The House Democrats have given the country a clear choice.
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
Bush will veto it, which puts it along stem cell research as the two policies this presidency will show some gumption on - keeping this unnecessary war going and stopping research that saves people’s lives. The only way out is a Democratic president.
ALSO: I want to point out that the advice trolls were trumpeting “Democrat disarray” yesterday when the Dems were doing what all congressional leadership does - rustle up votes, and like the proclamations earlier that 1) Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be elected speaker by the new “conservative” Democrats and 2) After getting Hoyer over Murtha as Majority Leader she wouldn’t be able to pass legislation they turned out to be wrong, once again.
This is pure bovine feces on the part of the House Democrats. If they believe that the war is lost, then why extend it until August 31, 2008 — two months before the election? They could end it, by simply doing nothing, by September 30, 2007, by simply not appropriating any money for the war. At the end of FY2007, that’s it, we’re done, they have to be out. They don’t need to pass anything, and they don’t have to worry about a veto.
If, on the other hand, they don’t believe that the war is lost, then they need to stand behind the president and support his efforts.
Instead, they did neither. They told the enemy that all they have to do is survive until September of 2008 (which means that, if they don’t believe the war is lost, they just lost it), and they told the troops that, if they do believe the war is lost, they are willing to squander the hundreds of American troops who will be killed in Iraq between September 30, 2007 and August 31, 2008.
And why? Because they want it to be an election issue in 2008! They figure that if the war is over on September 30, 2007, thirteen months before the election, it’ll no longer be an issue on which they can capitalize.
Madam Speaker Pelosi and Hoyer are making all the right moves!
All the GOP Reps. who voted against this bill now firmly own and embrace this war along with their hero, GW Bush, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says.
And, hopefully, Dems will help people remember who voted with Bush to stay the course, and who voted for change in Election 2008.
What Wellstone said.
And I’ve got news for you Dana. This war is going to be an election issue for several cycles to come.
Dana,
Please explain to me the “wait us out” argument.
The terrorists aren’t waiting us out now. They are attacking us and their fellow Iraqis everyday , as they have been for four years. Just what exactly are they supposed to be waiting for?
“If they believe that the war is lost, then why extend it until August 31, 2008 — two months before the election?”
Questioning the timing? Hmmm..That brings back some memories.
I think alot of bitterness coming from the Republican war supporters stems from them looking to the Dems to get us out of Iraq in a way that they could still say “well, if only they had given Bush’s plan a chance…”
Guess what guys, Bush has the time he says he needs to make his plan work. If it works we should be able to get most of our troops out of Iraq by the Dems deadline, or clear progress will enable supporters to extend it. If it doesn’t work, well, it will pretty much be apparent to all but the brain dead that we should get our troops out.
I just can’t see why the war supporters don’t like it.
And those “business as usual” tactics were exactly what the Democrats ran against in 2006.
Meet the new boss. Same as the Old boss.
If we pull out too soon, I can see the Republican ads now: Helicopters landing on the roof of the Embassy in Saigon, people floating in makeshift boats to escape tyrrany, millions of Cambodians dead or imprisoned for being in University, or even wesring glasses.
And the Democrat(ic)s are trying to do the same thing again!
Leaving Iraquis to die by the hundreds, or thousands, if we leave.
Compassion, my tuches!
Of course, at that moment they’ll be asking for another Friedman.
As opposed to all the Americans and Iraqis who have died because of the war and continue to do so because George Bush can’t admit a mistake.
And who is going to be responsible for the “mistaken” deaths of american troops between now and sept 08?
Dana said it all very well, shit, or get off the pot…
Who? The commander in chief is responsible for the deaths of the troops if their deaths are due to his or her policy positions. The buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Wondering, Frank and pedugger, about the oil that was going to pay for the war?
It is being stolen at least five times more efficiently than Hussein’s corrupt Oil for Food program that pedrugger always likes to bring up. It’s paying for someone. First for the CPA and now for Chalabi and others.
midderpodge: evidence,please?
midderpidge, Frank typed “please”. Better produce what he’s requested. Or else.
