A first hand look. What a great idea. They aren't flowers they're throwing at ya!

With your earlier travelogue installment of spending the night in Afghanistan in mind, one can only imagine how the country got it's name:

"O man, this hot shower feels good!!!"

According to Ann Coulter, Afghanistan is going "swimmingly".

And remind me again why we removed the vast majority of our forces from Afghanistan to invade Iraq? I thought everything was hunky-dory there. And how ironic is it that the Bush Administration demand that it sacrifice more lives to "finish" the war in Iraq while it didn't even have the patience to finish the war in Afghanistan.

Neil,

Good point re. Afg. war. It's just getting started.

But GWB will not 'hit the trifecta ' until the Iran War cranks up.
Welcome to the three front war.

"And remind me again why we removed the vast majority of our forces from Afghanistan to invade Iraq?"

I wish people would at least once bother to get their facts straight before they come on here and yap. Fact: We did not remove the vast majority of troops from Afghanistan to invade Iraq. During the first 2 years of the operation (generally pre-Iraq invasion) the number of troops rarely got over 10,000 and only did so in passing as new units replaced old ones. Post invasion of Iraq troop strength has almost triplled. Facts are such inconvenient things aren't they neil....

Well, it's official, the Taliban tried to take out Cheney.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_EXPLOSION?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=home.htm
Remember to believe the media and the Democratic leadership when they say Islamic terrorism isn't a threat to the USA.

Welcome to yer brave new world Mr Cheney!!!

"The Spirit of Strom Thurmond" -- Does that mean Cheney started mumbling incoherently when he got inside? Did he sprout hair on his chrome dome, only it came out orange? Did he get to renew his vampirical energy by drinking the blood of some black child instead of the usual Afghan or Iraqi one?

It is true, chris, that the US never had the numbers of troops in Afghanistan that it had (has) in Iraq. But the spirit of what Neil wrote is correct: We never committed the numbers of troops to Afghanistan that were necessary to do the job right because they were needed in Iraq.

The point is fairly simple: Afghanistan, where the US actually had a slim but realistic chance to do something good, was shoved to the side. Iraq, a place in which the US never had the faintest hope of accomplishing anything positive, has sucked up all of our resources.

Hubris... ego... ideology... all stubborn things, aren't they?

Jeff,

Care to explain how the Taliban is still strong enough to attack our major base in Afghanistan, during a period of increased security due to Cheney's visit, after a full 5 years of war under this Administtrations leadership?

Why haven't we finished the job there Jeff? Remeber to believe the Republicans when they say they are winning the War on Terror. Mission Accomplished!

Jeff/Bill,

Tell me again Bill,why did we invade Iraq?

P.S I thought you were going to stop posting so you could concentrate on working for Sleepy McCain??
How much is he paying you?

Tony,

Don't misconstrue, "Mission Accomplished" pertained to Iraq. We simply cut and ran from Afghanistan.

Jeff, you're simply making stuff up. I challenge you to name a single member of the "Democratic leadership" or a single major media source that believes that Islamic terrorism isn't a threat to the United States. Nobody has ever said that.

You might be thinking of the goings-on in Iraq, but that's actually not the same country as Afghanistan.

"Well, it's official, the Taliban tried to take out Cheney"

Did Cheney take the Taliban hunting? I guess Cheney wasn't quick on the draw this time around. :)

Remember to believe the media and the Democratic leadership when they say Islamic terrorism isn't a threat to the USA.

Posted by: Jeff | Feb 27, 2007 3:11:34 PM

I don't think anyone has been suggesting there's no threat whatsoever. If you have a single example to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

What people have said is that Dear Leader's actions in dealing with the threat have been inept, to put it kindly. As Tony correctly notes, this incident provides very persuasive proof of his ineptitude.

Chris,

The smart thing to do would have been to keep the pressure on in Afg., adding troops if needed. There is where the terrorists were/are, and their leader OBL was.

Meanwhile we could have installed an anti-Shia/Iranian junta in Baghdad as a bulwark against Iran. Perhaps the Baath/Sunni party.

