PDA

View Full Version : Bush meets with Iraqi PM in surprise trip


Donger
06-13-2006, 08:09 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_iraq;_ylt=Ag9PFERiFabAvzoeRuVvPWWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Bush, seeking to bolster support for Iraq's burgeoning goverment and U.S. war policy at home, made a surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday to meet newly named Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and discuss the next steps in the troubled 3-year-old war.

It was a dramatic move by Bush, traveling to violence-rattled Baghdad less than a week after the death of terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a bombing attack. The president was expected to be in Baghdad a little more than five hours.

Bush met with al-Maliki in heavily fortified green zone at a palace once used by Saddam Hussein. It now serves temporarily as the U.S. Embassy.

"Good to see you," exclaimed al-Maliki, who didn't know Bush was in Baghdad until five minutes before they met.

"Thanks for having me," Bush responded. They smiled broadly and gave each other a two-handed handshake in the high-domed marble room.

The trip was known only to a handful of aides and a small number of reporters sworn to secrecy because of obvious security threats for Bush and members of his entourage.

The prime minister had been invited to the embassy on the pretense of taking part in a video conference with Bush, supposedly at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountins. The videoconference was to go on as scheduled, but with Bush appearing alongside al-Maliki.

It was a dramatic move by Bush, traveling in secret to violence-ridden Baghdad six days after the death of Zarqawi. The administration hoped the elimination of Zarqawi and the completion of al-Maliki's cabinet would make war-weary Americans look at Iraq in a more positive light.

Aside from al-Maliki and his cabinet, Bush was to see Jalal Talibani, Iraq's largely ceremonial president. Bush also was to meet with the speaker of the parliament, national political leaders and U.S. troops.

Air Force One landed in hazy daylight at Baghdad Airport, where the temperature was above 100 degrees. Bush transferred to a helicopter for the six-minute ride to the green zone.

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:10 AM
The prime minister had been invited to the embassy on the pretense of taking part in a video conference with Bush, supposedly at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountins.

"Bush Lied, al-Maliki Cried!"

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:17 PM
Talk about a god awful waste of taxpayer money for a politically motivated photo-op. Seriously that was just plain stupid and should have never been permitted.

memyselfI
06-13-2006, 06:21 PM
Talk about a god awful waste of taxpayer money for a politically motivated photo-op. Seriously that was just plain stupid and should have never been permitted.

Did he happen to venture outside the Green Zone??? :hmmm:

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 06:25 PM
Talk about a god awful waste of taxpayer money for a politically motivated photo-op. Seriously that was just plain stupid and should have never been permitted.


Wow. Just wow. But you're against the death tax, right? Logical = a lonely man looking for things to argue about. memegunt = a lonely woman looking for an Iranian home.

mlyonsd
06-13-2006, 06:28 PM
Talk about a god awful waste of taxpayer money for a politically motivated photo-op. Seriously that was just plain stupid and should have never been permitted.

Matter of opinion. You could also argue almost every flight Air Force One takes and a President gives a speech is just a politically motivated photo-op.

Or FDR, Churchill, and Stalin meeting in the Atlantic for that matter.

As far as how dangerous it was I don't see where you're in the position to assess that.

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:28 PM
Wow. Just wow. But you're against the death tax, right? Logical = a lonely man looking for things to argue about. memegunt = a lonely woman looking for an Iranian home.

Seriously, death tax, WTF are you talking about?

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:30 PM
Matter of opinion. You could also argue almost every flight Air Force One takes and a President gives a speech is just a politically motivated photo-op.

Or FDR, Churchill, and Stalin meeting in the Atlantic for that matter.

As far as how dangerous it was I don't see where you're in the position to assess that.

Where did I say it was dangerous. I said it was stupid and a waste of taxpayer money.

memyselfI
06-13-2006, 06:34 PM
Matter of opinion. You could also argue almost every flight Air Force One takes and a President gives a speech is just a politically motivated photo-op.

Or FDR, Churchill, and Stalin meeting in the Atlantic for that matter.

As far as how dangerous it was I don't see where you're in the position to assess that.

Did he venture out of the Green Zone? Perhaps, a quick jaunt to Fallujah? ;)

mlyonsd
06-13-2006, 06:36 PM
Where did I say it was dangerous. I said it was stupid and a waste of taxpayer money.

My bad. I was equating stupid with dangerous. I retract.

Although my statement that every Presidential trip is politically motivated to some degree stands.

mlyonsd
06-13-2006, 06:39 PM
Did he venture out of the Green Zone? Perhaps, a quick jaunt to Fallujah? ;)

He landed outside the green zone in Air Force One and choppered into the green zone to be accurate.

I find your attempt to place him in the coward corner as funny as when you equated his Guard service with trying to get out of Vietnam. Poorly misplaced and motivated by hate, not rational thought.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 06:43 PM
Seriously, death tax, WTF are you talking about?


Yeah - ok, Jim. Play dumb on the death tax vote....

I'm sure you are worried where tax payer money is going..

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 07:06 PM
Yeah, I'm really broken up that someone has to pay taxes only on the inheritance or an estate of over two million (for the years 2005-2007). Cry me a river...