I just noticed that it was Rep. Jack “Sgt. Fury” Murtha (the guy who spent about 25 of his 37 years of military duty in the inactive Reserve, while he was collecting a Congressional paycheck — what a hero!).
Or should I call him Rep. Jack “People die in war? This has to stop” Murtha?
Why do you hate the troops, Frank? Why do you not want them to have what they need to do the job? If you were in Congress, would you and Dana and Pedugger vote against this bill?
Cold hearted bastids, all a ya.
Awww, c’MON Frank. Tell me again how the oil pays for the war!!
rustle up votes
Yeah right. You mean buying up votes.
Yeah, Jay. How dare the Democrats use the same tactics as the Republans?
s: You’re a dumb fuck. Does that answer your question?
Here you go Frank:
From CBSNEWS February of this year:
“Millions of dollars’ worth of oil is stolen daily in Iraq because of the absence of oil meters, a basic tool for preventing corruption, according to estimates by classified CIA and State Department reports, the Iraq Study Group Report , a former consultant to a U.S. oil company and a former State Department adviser to Iraq’s Oil Ministry” …
“”I would say probably between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day is probably unaccounted for in Iraq,” says Mikel Morris, who worked for the State Department’s Iraq Reconstruction Management Organization (IRMO) in Baghdad. Depending on fluctuations in the price of oil, the thefts could be worth $20 million to $30 million per day. “…
“The bulk of Iraq’s crude oil exports, which provided 94 percent of Iraq’s $28 billion budget last year, are pumped into tankers at the terminal. The ABOT’s oil meters have been inoperable since the U.S. invasion nearly four years ago, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers”…
From the Iraq Study Group page 22:
There is no metering system for the oil…
Corruption is also debilitating. Experts estimate that 150,000 to 200,000 - and perhaps as many as 500,000 - barrels of oil per day are being stolen…
One senior U.S. official told us that corruption is more responsible than insurgents for breakdowns in the oil sector.
Well, S, according to those articles, alot of the stolen oil money finances the insurgents. That is how oil is paying for te war.
“Leaving Iraquis to die by the hundreds, or thousands, if we leave.”
If we leave? Iraqis are dying by the thousands NOW, you tool.
Yet another example of the mindless bullshit that conservatives spew out in total denial of reality: Why if we leave, Iraq will turn violent!
It’s also totally awesome how pedro and dana are at the ready to declare every US casualty after this bill passes a tragic mistake, the responsoibility for which lies with the democrats, in complete and obvious denial of the fact that Bush has been given carte blanche to run this fucking war for four years and that he will have complete carte blanche to try to salvage something from the disaster he has created between now and 2008.
Idiot tools one and all.
Thanks, midderpidge!
The Republicans and the trolls can rant all they want about how terrible, unpatriotic, terrorist-loving and cowardly the Democrat’s purposals are. The problem for them is, no one’s listening any more. Look at the polls. 60 to 70% of the country wants Bush & Cheney out of the way so we can end this pointless disaster.
Rounds77, you really meant to say that Iraq is safer than LA County because of the brilliant progress. Didn’t you …?
S, are you referencing a point fdFrank_D has been known to make in deference to Bush’s love-the-troops war? Certainly you don’t think I was convinced!
No, no … I’m referencing Dugger’s insistence that Iraq’s doing juuus’ fine and that LA County is a far more dangerous place to be right now.
Oh, my bad! I confused Dugger with Frank, i.e. one kool-aid drinking Bush apologist for another.
Oh, I don’t think Dugger references that one anymore. After analysis, his numbers probably don’t bear out his claim that more AMericans die violently in LA County every year than Americans die violently in Iraq. 900 0r so Americans died in Iraq last year. WHile we never found a concrete number of AMericans that died in LA county, 1080 or so homicides occured. With a large immigrant (non-AMerican population) the LA county American homicide total was probably around 850, maybe less.
Rounds77 | Mar 23, 2007 10:34:05 PM
“Oh, my bad! I confused Dugger with Frank, i.e. one kool-aid drinking Bush apologist for another.”
