
;)
 
Rumsfeld memo admits Iraq strategy failing
POSTED: 7:28 a.m. EST, December 3, 2006
Story Highlights• Message to President Bush says war strategy not working
• Several options, including troop withdrawals, outlined
• Memo dated two days before defense secretary's resignation

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told President Bush before he resigned that the administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and he proposed changes, including possible troop reductions, The New York Times reported Saturday.

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough," Rumsfeld said in the classified memo, dated November 6. The Times posted a copy of the memo along with an article about it on its Web site.

The Pentagon confirmed the memo's authenticity but declined to comment further. (Watch what Rumsfeld memo suggests )

Rumsfeld, as a planner and defender of Bush's Iraq strategy since well before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, has been a leading public face of the war. His memo adds to the voices calling on Bush to make a significant shift in strategy as the White House, the Pentagon and a congressionally created study group consider changes.

Rumsfeld outlined several options in the memo for policy changes, including reductions in U.S. forces and bases in Iraq as well as a recasting of the U.S. mission and goals there, but he endorsed no specific recommendations. (Watch destruction caused by Baghdad car bombs )

He said, however, a multiparty conference modeled after the 1995 Dayton, Ohio, talks that led to a peace agreement ending the Bosnian war was a "less attractive" option, as was continuing on the current path.

The memo was dated a day before Democrats captured control of Congress in midterm elections amid voter dissatisfaction over the Iraq war, and two days before Rumsfeld's resignation was announced.

Rumsfeld's language was echoed in remarks Bush made on November 8 when he announced the resignation. Bush said it was time for a change in Iraq and Iraq policy was "not working well enough, fast enough."

Rumsfeld remains in office pending Senate confirmation of former CIA Director Robert Gates, nominated by Bush to succeed him.

The study group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, is expected to urge a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops when it makes its report Wednesday.

There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and more than 2,800 have been killed since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

'Want to hear all advice'
Bush has indicated he will look closely at -- but not necessarily heed -- the study group's findings and insisted he was not looking for a "graceful exit."

"I want to hear all advice before I make any decisions about adjustments to our strategy in Iraq," Bush said in his radio address Saturday.

Bush pledged to seek bipartisan consensus on the way forward in Iraq, and offered conciliatory words but no concessions to critics of his Iraq policy.

Among the proposals outlined in the Rumsfeld memo were positioning substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi government.

Many in Washington hope the bipartisan Baker commission will give Bush a way to start extricating the U.S. forces from what is increasingly being viewed as a sectarian civil war.

But State Department and National Security Council officials told foreign diplomats Wednesday not to expect any major policy shifts, no matter what the group recommends, The Washington Post reported, citing unidentified diplomats familiar with the private briefing.

The group's proposals -- said to include a U.S. shift away from a combat role over the next year or so, and a regional conference that could lead to talks with Iran and Syria -- will carry significant weight even if Bush chooses to ignore them.

Long accused by Democrats of ignoring their advice on Iraq, Bush in his radio address acknowledged violence there was unsettling for many Americans.

"Success in Iraq will require leaders in Washington -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to come together and find greater consensus on the best path forward. So I will work with leaders in both parties to achieve this goal," he said.

Bush will hold talks Monday at the White House with a powerful party leader of Iraq's Shi'ite majority, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.
 
the Rumsfeld memo was INTENTIONALLY released and probably not even writen until the election was over, regardless of what they are saying.... just propaganda to rewrite history with.

If not, then what the hell took him SO LONG to come to this new decision....and why was the memo leaked and by whom? Who Benefits?

I am sorry, but this is how I look at things with this administration now... and for quite some time, actually.

Care
 
Hummm...

Care4all said:
the Rumsfeld memo was INTENTIONALLY released and probably not even writen until the election was over, regardless of what they are saying.... just propaganda to rewrite history with.

If not, then what the hell took him SO LONG to come to this new decision....and why was the memo leaked and by whom? Who Benefits?

I am sorry, but this is how I look at things with this administration now... and for quite some time, actually.

Care
Click to expand...


well to be perfectly honest...this is nothing new...this was Donalds plan and policy all along...he did not listen to his generals at the start...hit em' hard and annilate the enemy before they can regroup...he held back on more troop deployment from the start...which would have eliminated the need to take defensive postitions as we are now seeing...so now we just raise the white flag ala VN...how sad! All our young soldiers died in vain for political gain? The loses would have been significantly reduced if the war was actually fought as a war!
 
First of all ... who is Andrew Sullivan?


As per Wiki:

Sullivan is a self-proclaimed conservative, but has dissociated himself from the Republican Party, which he feels has abandoned true conservative principles.[citation needed] In 2004 he endorsed Senator John Kerry for President, and in 2006 has voiced support for the Democratic Party to assume control of Congress. A number of his positions on controversial public issues – for instance, gay marriage – are typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum.

Sullivan is also a former editor of The New Republic, known for both his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives.