It's not a "Death" tax. The act of Dying is always free. Burial and other assorted expenses, not so much, nor should they be as they are services one purchases. It's a tax on the transfer of wealth. Nothing more, nothing less. No different than a sales tax or a gift tax IMO, as it's just another transfer of wealth.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 07:18 PM
Yeah, I'm really broken up that someone has to pay taxes only on the inheritance or an estate of over two million (for the years 2005-2007). Cry me a river...

It's not a "Death" tax. The act of Dying is always free. Burial and other assorted expenses, not so much, nor should they be as they are services one purchases. It's a tax on the transfer of wealth. Nothing more, nothing less. No different than a sales tax or a gift tax IMO, as it's just another transfer of wealth.


That is a well thought out, truthful assesment of the death tax. So - you start a succesfull business in the good 'ole US of A and when you die, the government decides to tax you 45% on the revenue of your business on top of the 30+ percent it has been taxing you for the life of your business. That sounds like democracy...I'm sure you'd love it that applied to you -- but it's only the wealthy it effects. Not their families or employees or anything....what a grand Democrat idea.

Logical
06-13-2006, 07:20 PM
Yeah - ok, Jim. Play dumb on the death tax vote....

I'm sure you are worried where tax payer money is going..
I have no clue what you are talking about, I ain't planning on dieing any time soon. Did someone give you the impression I was going to die?

By the way I have been and always will be against the inheritence tax if that is what you are speaking of when you talk of death tax.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 07:21 PM
Yeah, I'm really broken up that someone has to pay taxes only on the inheritance or an estate of over two million (for the years 2005-2007). Cry me a river...

It's not a "Death" tax. The act of Dying is always free. Burial and other assorted expenses, not so much, nor should they be as they are services one purchases. It's a tax on the transfer of wealth. Nothing more, nothing less. No different than a sales tax or a gift tax IMO, as it's just another transfer of wealth.


Your opinion is obviously tainted by your HATE for __________. (see other thread for details.) ____________ = anyone successful.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 07:22 PM
I have no clue what you are talking about, I ain't planning on dieing any time soon. Did someone give you the impression I was going to die?


Obviously.

Logical
06-13-2006, 07:25 PM
Obviously.
Amusing but seriously, did you think I was dying? Otherwise I still don't understand the relevance of your question.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 07:38 PM
Your opinion is obviously tainted by your HATE for __________. (see other thread for details.) ____________ = anyone successful.An intriguing, yet utterly incorrect assumption.

It has nothing to do with hate or malice. It's merely the logical position based upon three principles I hold.(They are, of course, JMO).

1) If we must have taxation (and I'm enough of a realist to admit we must), it is a better option in the long term to tax income which is unearned (i.e. gifts like inheritances and such) than income which is directly worked for.

2) The possibility of the loss of said monies to the government encourages the person to spend some of those funds before they die, purchasing goods and services which will stimulate the economy further. In the case of a company, it may induce them to sell it to someone else, and those proceeds can be spent similarly.

3) A tax on the inheritance of estates discourages the accumulation of unearned money, and hence unearned power, which can be detrimental to the continued effectiveness to a democratic republic form of government.

The fact that it is limited to relatively large estates, and thus is not an undue burden on most of the populace strikes me as fairly intelligent economic policy.

As for it being applied to me? Why should I care? I'll be dead. At that point, I don't see myself really worried about much of anything... :D

I certainly don't have the mindset that my family "owed" me anything when they passed on. I'll leave something for the kids, but I worked for a living, why shouldn't they?

BTW- If you're naive enough to think I'm a Democrat, or a member of any political party.. :rolleyes:

Baby Lee
06-13-2006, 07:59 PM
Talk about a god awful waste of taxpayer money for a politically motivated photo-op. Seriously that was just plain stupid and should have never been permitted.
Hate has officially blinded you.

Sad, really.

Logical
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
Hate has officially blinded you.

Sad, really.

Come on, tell me what significant could have happened in a 5 hour stopover that could not have been accomplished with a videoconference. You know the answer is nothing, this was a pure and simple political stunt.

Look at our brave President going into a war zone.

See our brave President meeting with the new designated puppet we in essence appointed.

See Mr. and Miss Stupid Americans all the progress that has been made. You should support us now!

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 08:06 PM
Come on, tell me what significant could have happened in a 5 hour stopover that could not have been accomplished with a videoconference. You know the answer is nothing, this was a pure and simple political stunt.

Look at our brave President going into a war zone.

See our brave President meeting with the new designated puppet we in essence appointed.

See Mr. and Miss Stupid Americans all the progress that has been made. You should support us now!


This is why I haven't posted in this forum for a year. Fact has no basis. I'm sure his visit did nothing for the new gov't there. After all, Jim the Chiefsplanet loser says it can't work - so therefore any attempt at gov't will fail due to religious beliefs.

Logical
06-13-2006, 08:17 PM
This is why I haven't posted in this forum for a year. Fact has no basis. I'm sure his visit did nothing for the new gov't there. After all, Jim the Chiefsplanet loser says it can't work - so therefore any attempt at gov't will fail due to religious beliefs.

Factually what could have occured in a 5 hour stopover that could not have occured in a Videoconference?

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:26 PM
See our brave President meeting with the new designated puppet we in essence appointed.

Wow. How amazingly grotesque.

Those people risked death, not "Oh gee, this is going to take a long time and I'm going to miss Oprah!!," to vote in their future, and you disparage them with your tripe.

You, too, go f*ck yourself, permanently.

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:37 PM
Factually what could have occured in a 5 hour stopover that could not have occured in a Videoconference?