Completely understandable! It’s difficult to differentiate Frank from pedugger … from SaveFarris … from Jay … from JayTea … from Dana … from Marty.
Rounds77 | Mar 23, 2007 10:34:05 PM
“Oh, my bad! I confused Dugger with Frank, i.e. one kool-aid drinking Bush apologist for another.”
He says, as he echoes Democratic talking points, and admits for all the world to see that he can’t read.
frameone: How could anyone have ever believed you’re intelligent? You have substituted insult and invective for thought for so long around here, you can’t stop now, can you?
Yes, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, but that was over the course of more than three years. I guess what you’re saying is that if that many die much sooner, then it’s OK because that many have died already.
Brilliant.
As for the rest of your keyboard tantrum, you have once again employed your stale tactic of “Let’s pretend you said this or that, and then I can go off like a maniac about how wrong it is.”
midderpidge (tweedlee dumb) has provided evidence for s (tweedelee dumber), but of the wrong thing. “The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.” That’s “billion” with a “b”.
Second of all, there is no evidence, only speculation, that the profits from the oil are funding the insurgents.
Third of all, I have never said that the war in Iraq was about oil — ever.
Fourth, I have never said that the oil in Iraq pays for the war — ever.
So, the anencephalic s is wasting everyone’s time yet again. Midderpidge, in an attempt to entertain our pathological parasite, s, has answered the wrong question in the wrong way.
I salute you both.
1. Frank (tweedlegeezer): $30,000,000 a day. Do the math. Thats $10,950,000,000/year (more on leap year). In other words Frank (tweedlegeezer) the current corruption does in one year what took Hussein did in 7 years.
2. From the GAO report page 69:
“According to State Department officials and reports, about 10 percent to 30 percent of refined fuels is diverted to the black market or is smuggled out of Iraq and sold for a profit. According to U.S. Embassy documents, the insurgency has been partly funded by corrupt activities within Iraq and from skimming profit from black marketeers”
3. ANd Frank (tweedlegeezer), I think the question about oil paying for the War refers directly to pre-invasion Bush administration and pro-war promoter’s claims that Oil revenues would fund the war. They were, of course, grossly and horribly wrong. Instead some of that oil revenue has been siphoned off and used against us.
Good job War Guys.
tweedlegeezer!
Doodyhead!
fd10801 | Mar 24, 2007 2:34:48 AM
“frameone: How could anyone have ever believed you’re intelligent? You have substituted insult and invective for thought for so long around here, you can’t stop now, can you?”
When was the last time frameone was banned from the blog as you recently were for flaming regularly?
“Yes, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, but that was over the course of more than three years.”
And that makes it acceptable?
“As for the rest of your keyboard tantrum …”
You have a lot of mirrors in your New Rochelle, NY apartment you share with your 2 teenage sons?
“Fourth, I have never said that the oil in Iraq pays for the war — ever.”
No one suggested it was ALLLL about what YOU have said or what YOU have thought. Focus, Frank: THE DECIDER ADMINISTRATION told the American people Iraq’s oil would pay for the war. Remember that lie?
s: Your personal remarks about me are indicative of a serious illness — and don’t forget my last email. You will make an error one day.
BTW, I don’t speak for the administration. I guess it’s nice of you to think so, but I don’t.
The next time you’re commenting on a comment, try to remember that.
BTW, it’s been over a year now — aren’t you ready to post a comment yet, shit - for - brains?
Frank, your emails are automatically deleted and have been for weeks now. You think I actually read them?
s: So they are automatically deleted? That will make the surprise all the better.
jesus, frank. get some help.
“Yes, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, but that was over the course of more than three years.”
OH! So we’ve only been killing 150,000 Iraqis a yaer? Well that makes it all worthwhile then.
frameone = s?
zython: I was referring to frameone’s suggestion that we should leave Iraq, even if hundreds of thousands more Iraqis die, because that many have died already. Ask him that question.
“I was referring to frameone’s suggestion that we should leave Iraq, even if hundreds of thousands more Iraqis die …”
Um, frank that’s not what you said. Let’s recap. You wrote:
“And the Democrat(ic)s are trying to do the same thing again! Leaving Iraquis to die by the hundreds, or thousands, if we leave. Compassion, my tuches!”