So ... prominent conservative writer and pundit ..? hmm ... hardly ... unusual ... yes.

But still ... Id have to agree much with what he says ... it has been botched up.. it was a misleading failed attempt at spreading the Neocon doctrine of New American Century Nation Building.... in the guise of War on Terror.
This Oligarchist White House has long worn out its welcome and on the way has destroyed America's world wide reputation as a nation with utmost respect due to its passion for Justice and Human Rights.
We have taken the " Our Best Interests " to a new level ... iow ... "Corporates Best Interests"
 
Klatu:

Being a George Bush-fan is not the prerequisite for being a "conservative".

Sullivan is one of the leading libertarian conservatives in the world of punditry.

Barry Goldwater was for gay rights. Pat Buchannon was against the iraq war.

Many traditional conservatives have outright said Bush needs to be checked, and if it requires the Democrats take over congress, so be it. Some conservatives have recognized what many of us have known for years: Bush is incompetent, he is destroying the republican party, and he is possibly a threat to the republic.
 
Battleborne said:
Never heard of this guy before today...however I agree GW and Donald blew it by not listening to their Generals at the beginning...should have annilated them(Insurgents)from the start..and it's not too late...imho!
Click to expand...

Never heard of this guy before today..

Not suprising. If all you watch is Fox News, you might never see Sullivan.

If, on the other hand, you go out of your way to get your news from a vareity of sources, you probably have seen or read Sullivan hundreds of times. He's on MSNBC, Cspan, and Time Magazine about twenty times a week.
 
klaatu said:
First of all ... who is Andrew Sullivan?


As per Wiki:

Sullivan is a self-proclaimed conservative, but has dissociated himself from the Republican Party, which he feels has abandoned true conservative principles.[citation needed] In 2004 he endorsed Senator John Kerry for President, and in 2006 has voiced support for the Democratic Party to assume control of Congress. A number of his positions on controversial public issues – for instance, gay marriage – are typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum.

Sullivan is also a former editor of The New Republic, known for both his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives.

So ... prominent conservative writer and pundit ..? hmm ... hardly ... unusual ... yes.

But still ... Id have to agree much with what he says ... it has been botched up.. it was a misleading failed attempt at spreading the Neocon doctrine of New American Century Nation Building.... in the guise of War on Terror.
This Oligarchist White House has long worn out its welcome and on the way has destroyed America's world wide reputation as a nation with utmost respect due to its passion for Justice and Human Rights.
We have taken the " Our Best Interests " to a new level ... iow ... "Corporates Best Interests"
Click to expand...

He's a conservative. Sadly for him, he was outed when he was caught advertising for "bareback sex" (sex without a condom) in some gay magazine. However, before he was outed for that very irresponsible behavior, he was thrilled to go on talk shows to wag his finger at President Clinton for his "irresponsible behavior".

Other than the fact that he's never been a part of the religious right, you'd be hard pressed to find a "liberal position" that he holds, other than his support for gay rights. And he is gay after all, so this is no surprise. Though, in an age where pathetic closeted gay men, rise to the very top of the Republican party, in part by gay bashing, perhaps it should be a surprise.

He did accuse liberals in this country, after 9/11, of being "decadent" (and to think, I haven't advertised in a magazine for bareback sex in a dog's age) and of "mounting a fifth column".

So, impugning the patriotism of liberals and implying they are rooting for the terrorists... yeah, he's got con creds.
 
Cypress said:
Never heard of this guy before today..

Not suprising. If all you watch is Fox News, you might never see Sullivan.

If, on the other hand, you go out of your way to get your news from a vareity of sources, you probably have seen or read Sullivan hundreds of times. He's on MSNBC, Cspan, and Time Magazine about twenty times a week.
Click to expand...

Amazing.
 
Darla said:
Amazing.
Click to expand...

lol

Seriously, the dude is all over the media: from cable news, to magazines, to panels on cspan. Unless one has their nose glued to Fox News, how can one NOT have ever heard of him?


I forgot about the finger-wagging at clinton....LOL
 
Cypress said:
Klatu:

Being a George Bush-fan is not the prerequisite for being a "conservative".

Sullivan is one of the leading libertarian conservatives in the world of punditry.

Barry Goldwater was for gay rights. Pat Buchannon was against the iraq war.

Many traditional conservatives have outright said Bush needs to be checked, and if it requires the Democrats take over congress, so be it. Some conservatives have recognized what many of us have known for years: Bush is incompetent, he is destroying the republican party, and he is possibly a threat to the republic.
Click to expand...


Who said being a GW fan was a prerequisite ? I know who Sullivan is .... to tell you the truth I had to look him up to be reminded as to who he is .. but I do recognise him.
He is not a classic conservative .... more of a Left-libertarian Conservative..an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence.
You obviously didnt read my post response in full... because I sure wasnt describing Bush as a Classic Conservative ....

As far as Goldwater .... yeah he came out for Gay rights late in his career ...

As far as Bush being checked ... Ive been screaming for checks and balances for how long now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top