Ass's calling people sheep. Too funny.

Gene -

You are using the wrong measuring stick & you know it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bush's incompetence is in no way limited to Iraq; it's been a constant in his life.

---BenUser

And you've personally known him how many years, now?
Tell you what; when you've been elected twice in a row to the highest office in the land, then you can boast. 'Til then.....beat it.

His political campaigns were failures until he hooked up with Karl Rove and his bag of dirty tricks.

---BU

Yeah, definitely something limited only the the GOP candidates, right? Dems never play dirty tricks...ever.

He forms an opinion, then tries to find facts to support that support that opinion.

Sounds pretty solid to me. That's how I do it. If I happen to find a fact that proves my opinion wrong, I deal then with it. You must first have an opinion before you can look for facts for/against it.
And exactly how do you go about bolstering your own opinions? Look for facts about bed sheets or gas milage in Humvees when your "opinion" in question deals with, say Islamic terror? But then, you're a lefty, so you just might do it that way.

Any criticism of Bush is met with contempt by these sheep, and rather than look at the criticism and facts objectively, bush sheep attempt to find a loophole that would exonerate him.

---BU

Far as I'm concerned, you can have any opinion you want of Bush and his methods. I do have to say, though, that from 1993-2000, I did come under some pretty intense fire now and then for saying anti-Clinton things. Defense of your side is a natural response, Ben, ands both sides are "guilty" of it.
As to finding a loophole, no one has proven better at that in recent years than the liberal left, who wage their war against decency and common sense with things like semantic arguments and moral relativism. Loop holes.

Rightwinger

I am NOT calling for more troops in Iraq! The time for more forces was when Saddam fell and we began loosing control in Iraq. The time has passed for more troops. To secure Iraq with American Troops now would require the entire American military in Iraq and then some. The President by not providing the needed forces when the insurrection started has caused the current problem. At this point more troops will not solve the problem unless we are willing to kill the majority of the terrorists and those Iraqi's that support their actions. That could be 20% of the population. What I am saying is that our continued presence is NOT securing Iraq and it is doubtful that the Iraq military will be able to stop this unrest when we leave. Every day the likelihood of a civil war appears greater!

ONLY the Iraqi’s themselves have any chance to end what we have scene during the past two days. There is no indication they are willing to do what it would take to end this violence!

The operational Commanding General, LTC Vines in Iraq warns the very troops we are training could become, "militants or armed gangs. What sobering prospect!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/international/middleeast/06military.html?th&emc=th

In the past two days 234 people died in Iraq including 5 Americans while Bush is telling us that we are making progress in Iraq. With 150,000 U S Military and over 200,000 Iraqi's we have trained, the security situation is such that 234 people died because of the insurrection. When will Bush wake up and acknowledge the situation in Iraq is NOT GETING BETTER!!!

Col, you know absolutely nothing about what is going on in Iraq, aside from what the terrorist supporting NYT's tells you. Do you knwo that most of Iraq is secure? Do you know that fake news agencies like the NYT only report what they think is good for liberals?

The operational Commanding General, LTC Vines in Iraq warns the very troops we are training could become, "militants or armed gangs. What sobering prospect!

As usual col you take things out of context and don't show the whole story. Don't ever refere to yourself as an author again. Propaganists, but not author.

General Vines cited a string of notable successes over the past year, including the building of the Iraqi security forces into a growing number of units that are taking the lead in securing the country and successfully holding two elections and one referendum in 2005.

n the past several months, General Vines said that the flow of foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq had diminished in part because of nearly 20,000 Iraqi forces now stationed in restive Anbar Province, a series of American military operation in the Euphrates River Valley and increased cooperation from Syria and Saudi Arabia in tightening border controls.

If you believe 230 dead including 15 Americans in two days is an indication things are going well, you have lost your mind. These are the facts being reported by every news agency!

I am NOT calling for more troops in Iraq!

I am laying the BS card on you, buddy.

On December 8th, 2004, you berated President Bush for inadequate troop levels and equipment in Iraq:

The Iraq war is not like World War II or Korea when the timing was forced upon us but rather we went to war against a country that was not threatening us in a preemptive fashion. It is time that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense be made to explain why they chose to go to war without the necessary equipment and manpower. The lack of both has added to American casualties.... How many of these [casualties] are because our Commander-in-Chief took our military to war improperly prepared?

You also dug into Bush for not providing enough troops in Iraq to establish security on October 27th, 2004:

The failure to provide security in Iraq has added to American Casualties and injuries. Bush has not provided the troop levels required to secure the borders and prevent outside terrorists from comming into Iraq. He has not secured the explosives from getting into terrorists hands which are being used to kill and injure American military members or to control the populated areas where terrorists are operating from and planning attacks on our soldiers. The latest revelation that 380 Tons of explosives are missing from a known site is but one of a long list of our failures to secure Iraq and limit American casualties. Bush made the decision to understaff the military which has resulted in our inability to establish order. Reguardless of whether you agree with the decision to attack Iraq, no one can believe Bush has acted responsibly in the way the war was conducted after Saddam was removed from power. Bush and Cheney are running around telling us how many tons of explosiives we have destroyed not how many tons of explosives we have allowed to fall into the hands of the terrorists that have been used to kill and injure our brave military.