So you didn’t say hundreds OF thousands. You said hundreds OR thousands. Well, dipshit, Iraqis are dying by the thousands NOW. Your response to this is, well, nothing. OUr current policy is not working and has not been working for four years now. The dems pass a bill that will force Bush to actually make radical changes in our policies if he wants to keep US troops in Iraq and you, quite predictably, bitch about it in a wholly contradictory, incoherent manner.
Like I said, get some help.
frameone: You’re not actually quibbling about “hundreds” versus “thousands”, are you?
Oh, that’s right!
You’re frameone, for whom the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is a heady subject for debate.
Did you ever hear of “context” or “significance”?
Your like the doofus at the party who never gets the joke. Explaining it to him ruins it for everyone else.
You’re the direct descendant of Duns Scotus, for whom the dunce cap is named.
Why?
Because, very simply, just because “many” Iraqis (art thou not pleased,O frameone?) have died already, is no reason why “many more” (feeling better, O sophist one?) should die, if we leave before the job is done.
If you choose to argue that hundreds is not a lot, or that thousands are a lot, go play with yourself.
I gave up on suggesting you seek help long ago. Help is not for people who need it; it’s for people who want it.
A preening, self - important nonentity such as yourself would never seek help.
What TweedleGeezer doesn’t seem to understand is that Bush is incapable of getting the job done. The Dems have clearly done Bush a favor and given him the funding and time for his surge plan to run its course and work. If Bush is able to show success in Iraq over the next 18 months, he will have the political clout to extend any deadline.
If Bush vetoes the bill, he will just be admitting he has no confidence in his current strategy.
What the war supporters like TweedleGeezer seem to be upset about is a deadline that prevents Bush from foisting his failure and mess onto the next president (which will probably be Democratic if Bush can’t show progress in Iraq).
What midderpidge doesn’t seem to understand is that the use of “tweedledumb and tweedledumber” was a clever play on famous names; whereas, tweedlegeezer is a stupid malapropism based on a puerile attempt at payback.
It is as nonsensical as your most recent comment.
Example: If Bush vetoes the bill, he will just be admitting he has no confidence in his current strategy.
He probably believes, as most intelligent people do (this classification obviously excludes Democrats and liberals, who lack even the foresight of nematodes), that publicizing a timetable will encourage Iraq’s terrorists to slow down their efforts to speed up the troop withdrawal that will cement their victory; turn all the troops in country into “short timers” who will be less motivated to take risks; and convince the world that we have no real determination to fight terrorism.
Of course, President Bush has already said that he anticipates the war in Iraq will go beyond his own term. If there is a political price to be paid for that, he can not pay it twice.
“…very simply, just because “many” Iraqis (art thou not pleased,O frameone?) have died already, is no reason why “many more” (feeling better, O sophist one?) should die, if we leave before the job is done.”
Very simply, many Iraqis have died, are dying now and will continue to die if we stay or if we leave. There is no “job” to finish. It’s over. Bush blew it.
We are not capable of containing the violence that is occurring now in Iraq. We will never be able to contain it as long as the vast majority if Iraqis view us as occupiers, and failed occupiers at that. We let the genie of sectarian violence out of the bottle and we cannot put it back by doing nothing more than simply “staying.”
And that’s all you are actually advocating. Just staying for staying sake.
THe utter incoherence of your thinking is evident in your last comment. You write:
“…that publicizing a timetable will encourage Iraq’s terrorists to slow down their efforts to speed up the troop withdrawal that will cement their victory;”
So publicizing a timetable will get the terrorists to reduce their attacks and that’s why you’re against it?
You have no idea what you’re even typing anymore do you?
And that’s all you are actually advocating. Just staying for staying sake.
Not at all. You’re the one saying “There is no ‘job’ to finish.” Not I, not many of the commanders in the field in Iraq, nor the Multi - National Force.
So publicizing a timetable will get the terrorists to reduce their attacks and that’s why you’re against it?