Oops, we already had that in place. It was called the Saddam regime. But we blew it all away. Now we are facing a two front war, with a third on the horizon, in Iran.

Good thinking GWB.

This is just a prediction, based on whispers in the press. Are we shifting support back to the Sunni's and Baathists in the ME?
We seem to keep giving the Malaki regime 'mission impossible', like asking a snake to eat it's own tail.

Sounds illogical, but we now have to try to defeat Greater Iran, our own neo-clown creation. We will probably end up arming Sunni insurgents with ties to . . . . . . al Quaida.

I think it's good for Cheney to get a feel for what the troops he sent to Iraq based on a lie have to deal with every single day.

Where's all the Republicans who were so outraged when it was reported, incorrectly, that Nancy Pelosi had requested a 757 to travel in? They accused her of being extravagant and wanting to travel in the lap of luxury.

Cheney has to have a special luxury RV loaded into the transport aircraft and not a peep.

Why couldn't he have sat in the same type of seats as everyone else? Why was the RV built at all? Where's the outrage Republicans?

It is long past time for Mr. Cheney to take his bone-chilling, baby-scaring, The Penguin meets Mr. Burns meets The Emperor from Star Wars' visage and apocalyptic world view back to his undisclosed location to retreat forever from public life. He is the single darkest and most malevolent figure I have ever seen in American politics, forcing one to urn for the good ol' days of Tricky Dick Nixon and other lesser evils.

Remember to believe the media and the Democratic leadership when they say Islamic terrorism isn't a threat to the USA.

Earth to Jeff, is that the best you could come up with? Now that I think about it that could probably get you a job in the administration. Keep up the misinformation Jeff. Mission accomplished!

All the Bush-bashers will likely ignore that it was never suggested or planned that masses of US troops 'liberate' Afghanistan. The US troops are in support of the former Afghan rebels who have the backing of a large majority of the Afghani people. Without rival religious militias, Afghanistan has only to ward off the former Taliban supporters who are armed by Pakistani and Iranian groups (who oppose a Western democratic society). After enduring the Taliban for years, I doubt many of the Afghani people would want the return of a religious autocracy there.

Hard not to imagine what could have been. If GWB had kept his 'eye on the prize', OBL, we would have had virtually the whole world behind us, and all our important allies. We wouldn't have had to commit over two trillion dollars (if you include estimates of future care for the severely wounded), nor more than 3,000 U.S. troops (and counting) to the Iraq fiasco. Oh, and a few hundred thousand Iraqi civilians would still be breathing.

But things are so much better now, in both countries. Afghanistan's heroin trade has never been more robust. The Taliban is making a comeback. OBL is still laughing his ass off, and recruitment of future terrorist has never been easier. Plus Al Qaeda has a huge new training ground, Iraq.

Meanwhile in Iraq, people still can't get reliable electricity, sewer treatment, clean water. People are being blown up at universities, at the market, at work, at the Mosque, on the street, in their homes, in their vehicles. Yeah, you're doing a heckeva job, Georgie. Somehow, those cute little lines from you (Rove's brain) and the RRR echo chamber, just don't quite explain it away. What is it, 'we've got to fight them there, so we don't have to fight them in our back yards'.

Just like every venture he ever engaged in, any business he ever managed, and ran into the ground, GWB and his cronies have done the same in this country and abroad. Only this time, neither Daddy, nor even Daddy's Saudi friends, can bail him out. Why are people still defending this administration? Oh, and let's not forget, Bush is the only U.S. president who thought he could wage war, cut taxes, and reduce the budget deficit in half simultainiously. Even Reagan, with his 'voo-doo' economics, wouldn't be that reckless.'Hail to the Chief (chimp)', he's an inspiration to all of us, especially, Al Qaeda.

Oh, I can't say that?, when every other day Bush, Cheney, and the reckless rest, are accusing Nancy Pelosi and democrats in congress of being Al Qaeda's ally. Please!

"Care to explain how the Taliban is still strong enough to attack our major base in Afghanistan, during a period of increased security due to Cheney's visit, after a full 5 years of war under this Administtrations leadership?"

