POL - "so who is BS'n me?"

[Flasch186]

So was Cheney telling the truth when he said "last throes" or is Rummy now!? I'm beginning to think theyre toying with us.


Rumsfeld: Iraq Insurgency Could Last Years

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in
Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."


Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.

The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point — with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East appealed for public support of the soldiers and their mission. "We don't need to fight this war looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home," Gen. John Abizaid told CNN's "Late Edition."

In a deadly week for U.S. forces, an ambush on a convoy carrying female troops killed four Marines, including at least one woman. At least 1,735 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an AP count.

On Sunday, bombings in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq killed at least 38 people.

Rumsfeld, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, said insurgents want to disrupt the democratic transformation as Iraqi leaders draft a constitution and plan for elections in December to choose a full-term government.

"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence between now and the December elections," the
Pentagon chief told NBC's "Meet the Press." And after then, it will take a long time to drive out insurgents.

"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency," he said.

A British newspaper reported Sunday that American officials recently met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders north of Baghdad to try to negotiate an end to the bloodshed.

Speaking generally, Rumsfeld said those kind of meetings "go on all the time" and that Iraqis "will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time."

Three militant groups — al-Qaida in Iraq, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Islamic Army in Iraq — issued statements on their Web sites denying they had ever negotiated with U.S. or Iraqi officials to end the insurgency.

Abizaid said U.S. and Iraqi officials "are looking for the right people in the Sunni community to talk to ... and clearly we know that the vast majority of the insurgents are from the Sunni Arab community. It makes sense to talk to them."

Echoing Rumsfeld, Abizaid made clear that "we're not going to compromise" with Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The contacts, the Pentagon leaders said, were intended to make it easier for the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunnis.

The strength of the violent opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since the invasion in March 2003 has raised questions about whether the Bush administration understood that such a sustained reaction was possible.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., stressed that he and other critics of Bush's Iraq policy are determined to show their support for American soldiers in Iraq. At the same time, "we're also determined to be constructive critics of the policies which not only sent them there, as unequipped, and without international support, and without plans for the aftermath," he said.

Before the war, Vice President
Dick Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed from
Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators. Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave
President Bush a list of about 15 things "that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."

He said they included Iraq's oil wells being set on fire; mass refugees and relocations; blown-up bridges; and a moat of oil around Baghdad, the capital.

"So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen," Rumsfeld said.

Asked if his list included the possibility of such a strong insurgency, Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed."

Rumsfeld said Iraq's security forces have gained respect among Iraqis. He suggested insurgents' ability to kill in large numbers did not indicate a decline in public support for efforts by the U.S. and Iraqi governments, or that political, economic and security progress has been lacking.

"It doesn't take a genius to go blow up a restaurant or attack a police station, a suicide bomber. You can kill — a kid with a suicide vest can kill a lot of people," Rumsfeld said.

"Does that mean that the population is 'going south' and there's no plan and no progress? No, it doesn't mean that at all," he said.

Rumsfeld defended Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their strength.

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." Violence may escalate, he said, because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December." he said.

With some lawmakers urging the president to set a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home, Abizaid said Americans "need to be patient."

In both
Afghanistan and Iraq, Abizaid said, each country's security forces will take on more of the burden as they become more capable. He predicted that Iraqi security forces would take the lead in fighting insurgents by next spring or summer.

"That doesn't mean that I'm saying we'll come home by then," Abizaid told CBS' "Face the Nation."

[MrBug708]

Heaven forbid the status quo change?

[Flasch186]

A week later!!! how did it change w/in a week, seriosuly!!

And bug you posted so fast you obviously didnt read that, so if you dont want to add educated debate, just stay out of threads kindly noted with a "POL" in front.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Heaven forbid the status quo change?

Wow, no kidding. I hope the status quo doesn't change in less than a week.

Cheney is a lying blowhard and Rummy now likes to set low expectations so he doesn't look so bad.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

A week later!!! how did it change w/in a week, seriosuly!!

And bug you posted so fast you obviously didnt read that, so if you dont want to add educated debate, just stay out of threads kindly noted with a "POL" in front.

