Your complete inability to address the bullshit points you bring up when challenged, and to be impressed by long-winded written documents that say absolutely nothing is second to none. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record, and have yet to address the fact that the “conditions based” criteria set forth in that document for withdrawing forces says absolutely nothing that can be deemed as a quantifiable objective.

You read like an ignoramus conservative.

Oh, I almost forgot to spell it out for you:

Progress is “movement, as toward a goal; advancement towards an objective”.

You cannot measure progress when you have no measurable goals or clearly stated objectives.

Not that I expect you to grasp this concept.

Progress in Iraq?
see here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/d20051013iraq.pdf

Criteria for Withdrawing Forces ( conditions – based timetable)

{ from the abovementioned document }

John S.- hole : you read like a liberal

The report was a progress report  a report of progress.

And yet the long post you threw up is titled “Criteria for Withdrawing Forces”, which is what we were discussing.

Keep up the good conservative work. Your disconnect from reality is as fervent as your patron saint, Bush.

What does a progress report tell someone (not you, obviously, but other, thinking, people)? It describes progress towards a goal. It says we have done X amount of this, so that means we want to do more of this.

You want the government to tell you and a bunch of other liberals what it plans to do, so they can mull it over, and critique it, and analyze it, until Iraq does become another Viet Nam: A micro – managed disaster that proved fatal to the people we fought the war for, and betrayed the men who fought and died there.

About 2 and one – half million men fought in Viet Nam and 58,000 died there. There’s probably 2 million men still alive, and over a million of them vote. They’re not going to let it happen again.

Illuminate for me what the ACTUAL quantifiable objectives are for fulfilling the criteria.

I’d really love to hear from a Republican a plan that isn’t cyclical bullshit – not a blogger who thinks that the bullshit is a plan because it is in writing. I’m not surprised that typos are a stumbling block for you, seeing as how your tortured logic can’t get you to see that the “plan” is nothing more than saying:

The criteria for withdrawl are based on criteria that are defined by criteria and can be acheived depending on certain other criteria.

People like you who accept this nonsense are more than witless – you’re deadly to what America stands for.

And yes, I did read the entire document. There’s not a single clearly stated objective in there that can be measured in any way. And if you’re so keen to allow the Bush administration to say, “Trust us! We’ll let you know when the criteria are filled.”, then you’re an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.

The entire Iraq War of Choice was about shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and that doesn’t seem to bother you.

I’m not saying you should, but I am saying that what you did read was a conclusion to the plan.

I’d really love to hear from a Democratic poltician — not a blogger who uses a tortured construction (complete with a typo that makes the tortured construction nearly gibberish) to turn a phrase I used on somebody else against me — that there might be a sensible plan for withdrawing our troops, other than shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Then I might think about it.

Until then, cries for withdrawal disguised as “Give us a plan!” “Give us a plan!” aren’t just witless — they’re deadly.

There’s only one tiny problem with that whole entire spiel you threw up explaining what our criteria for withdrawl are:

There’s not a single objective clearly stated.

The entire fitst paragraph says little more than “here are the conditions that need to be met”, despite the overly verbose framing. Then, it lists bulleted (so they must be important!) items of what the conditions are. Not a single one states an objective.

” levels of present and projected insurgent activity;

What are the levels supposed to be? 10 insurgent attacks a day? 5 attacks a day? None? It says absolutely nothing about what the levels need to be – just that the levels are a factor. This is not a clear stated objective.

” readiness and capabilities of Iraqi Security Forces;

Looks like familiar territory. What does the readiness to be? What capabilities do the ISF need to have exactly? Stating that the ISF is a factor is not an objective.

” readiness and capabilities of relevant government institutions; and

It’s like deja vu all over again. What does the government need to look like? What level of readiness and cspbility is required in oreder to fulfill the criteria? Stating that the criteria is that it is a criteria is NOT an objective.

” ability of Coalition Forces to reinforce the ISF should this become necessary.

This is getting silly now. I am optimistic – although not confident – that you will be getting the idea by now.

Then of course we have the closing paragraph which pretty much stays the course. Tha ability to gauge whether criteria have been fulfilled depends on other criteria. Other criteria will determine the speed of fulffilling the previously mentioned criteria. And so, in that entire thing there is not a single clearly stated objective that anybody can follow and say “We’ve finally accomplished this criteria.” Which makes the stated criteria for withdrawl complete bullshit.

The fact that gobble it down as if it somehow proves there is a navigable plan or that it clearly states our strategy makes me wonder if “Frank D.” means “witless”.

see here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/d20051013iraq.pdf

Criteria for Withdrawing Forces (“conditions – based” timetable)

{ from the abovementioned document }

U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq as their mission is successfully accomplished. As noted in the July report, criteria for withdrawing Coalition Forces from Iraq are conditions-based, not calendar-based. There is not a timeline or milestones that directly tie the drawdown of Coalition forces to increased numbers of capable Iraqi battalions. Drawdown will occur in a phased, gradual manner as Iraqi forces become capable of taking the lead within areas of Iraq and in concert with Iraqi progress in political and economic capabilities. To assist in determining when conditions permit handing over security responsibility from
Coalition Forces to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the United States, the Iraqi government, and our Coalition partners have established the Coalition-Iraqi Joint Commission to Transfer Security Responsibility from Coalition Forces to ISF. Transfers will be effected on an area-by-area basis and will occur only with the approval of the Iraqi Prime Minister, the U.S. Ambassador, and the Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq. Transfer of responsibility will depend on achieving conditions for each area in such categories as:

” levels of present and projected insurgent activity;
” readiness and capabilities of Iraqi Security Forces;
” readiness and capabilities of relevant government institutions; and
” ability of Coalition Forces to reinforce the ISF should this become necessary.

