Article

2007-01-11 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-01-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
Content, A-
Grasp of reality, A+
MSM as warfront. C
Notice to enemies, A+
Bring along American people on case for war, F

Bush always sounds like an angry white man. He needs to watch Bill Clinton game tapes. Charisma gap.

I respect his moral clarity. I hope it works.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2007-01-11 00:12|| 2007-01-11 00:12|| Front Page Top

#2 It is a Solid plan.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-01-11 00:55|| 2007-01-11 00:55|| Front Page Top

#3 haven't seen it yet, looking forward now that youse two said sed it's worth watching.

I pray we kick ass now, tearing Tater into bits and pieces and kill his entire Tot command of fat stink boys and stack em up high on the pile.

Ima allowd to dream... right?....AND similtaniously ISRAEL takes out all the Nuke sites in Iran!

>:

Posted by RD 2007-01-11 00:59|| 2007-01-11 00:59|| Front Page Top

#4 I particularly liked the hints that if the Iraqi Gov does not produce there will be a new one. My second favorite was telling Syria and Iran that 'we will break' the terrorist supply lines!

Posted by Cromoper Glinens6509 2007-01-11 00:59|| 2007-01-11 00:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Iran got mentioned twice, Syria once. Methinks it means that Iran is on double notice.

It was beautiful the way he told the donks to be of some kind of help or STFU. And finally he got rid of those stupid ass no go zones in Bagdad.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-11 01:21|| 2007-01-11 01:21|| Front Page Top

#6 "Disrupt ... Syrian and Iran" > sounds like Dubya and Generals wanna relive IRAN-CONTRA, i.e. "Hunter-Killer" Covert SPECOPS teams INSIDE = OUTSIDE IRAQ to destroy Radical Islamist cells or networks on-sight, plus destabilization efforts directed at Moud-Mullahs in Tehran. FIND, VERIFY, DESTROY WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Hope it works - O'REILLY said that iff the new "troop surge" doesn't succeed in quelling the insurgents, the Amer people will begin to demand that Dubya bring the troops home.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-11 01:36|| 2007-01-11 01:36|| Front Page Top

#7 The first thing I want to see is two things:

1) Serious ROEs

2) Maliki get the fuc& out of the way and we actually take advantage of the opportunity to put some serious hurt on the bad guys. The hearts and minds will follow the strong horse.

Posted by gorb 2007-01-11 02:56|| 2007-01-11 02:56|| Front Page Top

#8 My reaction: nice speech, I suppose; but I want to see some action and most of all, I want to see results-- unmistakably positive results that will counteract the relentless drumbeat of negativism coming from the Democratic Party and its henchmen in the MSM.

We keep hearing from the Bush team that this is going to be a "long war", the "defining conflict of the 21st century", a "generational conflict", and so on. But public support for the war will soon evaporate unless we start to show real results, and if it does this "generational conflict" will come to an abrupt end on January 20, 2009 if not earlier.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-11 07:10|| 2007-01-11 07:10|| Front Page Top

#9 The generational conflict will not end at Jan. 20, 2009: it takes two parties to stop a war, and one side will not be quitting.

Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military: ever since FDR, the Donks have believed it to be a perpetual right that all wars be conducted by Democratic presidents, and to hell with the country if it is at war with a non-democrat at the helm...

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2007-01-11 07:37|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-01-11 07:37|| Front Page Top

#10 "The generational conflict will not end at Jan. 20, 2009: it takes two parties to stop a war, and one side will not be quitting."

Obviously the enemy is not going to quit; I hope you didn't actually think that's what I meant.

"Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military:"

I have a real tough time even imagining any Democratic president-- at least, any from the present generation-- doing any such thing, much less would I be willing to count on it. The best model we have for predicting any Democrat's response to any future terrorist attack would appear to be Bill Clinton's response to the 1993 WTC bombing: the "law-enforcement approach." The notion that terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a problem to be solved with the military, was IIRC a major point in John Kerry's presidential campaign; and I recall other Democrats echoing that view as well.

"...ever since FDR, the Donks have believed it to be a perpetual right that all wars be conducted by Democratic presidents..."

Any evidence this is what they actually believe? Or is that just a guess?