Wrong again, O quickly typing, but slow - witted one. Try it again:
Maybe I was not totally clear, but I was by no means incoherent — or mistaken.
“… I was by no means incoherent — or mistaken.”
So in response to a timeline the terrorists are going to slow down their attacks to hasten our withdrawal? And why would slowing down their attack hasten our withdrawal? Because we’ll be fooled into declaring victory? But if that’s the terrorists master plan, why do they need a timetable to trigger it? Why don’t they just stop attacking us and their fellow iraqis now, creating a fals sense of security that would hasten our withdrawal? At the same time, the dem bill sets a specific date for withdrawal if the iraqi DOESN’T achieve certain goals. So actually achieving those goals, such as reducing violence, wouldn’t hasten our departure under the plan. Indeed, meeting our goals is the only way to ensure our continued presence.
You make no sense frank.
What TweedleGeezer doesn’t seem to understand or address is that Bush has four years of policy and strategic failure in Iraq. Bush has the funding to implement his strategy and now needs to show it can succeed if he expects America to continue to pay for his blunders with lives and money.
We’ve been there four years. Where are all those Iraqis we’ve trained? They can hit the streets and restore order. They should be ready now, and if not now, within 18 months don’t you think.
Bottom Line, TG10801, if Bush could show some success in his strategy and policies, he would have the political clout to extend the deadlines. If Bush had any success in Iraq to point to, that bill would never have passed.
If the terrorists are aware of a U.S. imposed deadline — they have television, you know — they will slow down their efforts to give the appearance that allies are achieving some success. They are as aware of Democratic politics, as I am.
The Democrats will call for a faster withdrawal, because they will claim there is less need for us to be there, now that “things have quieted down.” The Democrats will do this, whether or not they believe it is true. They will do it because it is politically expedient. It is precisely because they always do what is politically expedient, rather than that which is militarily necessary, that they can never again be trusted with the national defense in the future.
Contrary to your comment,frame, “The $124 billion House legislation … would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.”
So, you’ve got things turned around — SEP 2008 is the latest pullout date.
midderoidge: What do you suppose was the meaning of “a unanimous recommendation Wednesday from the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday [to approve] Petraeus’ nomination”?
Was he chosen to supervise the withdrawal?
If the Democrats approved of sending Petraeus to Iraq at this late date, don’t you think they expected him to do something? Did they give him eighteen months to get the job done? No, they did not.
Frank, the terrorists don’t need an announced timetable to prusue the devious “fake out” strategy you’ve concocted. Like the equally ridiculous “wait us out” strategy you’re just spewing nonsense. If the terrorists were planning to “fake us out” or “wait us out” don’t you think they would have done so already?
And the bill says exactly what I said it does. If the Iraqi government meets certain goals, we stay longer. If not, we leave earlier. One of those goals, I assume, is a reduction in violence. So if the terrorists execute their super devious “fake out” plan as you describe, we will in fact stay longer than if they kept attacking.
You’re a total moron.
And the bill says exactly what I said it does
Not like you to make an assertion without a quote, a cite, AND a link. You’ve provided none.
the terrorists don’t need an announced timetable to pursue the devious “fake out” strategy you’ve concocted
Yes they do, you jerk. Why would why they slow down their activities if we have no sure plan to leave?
What do you think they’re going to do - use some kind of “double reverse” psychology — act like they’re no longer interested in blowing themselves, and innocent women and children up,and then we’ll leave because we think we’ve won?
This isn’t a Marx Bros. routine, half wit — it’s a fucking war!
You don’t win by not fighting — unless you know the other guys are leaving the field on a date certain.
I’m done. You’re just arguing because there’s nothing on TV.
You’re, like, schizophrenic aren’t you? Or are there multiple people logging in as you?
One frank writes this:
The other frank writes this:
Almost within an hour of posting the first comment, you have completely reversed yourself and dismissed as “a Marx Bros. routine” what you previously put forth as a serious strategic consideration. Truly mind boggling.