I read POL and you're name and know it's just another post directed at stirring up blame. We each have our own agenda's

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I read POL and you're name and know it's just another post directed at stirring up blame. We each have our own agenda's

yup, mine's is having intelligent politcial debate with people who's opinions I generally respect. What's yours?

[MrBug708]

When you lead with a line like "I'm beginning to think theyre toying with us." it's kind of hard to take you serious. You are just starting to not believe? You've stated many times on how you don't like Rumsfield, why make posts like this? You didn't post this for debate when you start off with your opinion being that in which everyone knows you have sincere distaste for the war, Bush, conservatives, Rumsfield and anyone else associated with it. Your message is loud and clear, just with a different article each time. I took a pot shot at it. You havent even said anything else other then this line. How about a little more insight?

Sorry, but I'm not buying...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

When you lead with a line like "I'm beginning to think theyre toying with us." it's kind of hard to take you serious. You are just starting to not believe? You've stated many times on how you don't like Rumsfield

,

i dont

why make posts like this?

I said why.

You didn't post this for debate when you start off with your opinion being that in which everyone knows you have sincere distaste for the war,

im for the war, you obviously havnt kept up with my view(s)

Bush

I didnt vote for hima nd wouldnt again

conservatives,

I have no problem with conservatives, I ahve a problem with the religious aspect of some of the Right's platform. Some of the right's passages I agree with.

Rumsfield

he has lied and been caught...i dont like hypocrisy.

and anyone else associated with it.

well thats just silly

Your message is loud and clear, just with a different article each time.

so stay out of those threads if you dont want to debate....so basically youre saying im consistent?

I took a pot shot at it. You havent even said anything else other then this line. How about a little more insight?

Sorry, but I'm not buying...

im not the one selling.

[MrBug708]

Um....ok?

[MrBug708]

If you are trying to say that Rumsfield lied, you answered it already yourself apparently, as you claim he's lied before. *shrugs*

In other news, Bush is president, the Spurs won the NBA title, and California is on the West Coast.

[Cringer]

Send Saddam back over, and tell him no more Doritos if he gets out of line with what we want him to do. Problem solved.

[Dutch]

Cheney said it's in it's last throes, Rumsfeld said it will take years. Somebody is lying, then somebody is telling the truth.

Or maybe they are both just giving their opinion on a matter that hasn't been decided yet?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Send Saddam back over, and tell him no more Doritos if he gets out of line with what we want him to do. Problem solved.

As long as we send him back with some boxers....

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Cheney said it's in it's last throes, Rumsfeld said it will take years. Somebody is lying, then somebody is telling the truth.

Or maybe they are both just giving their opinion on a matter that hasn't been decided yet?

Because that often happens from official spokesperson from any white house... especially in the span of a week. But at least we know we now have an exit strategy... in 12 years. $5 says the army's recruiting goes way up in the next few weeks when this gets larger press.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

As long as we send him back with some boxers....

Would that mean he would start a 'boxer rebellion'?

*sigh*...

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Would that mean he would start a 'boxer rebellion'?

*sigh*...

I think you have to lose 5 posts for that one.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Cheney said it's in it's last throes, Rumsfeld said it will take years. Somebody is lying, then somebody is telling the truth.

Maybe they're just getting existential on us. In the grand scheme of the entire history of the cosmos, 12 years would qualify as the "last throes".

[MrBug708]

Are you say that Donald Rumsfield is God?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Um....ok?

...a question?

sure, I guess it's ok.

Actually, Rumsfeld was caught lying on TV, on Meet The Press FYI. It was a while ago, perhaps you forgot.

I reiterate, if you dont enjoy the political banter than I implore you to ignore all threads that start with "POL"

it'll make you happier and me. If you want to talk about other news, just start a thread...Ill come in there too and happily chat it up.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Are you say that Donald Rumsfield is God?

Hmm... Bush does talk to him...

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Hmm... Bush does talk to him...

I'll probably get flamed for this, but "oh well".