Oh, I don't know. My impression of a country's resolve might be hightened if that leader flew halfway around the world to see me, rather than spending some 'quality time' with me over the phone.

The cynicism that you people feed upon and thrive on will be your undoing.

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:42 PM
These simple, malleable fools...

.

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:42 PM
Another one.

.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 08:58 PM
How may times did this guy vote? :p

(Seriously..Donger, you make a pretty damn good point about the election. While I have serious doubts about the long term success of a democratic Iraq, that in no way diminishes my respect for the risk these folks took.)

Logical
06-13-2006, 08:58 PM
Wow. How amazingly grotesque.

Those people risked death, not "Oh gee, this is going to take a long time and I'm going to miss Oprah!!," to vote in their future, and you disparage them with your tripe.

You, too, go f*ck yourself, permanently.You know we always can use more posters and a wider variety of views over here in DC, so welcome back from that perspective.

However if you are going to behave this way please don't go back to the lounge and proclaim what a slum DC is when you are the one creating the situation.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:02 PM
You know we always can use more posters and a wider variety of views over here in DC, so welcome back from that perspective.

However if you are going to behave this way please don't go back to the lounge and proclaim what a slum DC is when you are the one creating the situation.

No thanks. Oh, and you can still go f*ck yourself.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:03 PM
How may times did this guy vote? :p

(Seriously..Donger, you make a pretty damn good point about the election. While I have serious doubts about the long term success of a democratic Iraq, that in no way diminishes my respect for the risk these folks took.)

Shut the hell up! They're just pawns in BushCo's evil and malicious PR stunt!

:)

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:13 PM
No thanks. Oh, and you can still go f*ck yourself.You do realize that a large number of Theocracys hold elections that are widely participated in. Voting is not isolated to Democracies.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:16 PM
You do realize that a large number of Theocracys hold elections that are widely participated in. Voting is not isolated to Democracies.

And I'm sure you do realize that sometimes an apple is just, well, an apple.

If you have some evidence that backs up your apparent assertion that these elections were something less than the Iraqi people asserting their political will, post it.

Sans that, I've nothing more to say to you.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:28 PM
And I'm sure you do realize that sometimes an apple is just, well, an apple.

If you have some evidence that backs up your apparent assertion that these elections were something less than the Iraqi people asserting their political will, post it.

Sans that, I've nothing more to say to you.I have three things to say

(Shiite religious based) United Iraqi Alliance 140 seats
(The United Iraqi Alliance (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): الائتلاف العراقي الموحد; transliterated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_transliteration): al-I'tilāf al-`Irāqī al-Muwaad) is the electoral coalition that achieved the most votes in the December 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), National Assembly election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_December_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). The member groups of the coalition are listed below. The alliance formed in the lead up to the January 2005 elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) from mainly Shi'ite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27ite) groups most importantly the Islamic Al-Da'wa Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Da%27wa_Party) and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq))

(Kurdish Religious Based)Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 70 seats
(The Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan is the name of the electoral coalition first presented as a united Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people) list in the January 2005 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). Elections were held simultaneously for the assembly of the Kurdistan Regional Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Autonomous_Region). The Alliance represents a coalition of the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Democratic_Party) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_of_Kurdistan))

(Shia religious based) Iraqi List 40 seats
(The Iraqi List (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): al-Qayimaal Iraqia) is a political party list in the Iraqi National Assembly election, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Assembly_election%2C_2005), consisting of mainly Shia)

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:30 PM
I have three things to say

(Shiite religious based) United Iraqi Alliance 140 seats
(The United Iraqi Alliance (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): الائتلاف العراقي الموحد; transliterated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_transliteration): al-I'tilāf al-`Irāqī al-Muwaḥḥad) is the electoral coalition that achieved the most votes in the December 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), National Assembly election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_December_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). The member groups of the coalition are listed below. The alliance formed in the lead up to the January 2005 elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) from mainly Shi'ite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27ite) groups most importantly the Islamic Al-Da'wa Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Da%27wa_Party) and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq))

(Kurdish Religious Based)Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 70 seats
(The Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan is the name of the electoral coalition first presented as a united Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people) list in the January 2005 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). Elections were held simultaneously for the assembly of the Kurdistan Regional Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Autonomous_Region). The Alliance represents a coalition of the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Democratic_Party) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_of_Kurdistan))

(Shia religious based) Iraqi List 40 seats
(The Iraqi List (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): al-Qayimaal Iraqia) is a political party list in the Iraqi National Assembly election, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Assembly_election%2C_2005), consisting of mainly Shia)


Yeah. Looks like they voted upon their established demographic makeup.

Go figure.

I suppose it was better when 99% of them voted Baathist Sunni, eh?

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:36 PM
Yeah. Looks like they voted upon their established demographic makeup.

Go figure.

I suppose it was better when 99% of them voted Baathist Sunni, eh?

the·oc·ra·cy http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtheocracy) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (thhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:39 PM
the·oc·ra·cy http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtheocracy) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (thhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

I don't dispute that religion is more ingrained in the political system than it is here. It's inherent to the region. But the fact remains that the Iraqi people, freely and willingly, went to the polls to cast their votes in order to shape their future.

You sully their efforts and their courage with your words.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:41 PM
I don't dispute that religion is more ingrained in the political system than it is here. It's inherent to the region. But the fact remains that the Iraqi people, freely and willingly, went to the polls to cast their votes in order to shape their future.