The question is frank, why would they slow down their activities because we’re leaving? The only reason why there’s an imposed deadline is because we have been showing NO APPEARANCE of achieving ANY success in Iraq. Why would the terrorists suddenly decide to create the appearance of success now when our staying longer is dependent on those very signs of success?
No logic in Frank’s post. The terrorists love having us in Iraq. There, we’re targets. We’re also recruiting posters for them. And financers for them.
frameone: suppose you answer a question for me this time: Imagine you are a terrorist — easy for you. You hear that Americans are leaving in SEP 2008.
You can go fucking batshit, scare the crap out of everybody (again, easy for you) and make the Republican case for the fact that we should stay because the Islamofascists are crazy as bedbugs, OR, you can ease up, lead everybody to believe that things are cooling off in Iraq, and then after the Americans leave, proceed apace with your plan to impose sharia on Iraq.
Which course would you choose?
If you try to answer the question by saying there is something wrong with me, instead of just answering it with what little sense you have left, then you’ve already lost.
Not like you to make an assertion without a quote, a cite, AND a link. You’ve provided none.
Funny, from Mr.”I’m not going to submit evidence for your approval”.
Let me ask you something, Geezer: Do you still hate America, and if not, why not?
“…OR, you can ease up, lead everybody to believe that things are cooling off in Iraq, and then after the Americans leave, proceed apace with your plan to impose sharia on Iraq.”
Here’s what you don’t get frank. The terrorists don’t have to make an either or choice. They can proceed apace with their plans to do whatever the hell they want in Iraq whether were there or not, whether we have a deadline for withdrawal or not because we can’t stop them. What began as a nationalist driven insurgency has morphed into a civil war and the participants thus far have been able to act with virtual impunity. The terrorists have been doing what they please for almost four years now in total defiance of what anyone of any political stripe in America thinks. Your acting as if our presence in Iraq is having any impact whatsoever on the situation. It isn’t, except in so far as it provides an easy target for terrorists to recruit an increasingly hostile Iraqi population.
The dems have essentially told Bush, demonstrate that you can actually impact the situation in Iraq and we wil give you a full 18 months to get it together before we withdraw. If you can’t, we will consider pulling out sooner.
Under those conditions the terrorists gain nothing by decreasing their violence and they have nothing to lose by maintaining their current levels.
It’s obvious that Bush will veto the dem plan if it comes to his desk but whether we set a deadline or stay forever, the violence will continue apace. We can’t control it.
Jonathan, grow up…
See, Frank, S asked a question; I made a statement; you asked for evidence; I provided it; S asked the question again; I applied an answer you didn’t like from the evidence I provided earlier; you asked for more evidence; I gave it; you had a fit.
Why would you have a fit? Why is pointing out the rampant corruption the wrong answer to “who’s going to pay for this war”? Let me answer for you, It’s the answer to why Bush hasn’t got a fucking chance to make things better in Iraq now. The Iraqi government will never be able to stand on its own as a Western Style Democracy with that much unchallenged corruption.
Who’s Johnathan? Johnathan Jostar? Poor Frank, he even thinks that comic book characters are out to get him.
My mistake, Joel, you schmuck!
midderpidge, I don’t need the running commentary. I didn’t “dislike” your answer — I responded to it.
Using your logic, you insisted it was true, I insisted it wasn’t.
I don’t recall the “fit” part.
But, really, who cares?
You want to volunteer my answer to your question?
Good. Now I don’t have to answer it.
Did you really think you set me up with that stupid statement about Pres. Bush?
Perhaps you thought I believed you liked the President until just now?
You’re an ass, and a dumb one at that.
You see, you and all the other lefties fire at me in unison, and then you get your panties in a wad, when I don’t give you the answers you want to play your silly games.
midderpidge, you have chosen to entertain the semen - breathed “s”. Wonderful, he’s all yours.
what a crazy fucker
My mistake, Joel, you schmuck!
Who’s Joel? Whoever he is, I hope he never has the displeasure of running into you.
Is there some kind of point in your ravings?
Do you disagree with my points that there is rampant corruption in Iraq?
That it surpasses the level of corruption of the Hussein era Oil for Food program?