On October 7th, 2004, you posted that

This week has produced three revelations about the Iraq War. The first strike came from Amb. L. Paul Bremer who admitted we did not have enough troops in Iraq. He also told the American People that he pleaded with George W. Bush for more troops to prevent the carnage that is taking place every day in Iraq. Bush turned a deaf ear to his chief official in Iraq and now claims that the "Generals on the ground" did not ask for more troops. The truth is that during the planning phase the Army CoS said it would take "several hundred thousand boots on the ground" and for that advice Bush retired the Army CoS. General Franks, also said that it would take betwen 300,000 and 400,000 troops which was revealed in Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack". Then why does Bush claim the "generals on the ground" did not ask for more troops? Simple, the three star on the ground did not want to GO AWAY the way his former boss did for telling Bush what he did not want to hear!

On October 5, 2004, you condemned Bush's ignoring of Bremer's demands for more troops in Iraq:

President Bush has told Congress and the American People that if he had been asked for more troops they would have been provided. We now have the chief US Administrator in Iraq telling us that was a lie. We now have President Bush failing to take the advice in the planning stage as to the troops required when the Army CoS told Bush it would take several hundred thousand, "boots on the ground". Now we have information that shows the President failed to provide the forces required when the War was underway and lied to us when he said if more troops were required they would have been provided.

And that was without scanning through the many many comments on your articles.

So, with that, I call BS on you, COL Curmudgeon. While I admit you never actually said, "Send more troops to Iraq", you certainly, without question, condemned the Commander-in-Chief over not providing adequate troops for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath.

I am NOT calling for more troops in Iraq!

...and I call BS yet again, COL Johnny One Note...

On ShadowWar's thread about weapons caches and bombs discovered in Iraq JUST NOW, within five minutes of now, you gave the throw-away line,

Our military have done a fine job. It is Bush that did not send the number of troops needed and sent them without the needed equipment.

Hmm... no answers?

I can't heeeeeeeear you...!
>chirp chirp< (grasshoppers in the distance, echoing in the silence...)

Col got caught again.

You read what you want not what I wrote. I said Bush did not send the number of troops (needed in 2003). I have maintained from the start, including in my book, that the insurrection is a direct result of the fact we never had the force levels needed to ESTABLISH control in Iraq when Saddam fell and we disbanded the Iraqi Army. It is too late now to send more troops. Bush allowed the terrorists both within and from other countries to establish terrorist operations where they did not exist in Iraq prior the our invasion. You are the one caught by the same BS that Bush used.

My wild-ass guess is that the insurgents wouldn't have been inhibited by twice the initial force levels, Gene. The notion that they would have somehow just thrown up their arms and said "OK, we quit." is pretty far-fetched and mostly a figment of your imagination. The insurrection is a "direct result" of the opposition by Al-Qaeda and remnants of the Baathist regime to America and to the toppling of the old regime. You can have an opinion about what might have happened with higher troop levels but it's just a wild-ass guess, too.

Cheers,
Daiwa

If we had prevented the use of the Ammo by securing the ammo dumps and been able to occupy the hot beds of Saddam supporters after we went in and cleaned them out and stopped the foreign elements from entering I am sure the insurrection in Iraq would be VERY different. In the first Gulf War we had 500,000 troops in a country that was smaller then Iraq and in a country that wanted to be liberated. If we had had the same level of forces in Iraq, the situation would different today.

Bush violated the time proven tactics of our military—over whelming force. That is what The Army CoS and Gen Franks tried to tell Bush. However, Bush used his extensive military knowledge and ignored the generals. That is why we have the mess we have today. Of course if Bush had not invaded Iraq in the first place we would not be in this mess.

You read what you want not what I wrote.

And I thought I provided context for your comments by not quoting just individual lines.
So let's continue to go over what you write.

the insurrection is a direct result of the fact we never had the force levels needed to ESTABLISH control in Iraq when Saddam fell and we disbanded the Iraqi Army.

In the first Gulf War we had 500,000 troops in a country that was smaller then Iraq and in a country that wanted to be liberated. If we had had the same level of forces in Iraq, the situation would different today.

It is too late now to send more troops.

So are you advocating a troop increase in Iraq? Sure sounds like it.

I just don't get you. I really am trying to understand your mindset, COL. At what point did it become "too late to send more troops" to put down the insurgency that was created by a lack of troops? Seems to me that you wanted more boots on the ground from the get-go and you continue to support sending more soldiers to Iraq. Just because it's "too late" doesn't mean that the US can't mobilize more troops to make your strategic fantasies come true.

Can't have it both ways, COL.

You are blaming Bush for not sending more troops while simultaneously calling for the government to send enough troops to keep the country from spiraling out of control. Yet you maintain that you don't want more boots on the ground!

Just admit it. Your rhetoric is coming back to bite you in the ass.

OOOOOOH, he just got caught with his pants down (I will have nightmares for ever with that picture in my mind now). Check this out boys and girls:

#26 by COL Gene Saturday, January 07, 2006

Bush allowed the terrorists both within and from other countries to establish terrorist operations where they did not exist in Iraq prior the our invasion.

Within is the keyword here. Col has constantly said that there were never any terrorist inside Iraq so Iraq was not a threat to the US, but here he admits that they were inside Iraq.

Col, you just got busted , your on candid camera. Your oblivious, I can't wait to see you get out of this one.