Posted by: Tony | Feb 27, 2007 3:44:12 PM

One guy with a bomb.

How strong does that make the Taliban?

How many troops would it have taken (or take now)to wipe out every Taliban soldier/simpathizer that could strap on a bomb?

That is not even funny.

TWO references in a matter of days to Strom Thurmond's heretofore unknown and unexpected spawn - or where it came from anyway?

Crazy Unka Dick didn't just travel in the apparently high profile Spirit of Strom Thurmond - but he just had to travel in the belly of it. And it wasn't your average belly.

I don't even want to know what the hell they're talking about in the last paragraph. That's some of the filthiest shite that's ever been written about a vice-president.

Originally posted: February 27, 2007
Cheney's bumpy ride

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:44 a.m. CST

MUSCAT, Oman--Vice President Dick Cheney rode an Airstream trailer into Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he rode the Airstream out of Kabul wearing cowboy boots.

He also traveled in the belly of "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond.''
After flying more than halfway around the world in the standard-issue Air Force Two, a military version of the Boeing 757-200 whose electrical system had started acting up someplace between Sydney and Singapore, the vice president boarded a much less identifiable military transport for quick trips in and out of true hot spots: Islamabad, Pakistan, and Bagram Air Base and Kabul in Afghanistan.

This particular C-17, a hulking gray cargo jet out of Charleston, S.C., is dubbed The Spirit of Strom Thurmond, with the name painted decoratively in black above the front passenger door where Cheney boarded.

Inside, the vice president's senior staff--as well as the deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes--sat in airliner-style seats that had been installed in the forward section of the cargo bay.

Behind them, a silvery-steel-skinned trailer minus wheels had been slid into place, chained down at the floor and strapped in with canvas belting. This wasn't your average RV.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/cheneys_bumpy_r.html

So, will the Commander in Chief George W Bush
proclaim by one of his famous "Signing Statements"
that "Vice President Dick Cheney is now a real
combat veteran and great American hero,for his
bravery under Insurgent fire in Afghanistan!"
Oh well Karl Rove will surely find one of his
forever famous "Mission Accomplished" banners,
to help welcome the former Draft Dodger turned
former Sec of Defense,turned Vice President and
Bush Chickenhawk Delusional Dick Cheney back to
Washington DC as part of the Awards Cermony as
President & Commander in Chief George W Bush
proudly pins The Congressional Medal of Honor
and The Presidential Medal Of Freedom on Cheney!
So will Bush & Rove also give the new Combat
Hero And Administration Action Figure Cheney
a huge Victory Parade or do we still even have
any troops left to use for a parade,what with
so many deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Funny to see the black airman (I suppose he is an airman...) in front of the "spirit of Strom Thurmond" decoration...
A revenge of history, I guess...?

How many troops would it have taken (or take now)to wipe out every Taliban soldier/simpathizer that could strap on a bomb?

Posted by: Stan | Feb 27, 2007 9:42:37 PM

I think the official Bush administration answer is around 21,500. That's how many additional troops they it will takr to accomplish that same goal in Baghdad.

This just points up the fallacy of the notion of a military soultion to the problem of terrorism, and that we are "fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here." That same suicide bomber could have gotten on a plane and ended up blowing himself up outside the gate of Fort Hood. We can't shoot them all Stan. That's why we need more than a military solution.

So Tony, your argument is:

We didn’t send enough troops into Afghanistan and we left too early, but now we are sending too many troops into Iraq and not leaving soon enough?

How many troops are in Afghanistan now, how many more are needed to complete the mission?

If we can’t/aren’t willing to kill everyone (your words) who might strap on a bomb, what do we need to do politically that we haven’t already done? What political moves will stop Islamic fundamentalists?

And if that suicide bomber could have gotten on a plane and blown himself up in front of Fort Hood, why didn’t he? Think about the statement that would have made.

So Stan, What's your arguement? That we keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, getting killed by guys we can't eliminate?