You sully their efforts and their courage with your words.

I simply said they are going to be a theocracy (a government dominated by religion). I have backed it up with facts. That is what you asked for me to do.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:45 PM
I simply said they are going to be a theocracy (a government dominated by religion). I have backed it up with facts. That is what you asked for me to do.

Possibly. Time will tell.

But, at the minimum, a democratically elected theocracy. If that is the system of goverment that they wish to have and so voted in, so be it.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:47 PM
Possibly. Time will tell.

But, at the minimum, a democratically elected theocracy. If that is the system of goverment that they wish to have and so voted in, so be it.I really don't care either way. We do not belong in their country, we achieved our goal we got rid of Saddam.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:52 PM
I really don't care either way. We do not belong in their country, we achieved our goal we got rid of Saddam.

I know that we live in a 24/7, I need it now media culture, but these things take time, especially in the ME. What happened in Iraq was a fantastic thing, no matter how it is spun. Freedom breeds freedom.

I'll give it a chance, with time. I'm sad to see that you, apparently, will not.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:55 PM
Here's another one of those silly theocratists.

.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:56 PM
I know that we live in a 24/7, I need it now media culture, but these things take time, especially in the ME. What happened in Iraq was a fantastic thing, no matter how it is spun. Freedom breeds freedom.

I'll give it a chance, with time. I'm sad to see that you, apparently, will not.We put 10 years and 57000 American lives into a lost cause in Vietnam. I would hope we would limit our losses to 3 years and 2500 American lives since we should have learned our lesson.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:56 PM
Here's another one of those silly theocratists.

.?

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:57 PM
We put 10 years and 57000 American lives into a lost cause in Vietnam. I would hope we would limit our losses to 3 years and 2500 American lives since we should have learned our lesson.

That analogy is borderline pathetic, as I'm sure you know.

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:02 PM
That analogy is borderline pathetic, as I'm sure you know.

Yes in the first 4 years we were involved in Vietnam we only lost 1000 lives not 2500.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:04 PM
Yes in the first 4 years we were involved in Vietnam we only lost 1000 lives not 2500.

And, how many troops did we have in-country during that timeframe? How many active ops and patrols were they running?

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:10 PM
And, how many troops did we have in-country during that timeframe? How many active ops and patrols were they running? At that point in 1965 we had 125000 troops in Vietnam. Can't say I know how many patrols we were running just like I don't know how many patrols we are running in Iraq.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:13 PM
At that point in 1965 we had 125000 troops in Vietnam. Can't say I know how many patrols we were running just like I don't know how many patrols we are running in Iraq.

Yes, but we've had that many since day one in Iraq. The escalation in Vietnam didn't happen proper until 1965.

Your analogy is moot.

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:22 PM
Yes, but we've had that many since day one in Iraq. The escalation in Vietnam didn't happen proper until 1965.

Your analogy is moot.No my point was not to allow ourselves to lose 50K + lives by following the same course. To learn from history and get out now.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:26 PM
No my point was not to allow ourselves to lose 50K + lives by following the same course. To learn from history and get out now.

Your point, which I take to be that Iraq is analogous to Vietnam, is moot.

They are not the same. We are not going to lose 57,000 men in Iraq, even based on your own mathematics.

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:37 PM
Your point, which I take to be that Iraq is analogous to Vietnam, is moot.

They are not the same. We are not going to lose 57,000 men in Iraq, even based on your own mathematics.I only hope you are right, I am sure that people would have said the same thing in 1965.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:39 PM
I only hope you are right, I am sure that people would have said the same thing in 1965.

Comparing today's situtation/culture to 1965 is about silly as comparing Vietnam to Iraq.

But you know this, of course.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 06:34 AM
I simply said they are going to be a theocracy (a government dominated by religion). I have backed it up with facts. That is what you asked for me to do.

On the one hand, what you posted as backup were, indeed, facts, but on the other hand, they didn't really support your assertion very well, much less prove it.

It's possible that someday Iraq will be ruled by a theocracy, but the recent elections aren't a step in that direction.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 08:48 AM
Come on, tell me what significant could have happened in a 5 hour stopover that could not have been accomplished with a videoconference. You know the answer is nothing, this was a pure and simple political stunt.

Look at our brave President going into a war zone.

See our brave President meeting with the new designated puppet we in essence appointed.

See Mr. and Miss Stupid Americans all the progress that has been made. You should support us now!
It's not about the taxpayer cost,
It's not about the politics,
It's not about the strategy,
It IS about the hate.

If the HATE comes first, every videoconference is a half-assed measure, every day he DOESN'T make direct contact with the troops on the ground is him being out of touch with the situation, and every trip of this nature is a stunt. If the HATE comes first, there ISN'T a right move, because people you HATE never make right moves.

If the best interests of the country come first, you remember that people are bouyed by personal contact with the President. Whether it's Reagan [or Kennedy] standing in front of the Berlin Wall, Nixon in China, Clinton shedding tears in Oklahoma City, Bush hugging firemen at ground zero, or . . . Bush meeting personally with the new national leader and the troops, it changes the landscape.

BTW - Since it doesn't make any difference, your family has decided to attend all your future birthdays by telephone. ;)

Logical
06-14-2006, 08:53 AM
It's not about the taxpayer cost,
It's not about the politics,
It's not about the strategy,
It IS about the hate.