The ability to meet these criteria will continue to be affected by progress in political, economic, and other areas. As reported previously, other conditions that will support and hasten success include the
continued reconciliation of the various ethnic communities in Iraq. Recent polling data indicate that the various groups within the Iraqi body politic have made impressive progress towards coexistence within a political process. Additionally, the increase in registered voters, combined
with polling data that indicate that Sunni Arabs believe that it was a mistake to boycott the January election, indicate that the Iraqi people are becoming active stakeholders in their own future. This will have an important impact on the security situation. The expanded engagement of the international community is vital for the security situation within Iraq and in the region. Continuing United Nations and NATO commitments are similarly critical to Iraqi and regional stability and security. The March 2005 Arab League summit ended with a promise for increased diplomatic representation between its member states and Baghdad,
along with a call to restructure Iraq s debt within the Arab League. The engagement of Iraq s neighbors will be critical to encouraging the Iraqi people to move peacefully down the path of political progress, as well as closing down the continuing stream of foreign terrorists entering Iraq.

Many on the right employ a version of the “chickenhawk” argument, but they haul it out on a different issue.

Whenever we talk about tax rates, some of us on the left find fault with the thinking that we should be giving tax breaks to high income earners while we’re a) at war and b) running huge deficits.

Typically, someone on the right will come along and holler about “class warfare.” They’ll say, “You want more government services? What makes you think it’s OK to spend someone else’s money to get them?” They find it hypocritical for me to be enthusiastic about government spending programs when the money isn’t going to come out of my pocket.

The “chickenhawk” argument is similar. There are some on the right who are rabidly enthusiastic about the war–but aren’t willing to put their own life on the line to “pay” for the war.

“Chickenhawk” is the left’s version of “class warfare.”

Bush already declared “Mission Accomplished”….so when do our troops come home?

My point is that it is far more important – not to mention relevant – to take to task supporters of this war for their beliefs (the bogus Al-Qaeda connection, the insistence that there are WMD s or that us fighting them over there keeps us safe) rather than dismiss them by calling them chickenhawks.

Shit, you people even dismiss the words of actual IRAQIS because of that paradigm.

Iraqis like the Vice President of IRAQ who has just joined the ranks of those calling Bush the biggest Bullshit Artist since P.T. Barnum?

“Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.”

10 bucks says you dismiss that particular Iraqi yourself!

You didn t answer my question anyways. I support the war and the troops but I don t see how that is a reason for me to go sign up and serve.

If we were talking about fucking Stratego, maybe sitting on your ass in the comfort of your own home would be operative. But when real people are dying for a war that so clearly has no justification, and you continue to support said war, yes…you should be over there dying (or being maimed) in the place of someone who doesn’t want to be there because they believe this is the wrong war, at the wrong time. Besides that, the military is experiencing record shortfalls in the their recruitment goals. REAL support for the troops (from a warmonger that WANTS them to be there) would be to fucking BECOME a troop. Real support from someone that doesn’t support the war, but wants to support the troops, would be to bring them home.

John S.,

In regards to your question, the chickenhawk meme is tired and weak because it undermines the real reasons to criticize de facto warmongerers.

To me, this makes the assumption that they do, in fact, care. Supporters of the Iraq War of Choice are so invested in it for the personal arm-chair, hoo-rah, might-makes-right factor that they’ll continue to throw their support behind this debacle until there isn’t a building – or person – left standing. They’ve bought the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, they believe the WMD’s are hidden inside an invisible lair and they really think that us fighting them over there, is keeping the Mall of America safe, over here.

In regards to your question, the chickenhawk meme is tired and weak because it undermines the real reasons to criticize de facto warmongerers. I thought I made that – and the fact that your rhetoric regarding troop-hating Democrats is equally as fraudulent – perfectly clear.

I said the ‘chickenhawk’ argument is not an argument.

I can’t count how many times I have linked to articles and pieces and reports showing the progress being made over there only to have them dismissed out of hand simply because they don’t fit within the “Bush Sucks” paradigm. Shit, you people even dismiss the words of actual IRAQIS because of that paradigm.

So quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. You don’t want to have an honest debate. All you want to do is continue to say what’s going on in Iraq is a total disaster. Why? Because ANY and I mean ANY acknowledgement of any sort of progress at all could be conceived as some kind of ’support’ for the President. And you and all the others will never let that happen. Ever. That’s what separates us. I can and have criticized the President on Iraq for quite a few things. But I have yet to see any of the Anti Bush Brigades So you continue to live in your fantasy world, wistfully counting the days until Harry Reid or Dick Durbin is elected President. Meanwhile, I’ll stay here in the real world.

The facts are that terrorism has continued apace around the world even as we ve been arresting/killing/torturing number 3 guys and number 2 guys and top chiefs and personal drivers for four fucking years.

Oh please. Name one attack on US soil in the last four fucking years. Point us to an attack on any US embassies, army barracks or warships in the last four years. You guys are unbelievable.

really?

Dugger

You didn’t answer my question anyways. I support the war and the troops but I don’t see how that is a reason for me to go sign up and serve.