"...and to hell with the country if it is at war with a non-democrat at the helm..."

I'll grant you that; that's for sure.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-11 08:35|| 2007-01-11 08:35|| Front Page Top

#11 My reaction?

Bush needs to be kicked in the ass for not doing these things three years ago, when he had Congressional majorities and they could have done some good.

Posted by E. Brown 2007-01-11 09:26|| 2007-01-11 09:26|| Front Page Top

#12 Our last, best hope may be Hillary Rodham or whatever her name is. Say what you like, she is a tough bitch and will want to make some history. A Thatcherite mantle that distances her from her husband's legacy (and the legacy of a Republican House more interested in his away games than in national security) may be enough to finally unleash the dogs of war.

Or some limp-wristed, ineffectual and purely symbolic airstrikes designed to draw out enough of the fascist "left" in protest to make her look reasonable. Time will tell. But then it is not as though the supposedly hawkish President Bush has been even vanishingly Rantburgian.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-11 09:52|| 2007-01-11 09:52|| Front Page Top

#13 #11: My reaction? Bush needs to be kicked in the ass for NOT FIRING RUMSFELD not doing these things three years ago, AND NOT GAINING AND MAINTAINING SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF THE WAR when he had Congressional majorities and they could have ~~done some good~~. STAYED OUT OF THE WAY!
Posted by: E. Brown|| 2007-01-11 09:26 ||Comments Top||

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-11 10:01|| 2007-01-11 10:01|| Front Page Top

#14 "Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military"? I doubt it. If 9/11 didn't unify the country on a long-term basis, nothing will [besides the passage of enough time for the LLL's to die off]. If Hillary happened to be Prez and a Beslan-type atrocity took place on American soil, she might "unleash the full power of the American military" -- on the American people, in order to "protect the children." She's more like Janet Reno than Maggie Thatcher.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-11 10:06|| 2007-01-11 10:06|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm afraid Anguper is right. Beslan in the USA under a Democrat executive+legislative would precipitate a Leviathan-grab to disarm the American people and insert federal agents monitoring all parts of the country. You think TSA is bad -- think what would happen in schools, malls, public transports, etc.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-01-11 10:46|| 2007-01-11 10:46|| Front Page Top

#16 Yep. My guess is they'd give us #7 on my list of options.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-11 11:03|| 2007-01-11 11:03|| Front Page Top

#17 Put up. Or shut up.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-01-11 14:22|| 2007-01-11 14:22|| Front Page Top

#18 I retract the middle part of my comment, it being clearly the product of wishful thinking. I did not think of the "let the islamics create a crisis that we will exploit to create a Nazi state" angle: that's what the Libs were saying what Bush was doing, so classifying it as projection makes sense. However, Dave D's option #7 needs to be modified: Islamists will not be targeted as much as the entries in Hillary's shit list.

I think there are two problems with the plan, both interrelated: troop numbers and the border. 50,000 was a better number IF you were going to include sealing the borders and preventing import of IEDs and money. I don't think 20,000 concentrated in Baghdad is going to do it.

I lean toward the belief that the man is sincere, but has a problem with "borders, defending", either ours or Iraq's.

Good move picking and choosing from the Baker commission: he ignored baker's insistence on applying all the recommendations (like a good lib would), cherry picked what suited him (like the democrats do), and ignored what was patently unworkable. Nice move using the report to point out that losing in Iraq is unacceptable, AND that Iran and Syria are involved.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2007-01-11 14:40|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-01-11 14:40|| Front Page Top

#19 Laugh now, but you clowns have been on double secret probation since the beginning of the semester!

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-01-11 14:40|| 2007-01-11 14:40|| Front Page Top

23:41 CrazyFool
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 Eric Jablow
23:32 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:18 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:16 Eric Jablow
23:14 Eric Jablow
23:12 Swamp Blondie
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:04 Mahmood
23:02 3dc
23:02 JosephMendiola
23:00 Old Patriot
22:56 Mahmood
22:54 DMFD
22:44 DMFD
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:04 gromgoru
22:00 Chuck Darwin
21:55 gromgoru
21:48 gromgoru
21:47 Verlaine