If the HATE comes first, every videoconference is a half-assed measure, every day he DOESN'T make direct contact with the troops on the ground is him being out of touch with the situation, and every trip of this nature is a stunt. If the HATE comes first, there ISN'T a right move, because people you HATE never make right moves.

If the best interests of the country come first, you remember that people are bouyed by personal contact with the President. Whether it's Reagan [or Kennedy] standing in front of the Berlin Wall, Nixon in China, Clinton shedding tears in Oklahoma City, Bush hugging firemen at ground zero, or . . . Bush meeting personally with the new national leader and the troops, it changes the landscape.

BTW - Since it doesn't make any difference, your family has decided to attend all your future birthdays by telephone. ;)

He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.

Logical
06-14-2006, 08:55 AM
On the one hand, what you posted as backup were, indeed, facts, but on the other hand, they didn't really support your assertion very well, much less prove it.

It's possible that someday Iraq will be ruled by a theocracy, but the recent elections aren't a step in that direction.

Three religious parties running the government, sure sounds like a theocracy to me.

HC_Chief
06-14-2006, 08:56 AM
He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.

lol

You lefties are a hoot. You try to poke holes in <i>everything</i>! You're constantly negative about <i>everything</i>, then you wonder why you can't win elections.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 09:03 AM
He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.
The coverage I was listening to, as he was over there and shortly thereafter, had him giving a short speech to a crowd of what sounded to be enthusiastic troops. If that was appended coverage from another time and place, I stand corrected on the 'meeting with the troops' portion.
The balance of my post stands.

Oh, and 'skulked' is an even more evocative verb than 'snuck.' You're slipping. penchief will be along for a brush-up lesson in desultory verbiage shortly.

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 09:34 AM
He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.


What did you read? Rawstory or DU????


More Bullshit assertions.


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - President Bush says "long deployments are tough" but the U.S. troops in Iraq are making history.

In a surprise visit today, Bush told a group of American service members that their sacrifice is valued by a thankful country. Bush says the war in Iraq "will go down in history books as an incredibly important moment" for freedom, democracy and America's safety.

Bush told the troops Iraq has made "remarkable" progress.

The crowd erupted in boisterous cheers after Bush said the U.S. will keep pursuing militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

He spoke to the troops after meeting Iraqi leaders in his surprise trip.

Bush says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has America's support.




Photo Copyright Getty Images
©2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 09:39 AM
The coverage I was listening to, as he was over there and shortly thereafter, had him giving a short speech to a crowd of what sounded to be enthusiastic troops. If that was appended coverage from another time and place, I stand corrected on the 'meeting with the troops' portion.
Bush told the troops Iraq has made "remarkable" progress.

The crowd erupted in boisterous cheers after Bush said the U.S. will keep pursuing militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

He spoke to the troops after meeting Iraqi leaders in his surprise trip.
Or not.

Oh, and doncha just hate it when your master plan to sneak in and out is foiled by boisterous cheering? ROFL ROFL

Brock
06-14-2006, 10:07 AM
Oops. Ha-haaaa. First jIZ, now Logicaldawson. ROFL

patteeu
06-14-2006, 10:08 AM
He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.

He did meet with the troops.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Three religious parties running the government, sure sounds like a theocracy to me.

First, you listed more than 3 parties. Second, "Kurdish" is not a religion, it's an ethnicity.

Did we become a Catholic theocracy when JFK won the White House? How many of the newly elected parliment are actually religious leaders as opposed to simply being religious or identifying with a religion?

patteeu
06-14-2006, 10:23 AM
He did not meet with the troops according to what I read. He snuck in, waited for the PM to show up, had a short meeting and snuck back out.

It's cowardly to sneak isn't it? Here's a picture of another guy who makes it a habit of sneaking around.


.

Brock
06-14-2006, 10:28 AM
It's also very cowardly of this president to restrict the airspace around Washington. What a creampuff.

Cochise
06-14-2006, 10:30 AM
Cowardly to sneak around via air trying not to be noticed by those who would kill you?

Guess all those B-2 and F-117 pilots are a bunch of cowards then.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 10:34 AM
Three religious parties running the government, sure sounds like a theocracy to me.
The Church of BLPD taking over your brain, sure sounds like a theocranium to me. ;)

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 10:47 AM
I have three things to say

(Shiite religious based) United Iraqi Alliance 140 seats
(The United Iraqi Alliance (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): الائتلاف العراقي الموحد; transliterated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_transliteration): al-I'tilāf al-`Irāqī al-Muwaad) is the electoral coalition that achieved the most votes in the December 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), National Assembly election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_December_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). The member groups of the coalition are listed below. The alliance formed in the lead up to the January 2005 elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) from mainly Shi'ite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27ite) groups most importantly the Islamic Al-Da'wa Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Da%27wa_Party) and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq))

(Kurdish Religious Based)Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 70 seats
(The Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan is the name of the electoral coalition first presented as a united Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people) list in the January 2005 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). Elections were held simultaneously for the assembly of the Kurdistan Regional Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Autonomous_Region). The Alliance represents a coalition of the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_Democratic_Party) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_of_Kurdistan))

(Shia religious based) Iraqi List 40 seats
(The Iraqi List (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): al-Qayimaal Iraqia) is a political party list in the Iraqi National Assembly election, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Assembly_election%2C_2005), consisting of mainly Shia)

This is another amazing display of American ingnorance of the Middle East. Shitte, Shia, and Kurdish represent 3 political parties not religeous parties. In the Middle East you must declare your political ties to a party that is commonly named after a broad religeous reference not a specific religeous sect..