That some of that corruption funds insurgents and terrorists?
That rampant corruption is a major roadblock to instituting a western style democracy?
How about: Bush has a four year record of waste, fraud, failure and death in Iraq. If Bush could show progress in Iraq, he would have the political clout to do away with any deadlines.
If you do disagree with my points, make your own arguments and back them up with evidence. Otherwise, you should shut the fuck up.
Is there some kind of point in your ravings?
Yes… That people like you any many others demand respect, but don’t give any. It’s part of the liberal pathology that “having an open mind” means believing what liberals say — nothing more.
Do you disagree with my points that there is rampant corruption in Iraq?
Yes.
That it surpasses the level of corruption of the Hussein era Oil for Food program?
It does not.
That some of that corruption funds insurgents and terrorists?
Some, maybe.
That rampant corruption is a major roadblock to instituting a western style democracy?
Nope.
I don’t care if you shut the fuck up or not. I’m not hear to prevent you from commenting.
See Frank, no back up. When I say there is rampant corruption, I back it up with articles, the Iraq survey group report, and the GAO report.
When you say there isn’t, you say there isn’t.
Ditto for every point of mine you just denied.
With nothing to really add to the discussion its no wonder you resort to name calling.
I personally love the assumption that rampant corruption isn’t a roadblock to democracy. How like a conservative.
midderpidge: We can end this whenever you want.
frameone: In the abstract, corruption might be a roadblock to democracy. The original question, as I interpreted it, was, “Is rampant corruption [in Iraq] a stumbling block to democracy”?
Perhaps you would like to explain how “rampant corruption is a roadblock to democracy”?
The situation described in the news story was not an indicator of rampant corruption to me. Thus, the nonexistence of rampant corruption is not a stumbling block to democracy in Iraq.
Um, if there is rampant corruption in iraq then it would be a major roadblock to democracy. if you don’t think so, you apparently just don’t understand how democracies work. Remember how they’re supposed to run by the people for the people and not by the people for whoever can shell out enough money to buy the laws and resources that they want. Or do you also think that Nigeria is a flowering font of democratic enlightenment?
When you have to be given basic citizenship and civics lessons, you really have to get off the koolaid my dumbfuck friend.
frameone: So corruption is a roadblock to democracy because you say it is.
Swell.
Must every one of your comments include an insult?
You’re a real piece of work.
So maybe as buch as 30% of Iraq’s oil revenue is siphoned off each year by corruption. Couldn’t be a problem.
Some of that money goes to terrorists and insurgents who buy guns and bombs and other weapons and use them to create chaos. Not a roadblock
We train Iraqis to eventually take our place, but the militias pay better so some, after training, join the militias. Some stay in the Iraq army by day and run with the militias at night. Not a problem.
We provide billions of dollars in support to that army. We provide them with guns and weapons many of which aren’t accounted for and are probably in the hands of terrorists and insurgents. Not a roadblock.
And we haven’t even talked about the reconstruction money. Reconstruction that hasn’t been accomplished despite the hefty price tag. Billions of dollars have simply disappeared. Inflated costs, overcharges, overruns, work charged and not done, equipment bought but not delivered. Things are going well.
In Frank’s delirium, it simply isn’t happening. And because it isn’t happening it can’t be a roadblock. That and the beautiful ponies.
“So corruption is a roadblock to democracy because you say it is.”
Okay, great frank. Corruption is not inherently anti-democratic. Sure. Whatever you say.
It’s simply astonishing how far conservatives will go to protect their fantasy worldview. We now have frank on the record arguing that corruption poses no serious threat to a democratic society all because he wants to defend some ridiculous idea that everything is going just swimmingly in iraq.
It really is fascinating how the conservative mind works.
If I thought either of you were in the least bit interested in why I think so, I would tell you why. But you two seem to be having so much fun, I wouldn’t want to interfere.
Enjoy yourselves.
In other words, Frank, you can’t back up your position.
Hilarious. What. A. Loser.
I don’t need a newspaper article to back up my position, and I don’t say things with “other words”. I’m not playing straight man to your road show.