Bush has never said that he has spoken to Him. He has said that he's prayed to Him. Now, God could have nudge him into certain directions for answers or actions. However, if the person isn't honest with themselves (like only doing things that helps him politically, that could mean that he is not doing God's work. It could be a figment of his imagination.

I have on many occasions asked God for help with difficult problems (like my fear of the unknown). He certainly has never "talked" to me, but He has set a series of events that eventually gotten me on the right track of handling many situations.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by duckman

I'll probably get flamed for this, but "oh well".

Bush has never said that he has spoken to Him. He has said that he's prayed to Him. Now, God could have nudge him into certain directions for answers or actions. However, if the person isn't honest with themselves (like only doing things that helps him politically, that could mean that he is not doing God's work. It could be a figment of his imagination.

I have on many occasions asked God for help with difficult problems (like my fear of the unknown). He certainly has never "talked" to me, but He has set a series of events that eventually gotten me on the right track of handling many situations.

I won't flame you at all and say more power to you for choosing a path that does much more good than the evil that is always reported. But you also are not the President of the United States. And it is really frustrating to see the leader of our country talk about praying to a set of beings that many scientests can prove to be non-existant. And before you label me anti-faith or anti-Republican I feel the same way about Clinton. I could give no shits if my neighbor wants to cheat on his wife and lie about it, if she is hot and he gets away with it more power to him. But I also don't want this guy as the president of my country.

[MrBug708]

I understand where you are coming from panerd, but that's part of Bush's personality, for better and worse, and it's not like he suddenly became more spiritual after he became president. When electing leaders every aspect is elected.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Cheney said it's in it's last throes, Rumsfeld said it will take years. Somebody is lying, then somebody is telling the truth.

Or maybe they are both just giving their opinion on a matter that hasn't been decided yet?

Problem is that when they speak like this, they are speaking not for themselves, but for the administration. You'd expect they'd have a position, and if the administration hasn't settled on a position, then my Lord, this is not looking good for us in Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

Cheney is out there so that the GOP can say now that the insurgency is almost over. Rumsfeld is out there so that the GOP can point to his comments years from now and talk about how they were saying all along that the insurgency would last for years.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Cheney is out there so that the GOP can say now that the insurgency is almost over. Rumsfeld is out there so that the GOP can point to his comments years from now and talk about how they were saying all along that the insurgency would last for years.

Boy, these guys are sure smart, aren't they? They have it all figured out. Make sure we feel happy by telling us it's over and then make sure we are frightened because it's gonna last twenty years.

I wonder if they are bumbling idiots or evil geniuses. (listening to the far left you can never really figure out which opinion they hold on a given day)

More likely, it's just a poorly thought out quote from both parties, not an administration line. Is that poor PR from The White House? Absolutely. They should get on the same page and shouldn't be contradicting each other. It's a group of highly opinionated people speaking with more emotion than brains at times. That's all fine, but Bush should have gotten it cleared up by now. (and no, he never will, which is one of his weak points as president IMO)

As for Rummy lying, I've never really read the interview you are talking about, but it's not all that surprising. Unless I see you starting posts with outrage when ALL politicians lie, I can't take the criticism all that seriously. Both sides of this debate are funny when it comes to that. When their guy lies, it's supposed to be shoved under the rug and not worried about. Or it just wasn't an important issue. When the other guy lies, it shows he has no character and doesn't deserve his position.

The context here is Flasch himself. Been on the board for quite awhile and I gaven't seen any post started about the outrage of a dem lying. Until I see that (and please don't tell me there aren't any instances of it), I'm gonna skip the Rummy is a liar arguement. (Personally, I take offense to the lies on both sides, I'm just so used to it I find it hard to care anymore)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Boy, these guys are sure smart, aren't they? They have it all figured out. Make sure we feel happy by telling us it's over and then make sure we are frightened because it's gonna last twenty years.

You know what makes them smart? They take the American people for the idiots that they are.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You know what makes them smart? They take the American people for the idiots that they are.

It's a powerful tool, that observation there. If I put quotes in my sig, that'd be in the running.