Example, in Lebanon, another Middle East Demoncracy, on your identification card you must list your political affiliation. Thoses parties are Christian, Islam, Hezbollah, Druze, or Palestianian. In the case of Christian it does not matter if you are Christian, Mormon, Agnostic, Athiest, Baptist or Republican. It also does not represent the mandatory religion of the elected official. It does provide a heritage reference of the people in the region. It is very sectarian in nature influenced more by tribal traditions than by religion.

My example of Lebanon is common through-out the Middle East. The references in Iraq are no different.

By the way my Father and I are Druze, but our religion is Christian.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:31 AM
Your point, which I take to be that Iraq is analogous to Vietnam, is moot.

They are not the same. We are not going to lose 57,000 men in Iraq, even based on your own mathematics.i've never quite understood this notion that using an analogy to highlight a point is "equating the two"...

why do all aspects of both parts of the analogy have to be the same?

wouldn't they be absolutely the same thing then?

to me, an analogy suggests that two situations similar is some salient respect(s) that should inform our present course of action...

we lost a lot of mean in vietnam, in an insurgency type situation for the most part, with many of the deaths coming after it was apparent even to the military that viet nam could never be "won"...

more years passed and more thousands of men died during the process of disengagement (which was badly mishandled by the politicians, with notions of not losing face being more important than not losing troops for no purpose)...

that is a lesson that should be carefully considered when committing u.s. troops to a long-term attempt at defeating an insurgency, in iraq or anywhere else...

that conclusion does not require that the two wars must be alike in all respects...

i don't find jim's analogy to be moot at all...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:43 AM
a·nal·o·gy [ ə nálləjee (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=analogy) ] (plural a·nal·o·gies)

noun Definition: 1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand

2. similarity: a similarity in some respects

3. biology equivalence between independent parts: equivalence in biological function between body parts or organs that have appeared independently in different plants and animals

4. logic form of reasoning: a form of logical inference, reasoning that if two things are taken to be alike in one way, they are alike in other ways

5. linguistics standardization of linguistic forms: the development or production of linguistic forms and patterns that resemble those already predominating in a language

i understand that definition number four describes a logincal inference, that if two things are alike in one way, they are alike in other ways, NOT in all aspects - they are not being "equated"...

note that the two most common definitions are a description of my notion of what an analogy is...

similar in some way (not all ways), and similar in some respects (not all respects)...

jim's point is not "moot"...

there are similarities between vietnam and iraq, it is almost eerie hearing the same kind of rhetoric from the government that we are hearing now...

we didn't succed too well with elections and having the south vietnamese form a stable democratic government then, which suggests at least that establishing a stable democratic government is not always successful, and that to illustrate the point, that our one previous attempt was unsuccessful...

frankly, i'm pulling for the iraqis to make something out of their present predicament and i hope this episode of nation building works...

and i hope that we don't do any more nation building in the future...

patteeu
06-14-2006, 11:48 AM
we lost a lot of mean in vietnam

Well we need to get some of that "mean" back if we hope to win any of these wars. :p

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:51 AM
where did this notion of cowardly come from?

unless i missed it, i don't think jim said anybody was cowardly...

it's patently obvious that taking appropriate security precautions for the leader of the free world is not cowardly...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Well we need to get some of that "mean" back if we hope to win any of these wars. :pnixon was a mean sob...

btw, we need to get better at not losing so many mean in iraq...

but after vietnamization, i worry about iraqification of the security responsiblities...

i realize the two situations were markedly different in most respects, but they are alike in some respects too...

patteeu
06-14-2006, 11:56 AM
where did this notion of cowardly come from?

unless i missed it, i don't think jim said anybody was cowardly...

it's patently obvious that taking appropriate security precautions for the leader of the free world is not cowardly...

That's true. I drew an inference from his comment, but it wasn't explicitly stated. That's why I asked the question. We'll see what he has to say about it when he comes by. Something tells me that he will deny that he intended that implication, which will be fine. In fact, it will be almost as good as if he admits it.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 12:18 PM
i've never quite understood this notion that using an analogy to highlight a point is "equating the two"...
And I've never quite understood the notion that an analogy cannot be critiqued unless there are absolutely no concurrent characteristics. ;)

If I said Vlad was a lot like Hitler, then people criticized me, I guess I could just point out their shared genus [or whatever it is, don't get technical] of homo sapiens.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 12:29 PM
And I've never quite understood the notion that an analogy cannot be critiqued unless there are absolutely no concurrent characteristics. ;)

If I said Vlad was a lot like Hitler, then people criticized me, I guess I could just point out their shared genus [or whatever it is, don't get technical] of homo sapiens.critiqued or disregarded because the two analagous situations are not identical?

and there's a little bit of a gulf between comparing vietnam and iraq (both were wars, both involved insurgency, both involved attempts at elections and turning over security to the locals, etc. etc.) and comparing vlad to hitler on the basis that there were both of the same species...

in the one case, there are many similarities, in the other only the most tenuous of connection, indeed almost fanciful...

and, btw, if there are no concurrent characteristics there would be nothing at all to critique...

because it wouldn't be an analogy any more...