OMG. You are indeed playing straight man. You are the funniest fucking clown on the internets,frank. Own it. You rULL!
I don’t need a newspaper article to back up my posiiton … Hilariass! So what you’re saying is that rampant corruption isn’t a roadblock to democracy because you say it is?
mercy, frank, mercy …
You haven’t even laid out a position. You just took points and articles I made and said: No.
See Frank, Democracy is supposed to be government of the people by the people. What Iraq has is government of the powerful to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
I can make a statement about whether or not corruption is a roadblock to democracy without quoting a newspaper article.
You guys are doing a fine job of insulting me, and you’re not quoting any newspaper articles to do it.
You both are fundamentally mistaken, but I’m not going to point it out to you while I’m ducking for cover.
See, insulting is all you can do, frameone.
Meanwhile, midderpidge might actually believe I’ve never heard of the Gettysburg Address; he might even believe it’s a legal document.
So,carry on. I hope at least one of you is having a good time, because your usual hangers on seem to be otherwise occupied.
But I’m reading your posts. Yes, and they are revealing.
what a nut. Frank, you haven’t explained at all how rampant corruption is inconsequential in the building and development of a democracy.
Honestly, is it not on its face obvious that corruption is antithetical to democratic processes? It’s like why in the hell does this have to be explained to you? You actually want someone to cite you a newspaper article or “person of authority” to confirm that yes, corruption is bad for democracy building? Seriously?
To the extent that democracies require the public to have faith in the voting and legislative process, corruption thoroughly undermines that faith as it is a means for the few and the powerful to thwart the will of the people for their own gains. This is obvious. Hell, this is why they call it CORRUPTION! It’s CORRUPTING!
For crying out loud. You’re a total idiot.
(naturally you’ll only acknowledge that i called you an idiot, which you are, and completely ignore the rest of this comment)
Honestly, is it not on its face obvious that corruption is antithetical to democratic processes?
The answer to that question is no. It might be true in the United States in 2007,but is not necessarily true in the Iraq of 2007.
When you and midderpidge can somehow demonstrate that you want to discuss this, and that you are not simply awaiting my next comment so you can insult me, let me know.
But I am enjoying reading your comments, Paul.
So many words to say so little!
BTW, frameone, you insolent asshole, has it yet occurred to you that if I were an idiot, I wouldn’t even understand your repetitive comments?
I’ll quote this again, in the hope that you will begin to realize what a horse’s ass you are:
Here’s a question for you: Is there anywhere in that staement an indication that I want you to produce a newspaper article to back up your statement that “corruption is antithetical to democratic processes”?
“The answer to that question is no.”
Honestly. You are nuttier than a fruit cake.
Adding: it’s now patently obvious to that you are not an idiot. You’re just plain crazy. Good luck with that, Frank.
Frank, some simple points for you:
You asked for supporting evidence.
You started calling everybody names in this thread.
You failed to make any argument explaining your position. Instead you were more interested in whining about the name calling you started.
And Frank, I know the Gettysburg Address is the house where Lincoln’s mistress lived, so there.
Recap:
Midderpidge: there’s rampant corruption.
Frank: prove it.
Midderpidge: here’s an article and the ISG report that lays it out for you.
Midderpidge: some of that corruption funds the insurgents.
Frank: prove it.
Midderpidge: here’s the GAO report.
Frank: you are an stupid, Tweedledum.
Midderpidge: ok TweedleGeezer.
Frank: BoooHoooo! You called me a geezer.
Midderpidge: whatever.
Frank: you can’t make an argument without calling me names.
Midderpidge: Ok, here are my points 1-2-3-4.
Frank: No, No, No, No.
Midderpidge: here’s why I say 1-2-3-4.
Frank: No!
Midderpidge: why no?
Frank: I’m not going to explain it because you are going to call me names!
The way I see it, I was trying to answer two sets of questions, all the while being harangued and abused.
I think I handled it well, considering that since about 2:30 P.M. no one asked me a question.
You’re good at review, midderpidge, why don’t you review your comments and frameone’s comments since then, and see where you addressed me seriously with the intent of having a discuss