SI

[jeff061]

That's nothing that hasn't been happening for thousands of years.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jeff061

That's nothing that has been happening for thousands of years.

Yeah, but the group who figures it out better and how best to exploit it is the one who gets ahead in politics

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You know what makes them smart? They take the American people for the idiots that they are.

Bingo. I didn't particularly care for Bush, but I couldn't stand Kerry either so last election I found myself as more of an observer. And the way Bush spun Kerry actually getting injured in combat vs. him "serving" in Texas and the way the Republicans scared a whole lot of people (including some of my friends) into believing the gays were going to take over the country was pure gold. Both are incredibly stupid if you look from the outside but like you said there are a lot of idiots out there. (The Democrats have their idiot supporters also, just not as many this last election)

[RendeR]

Yes the american populous as a whole is a moronic group of ingorant hicks, the current administration is living proof that the majority can't be trusted to use brain cell #1 to make a decision.

Perhaps we need to qualify people to vote? THe year BEFORE each new election year we will set up testing centers. If you want to vote in any election the following year you have to register for an exam and pass it with at least a 75% score.

This way at least those with a clue about the issues will be the ones making the decisions on who should be in charge.

Please note the people RUNNING must score in the 90% bracket or they will be disqualified. This might actually lead to someone truly WORTHY of the position getting elected.....

[rkmsuf]

NEDRA PICKLER

that's a great name for a writer.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Yes the american populous as a whole is a moronic group of ingorant hicks, the current administration is living proof that the majority can't be trusted to use brain cell #1 to make a decision.

Perhaps we need to qualify people to vote? THe year BEFORE each new election year we will set up testing centers. If you want to vote in any election the following year you have to register for an exam and pass it with at least a 75% score.

This way at least those with a clue about the issues will be the ones making the decisions on who should be in charge.

Please note the people RUNNING must score in the 90% bracket or they will be disqualified. This might actually lead to someone truly WORTHY of the position getting elected.....

Seriously, I really can't decide if that's real or facetious not only in your words but also in my mind. I've always liked the idea of a meritocracy in principle (it stands to reason that the most informed people should make the decisions) but there's are some awful downsides to it.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Seriously, I really can't decide if that's real or facetious not only in your words but also in my mind. I've always liked the idea of a meritocracy in principle (it stands to reason that the most informed people should make the decisions) but there's are some awful downsides to it.

SI

I feel the same way. I would never support a bill that restricts voting, there are just too many downsides, but there are some definite upsides.

[RendeR]

Ok, so my facetiouness aside, why not allow everyone to vote based on their scores on the exams?


get it perfect, you get 10 votes, and for every 10% drop in scores you lose a vote, down to those who either don't bother to take the exam, o just have the brain of a common cricket, who get 1 vote each.

This will drive people to get involved and at least research the problems in our society and give them more say in who should be elected.

I still say anyone running needs to score 90+

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You know what makes them smart? They take the American people for the idiots that they are.

Well, that's the other thing both sides love to say. The other guys are idiots. Morons. Clueless. Fools.

Who could be so stupid as to vote for Kerry? How can you vote for that jack ass Bush? The city slickers are a bunch of idiots who don't know how life really is. The country folk are too stupid to understand politics at the highest level.

I have to laugh at both sides. I've listened to Harvard graduates debate right vs. left and I've seen some hicks from Oklahoma debate the same thing in a donut shop.

Neither side holds some magical ring that clearly draws the line between right and wrong. My father isn't a moron for voting for Kerry and my grandfather isn't a dumbass for voting for Bush. They are two intelligent people who reached a different conclusion. I voted for Bush and I am an idiot (although it has nothing to do with my views on politics)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Ok, so my facetiouness aside, why not allow everyone to vote based on their scores on the exams?


get it perfect, you get 10 votes, and for every 10% drop in scores you lose a vote, down to those who either don't bother to take the exam, o just have the brain of a common cricket, who get 1 vote each.

This will drive people to get involved and at least research the problems in our society and give them more say in who should be elected.