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 12:49 PM
and there's a little bit of a gulf between comparing vietnam and iraq (both were wars, both involved insurgency, both involved attempts at elections and turning over security to the locals, etc. etc.) and comparing vlad to hitler on the basis that there were both of the same species...

in the one case, there are many similarities, in the other only the most tenuous of connection, indeed almost fanciful...
And as you know, the raw quantity of shared characteristics is a flawed barometer.
I could just start ticking off, cellular structure, cardio-respiratory system, bipedalism, hemispheric brain structure, numbers of extremities, numbers of digits, etc., etc. As additional shared characteristics between Vlad and Hitler, doesn't validate the analogy unless you narrowly define what you are comparing.

ie, if the argument is being made that 'Hitler was not a homo sapien,' by a group who acknowledge that 'Vlad is indeed a homo sapien,' then analogizing the similarities between Hitler and Vlad would be an apt and convincing tact.

Vlad's analogy was to posit that we have to stop everything immediately in Iraq, because back in the 60s and 70s Vietnam lasted 10 years and cost 57,000 troops.

Is that an analogy above critique?

Velvet_Jones
06-14-2006, 01:54 PM
You do realize that a large number of Theocracys hold elections that are widely participated in. Voting is not isolated to Democracies.
No shiate. I heard that Sadam used to get 100% of the vote. Good point.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:09 PM
And as you know, the raw quantity of shared characteristics is a flawed barometer.
I could just start ticking off, cellular structure, cardio-respiratory system, bipedalism, hemispheric brain structure, numbers of extremities, numbers of digits, etc., etc. As additional shared characteristics between Vlad and Hitler, doesn't validate the analogy unless you narrowly define what you are comparing.

ie, if the argument is being made that 'Hitler was not a homo sapien,' by a group who acknowledge that 'Vlad is indeed a homo sapien,' then analogizing the similarities between Hitler and Vlad would be an apt and convincing tact.

Vlad's analogy was to posit that we have to stop everything immediately in Iraq, because back in the 60s and 70s Vietnam lasted 10 years and cost 57,000 troops.

Is that an analogy above critique? no, not at all...

i don't think that we should just stop everything and get out (we need to keep going as long as there are realistic signs of progress, as there have been)...

but i agree with vlad that there sometimes comes a point where it's no longer worth the cost (both military casualties and treasure) to continue on...

i don't think we're anywhere near that, but i would agree with vlad that we shouldn't wait until we lose 50,000 troops before we disengage...

but i don't think that is likely given the nature of the warfare in iraq, with ied's and suicide bombers and no more stupid pitched battles on any scale...

so, in a modified form, i generally agree with the inference that i have drawn from vlad's statements, but not the conclusion that we should immediately disengage...

i also understand that others may draw other reasonable inferences from vlad's statements, given the fact that he's vlad and on a different team these days... :p :p :p

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:11 PM
No shiate. I heard that Sadam used to get 100% of the vote. Good point.did they go through the charade of having elections in iraq?

i'm asking, i don't know offhand...

Velvet_Jones
06-14-2006, 02:15 PM
did they go through the charade of having elections in iraq?

i'm asking, i don't know offhand...
I remembered reading something about it a long time ago. I think they basically had mock elections because I doubt that there was anyone else on the the ballot.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:17 PM
I remembered reading something about it a long time ago. I think they basically had mock elections because I doubt that there was anyone else on the the ballot.sort of like having elections in north korea then, i get it...

thanks for the info...

Logical
06-14-2006, 03:01 PM
And as you know, the raw quantity of shared characteristics is a flawed barometer.
I could just start ticking off, cellular structure, cardio-respiratory system, bipedalism, hemispheric brain structure, numbers of extremities, numbers of digits, etc., etc. As additional shared characteristics between Vlad and Hitler, doesn't validate the analogy unless you narrowly define what you are comparing.

ie, if the argument is being made that 'Hitler was not a homo sapien,' by a group who acknowledge that 'Vlad is indeed a homo sapien,' then analogizing the similarities between Hitler and Vlad would be an apt and convincing tact.

Vlad's analogy was to posit that we have to stop everything immediately in Iraq, because back in the 60s and 70s Vietnam lasted 10 years and cost 57,000 troops.

Is that an analogy above critique?

Please to quote where Vlad said immediately!!!

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:05 PM
Please to quote where Vlad said immediately!!!haven't you heard?

you're one of those cut and run guys now...

so it's kinda assumed that you meant this very second, if not sooner...

(i would like to see post where vlad said immediately too, it would be most amusing)

Logical
06-14-2006, 03:05 PM
The Church of BLPD taking over your brain, sure sounds like a theocranium to me. ;)I am sure this would be funny if I only knew what the acronym stands for, a little help?

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Please to quote where Vlad said immediately!!!
I would hope we would limit our losses to 3 years and 2500 American lives since we should have learned our lesson.
Extrapolating that we've been there over 3 years, and are just short of 2500 killed, it can't be that long of a timeline.
Unless you are envisioning a scenario where time stands still and no one else dies.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 03:20 PM
I am sure this would be funny if I only knew what the acronym stands for, a little help?
Bush Lied People Died.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:29 PM
i googled it and its some form of lymphoma and/or leukemia...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:31 PM
Extrapolating that we've been there over 3 years, and are just short of 2500 killed, it can't be that long of a timeline.
Unless you are envisioning a scenario where time stands still and no one else dies.well, almost immediately... :huh:

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 03:36 PM
well, almost immediately... :huh:
Is that a smilie of amusement? j/k

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 03:37 PM
i googled it and its some form of lymphoma and/or leukemia...
Bush Lied People Died.

Logical
06-14-2006, 03:41 PM
Extrapolating that we've been there over 3 years, and are just short of 2500 killed, it can't be that long of a timeline.
Unless you are envisioning a scenario where time stands still and no one else dies.

As I have said many times in this forum I would like to see the withdrawal over the next year down to a very small number of troops (perhaps one base left with a token force). Then we need to decide whether we want a permanent presence like we have in countries like Japan etc around the world. If not then we need to work withdrawing all the rest.

Logical
06-14-2006, 03:42 PM
Bush Lied People Died.I don't think you will find a single instance of me saying that statement.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 03:57 PM
I don't think you will find a single instance of me saying that statement.
Did I say you did?
I believe I said, . . . oh yes, I can cut/paste.
The Church of BLPD taking over your brain

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 04:00 PM
As I have said many times in this forum
We're not talking about what you've said many times in this forum.
We're talking about what you've said one time, in this thread.
With your ever burgeoning grudge hardening your stances day-by-day, how are we to rely on what you said yesterday? or a week ago? Particularly when your point today is pretty clear.

Cochise
06-14-2006, 04:20 PM
With your ever burgeoning grudge hardening your stances day-by-day, how are we to rely on what you said yesterday? or a week ago?

Hmm... excellent point.

Logical
06-14-2006, 05:47 PM
We're not talking about what you've said many times in this forum.
We're talking about what you've said one time, in this thread.
With your ever burgeoning grudge hardening your stances day-by-day, how are we to rely on what you said yesterday? or a week ago? Particularly when your point today is pretty clear.You made assumption about what I said. I did not say or suggest immediate withdrawal. Lacking a specific statement precendent is still the guiding principle to follow.

Logical
06-14-2006, 05:49 PM
...
With your ever burgeoning grudge hardening your stances day-by-day, ....By the way I have no grudge against Bush, that would be like hating a mentally challenged child for his inability to perform any task.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 07:25 PM
had a grudge

against the seatbelt that wouldn't budge...

or some such/chuck berry...

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 09:43 AM
By the way I have no grudge against Bush, that would be like hating a mentally challenged child for his inability to perform any task.

Nah. No grudge there..... ROFL

Logical
06-15-2006, 10:39 AM
Nah. No grudge there..... ROFLActually Kotter I was not kidding, Bush is just a tool or a prop. He is a figurehead so that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, et al can manipulate him and in effect be the real Presidency. I don't feel Bush himself is capable of being devious or really accomplishing anything of significance. He does what his handlers ask him to do and if he gets out of line they probably call his dad and the elder Bush probably puts him in his place.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 11:32 AM
Actually Kotter I was not kidding, Bush is just a tool or a prop. He is a figurehead so that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, et al can manipulate him and in effect be the real Presidency. I don't feel Bush himself is capable of being devious or really accomplishing anything of significance. He does what his handlers ask him to do and if he gets out of line they probably call his dad and the elder Bush probably puts him in his place.

It is interesting to hear how you honestly think soo little of Bush. Who do you think was the virtual govenor of Texas when Bush held that office? :hmmm:

Do you feel the same way about Jeb?

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 12:14 PM
Actually Kotter I was not kidding, Bush is just a tool or a prop. He is a figurehead so that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, et al can manipulate him and in effect be the real Presidency. I don't feel Bush himself is capable of being devious or really accomplishing anything of significance. He does what his handlers ask him to do and if he gets out of line they probably call his dad and the elder Bush probably puts him in his place.
Fair enough, I guess. I just find it ironic, and mildly amusing, that someone who calls themselves "Logical" really, truly thinks that.

To each his own though...

Logical
06-15-2006, 12:36 PM
It is interesting to hear how you honestly think soo little of Bush. Who do you think was the virtual govenor of Texas when Bush held that office? :hmmm:

Do you feel the same way about Jeb?


I did not follow Bush when he was Gov nor do I follow Jeb, so I really don't have an answer. I will say that I certainly hope the Republicans don't offer us Jeb for the next Presidential election. That has nothing to do with Jeb, but with the fact I don't think one family whether it be the Kennedy or Bush family should dominate national politics for too many terms.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 12:58 PM
It is interesting to hear how you honestly think soo little of Bush. Who do you think was the virtual govenor of Texas when Bush held that office? :hmmm:

Do you feel the same way about Jeb?well, everybody knows that...

it was carl rove and dick cheney...

patteeu
06-15-2006, 01:43 PM
well, everybody knows that...

it was carl rove and dick cheney...

I'm sure Ken Lay was involved in that scam too.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm sure Ken Lay was involved in that scam too.thanks, i'd forgotten him...

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 02:00 PM
I'm sure Ken Lay was involved in that scam too.
I think the term you're looking for is . . bushroncheneyburtonpowerquo.
I think it's Navajo for "I'm so mad I make up words."

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 02:15 PM
I'm sure Ken Lay was involved in that scam too.

And his daddy.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 02:17 PM
I think the term you're looking for is . . bushroncheneyburtonpowerquo.
I think it's Navajo for "I'm so mad I make up words."

ROFL Yep, that was it!