I still say anyone running needs to score 90+

The problem comes in with who's writing the test. Smacks of writing tests for minorities and the like. What's to say both sides don't throw in questions to exclude the others like crazy (which are pretty much unrelated to the topics). Heck, if people can't agree on things like global warming or the war on terror, how are you going to write a test that has "right" and "wrong" answers?

SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The problem comes in with who's writing the test.

Exactly. Forget the President. Whoever writes that exam will be the most powerful man in America.

[Glengoyne]

As for Flasch's original question....I'd say the culprit is Cheney.

I think Rumsfeld is actually purposefully contradicting Cheney's "wishfull thinking" in a big way, just because Cheney's claim was a pretty absurd one to make. His "recharacterization" of the comments really didn't help his case at all. He was pretty clearly talking about a quick end as well as a violent end.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for Flasch's original question....I'd say the culprit is Cheney.

I think Rumsfeld is actually purposefully contradicting Cheney's "wishfull thinking" in a big way, just because Cheney's claim was a pretty absurd one to make. His "recharacterization" of the comments really didn't help his case at all. He was pretty clearly talking about a quick end as well as a violent end.

i just hate the "flip flopping"..it seems to be non-stop lately. Just shoot me straight and I'll be able to forgive ya, if youre wrong, you know. gosh its frustrating.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The city slickers are a bunch of idiots who don't know how life really is. The country folk are too stupid to understand politics at the highest level.

No, nobody makes the argument that the 'city slickers' are a bunch of idiots, they make the argument that they sit up their in their ivory towers and look down on the poor rural folk, which is the opposite of thinking they are idiots. The right plays the 'elitist' card. The left makes the mistake of thinking too much of the American people ('surely they will vote for their own best economic interests', 'surely the people can understand a nuanced view of the world and not call it flip-flopping', 'surely the American people won't slime a guy's purple hearts when it's stacked up against AWOL National Guard duty,etc). The right (these days at least) comes straight out with 'with us or against us' and 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' absolutes which everyone should know is BS. The right is also the group that plays Orwellian word games with the name of their bills: Patriot Act, Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, the Central American Free Trade Act which restricts the generic drugs Central American countries can import, etc.). If you could find a greater preponderance of the Dems doing similar things, I would love to hear it, because it would be nice to know that they are starting to fight back.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Exactly. Forget the President. Whoever writes that exam will be the most powerful man in America.

Karl Rove, test writer!

SI

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i just hate the "flip flopping"..it seems to be non-stop lately. Just shoot me straight and I'll be able to forgive ya, if youre wrong, you know. gosh its frustrating.

So you didn't vote Kerry then?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So you didn't vote Kerry then?

"No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death."

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
April 4, 2002

"After weeks of delicate negotiation . . . a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies. The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings . . . further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq."

The Sunday Times of London
US 'in talks with Iraq rebels'
June 26, 2005

That is a flip-flop.

[MrBug708]

That wasn't my question but I'll answer yours. When I turned 21, my beverage of choice was Rum and Cokes but by December I would order a beer at every bar. I guess you can call me a flip flopper then too....

I was just calling Flasch out about how he hates all of the flip flops lately, yet he was more supportive of a candidate who did...

[Flasch186]

perhaps you should go back and read ALL of my posts. I dont think flip flopping is a bad thing when one does research or matures and changes their stance...I think, quite rightfully, its not right for a group to share equal and opposing opinions at THE SAME TIME!!! Im fine with changing one's mind and actually respect that more than unfettered stubborness.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That is a flip-flop.

Are you flip flopping on calling the insurgents--terrorists? Halle-fucking-lujah! "Houston....we've made contact."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you flip flopping on calling the insurgents--terrorists? Halle-fucking-lujah! "Houston....we've made contact."

I hate how I have to spell out everything. The Bush administration has taken the rhetorical leap to call the insurgency a group of terrorists, not the Democrats and not the media.

Bush admin logic:
1: The insurgents are terrorists
2: Terrorists can not be negotiated with
3: They are negotiating with the insurgents

Some of this does not add up.

[MrBug708]

Why not save the thread and lip service about wanting debate. Just say Bush sucks go Dems!