My Arguement is this:

We should have remained focused on Al Qaeda both militarily and diplomatically, in Afghanistan AND Pakistan where they have regrouped. If we were not in Iraq, we would have the ability to provide extra troops to that effort when needed. If we were not in Iraq we qould still have the diplomatic capital that would allow us to more successfully pressure those states that support AQ. As it is now, everyone in the region knows the US is overstretched. The Taliban knows that they have a chance at some success in Afghanistan because we cannot provide the troops to stop them.

Al Qaeda is the threat that needed to be fought, Not Iraq.

"So Stan, What's your arguement? That we keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, getting killed by guys we can't eliminate?"

Great comeback. Shows the depth of your vast knowledge.

You can't answer the questions, so you change the subject. What diplomatic moves will stop the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan?

By the way, OEF/Afghanistan is now under NATO.

Hey, Stan, it was as accurate as your interpetation of my comments.

"You can't answer the questions, so you change the subject. What diplomatic moves will stop the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan?"

Economic revitalization packages in the countryside, which would make the average Afghani citizen more tied to the government than to AQ.

How about getting our terrific "ally" Pakistan to at least let us crack down on the AQ forces there?

How about getting our terrific allies the Saudi's to cut off funding to AQ, and to tone down the rhetoric in the maddrassas they fund in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

How are those for a start?

"By the way, OEF/Afghanistan is now under NATO."

Half right. About 14,000 of the troops we have in Afghanistan are under NATO command. An additional 12,000 remain under direct US control.

So where's your answer Stan?

"Hey, Stan, it was as accurate as your interpetation of my comments."

I took your comments literally. I was responding to what you said. If you meant to write or imply something else, you are going to have to clue me (and everyone else) in.

“Economic revitalization packages in the countryside, ...”

This is being done now. Has been for years. http://www.state.gov/p/sca/ci/af/

“How about getting our terrific "ally" Pakistan to at least let us crack down on the AQ forces there?”

That’s why VP Dick was in Pakistan this week. We can’t force a country to do what we want; that would be undemocratic.

“How about getting our terrific allies the Saudi's to cut off funding to AQ,”...

Read this. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/24673.pdf

The Saudis were pretty pissed about the AlQaeda bombings in Riyadh in 2003. A lot has changed.

“How are those for a start?”

How about getting your facts straight on programs that have going on for years before you spout off.

"So where's your answer Stan?"

Answer to what, you haven’t asked a legitimate, coherent question yet?

This started with one guy with a strap on bomb, you called it an "attack on a major base with increased security" and you held it up as a military/diplomatic failure in Afghanistan.

So, back to the original question – What diplomatic moves will deter Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS? (caps for emphasis, not yelling) The AlQaeda types that want to destroy the US, the ones that attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban are not interested in diplomacy. You said we needed more than ‘the fallacy of a military solution.” Let’s hear your plan, Forrest.

Before you answer, you might want to look up ‘fundamentalist’ in the dictionary.

What, the Spirit of Earl Butz was in the shop?

"This is being done now. Has been for years."

Badly.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/09/03/INGR0KRGMF1.DTL

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05742.pdf

"The Saudis were pretty pissed about the AlQaeda bombings in Riyadh in 2003. A lot has changed."

Not so much...

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/14/afx2138132.html

And now they're taking the show on the road to Iraq....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm

and Somalia...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600749.html

"That’s why VP Dick was in Pakistan this week. We can’t force a country to do what we want; that would be undemocratic. "

That one is just too damn funny to respond to. Cheney respecting democracy. That's a good one!

" The AlQaeda types that want to destroy the US, the ones that attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban are not interested in diplomacy."

Bu those that support, harbor and protect them are.

But hey, everything will be just hunky dory if we just stay the course, right Stan?

Come on Stan, let's hear your side. How does our current policy ever defeat "terrorism"?

"Bu those that support, harbor and protect them are."

Truly stupid statement.

The people that support, harbor and protect them (like Iran) will not stop just because we ask them nicely. We, the UN have talked to Iran and all they've done is said they will destroy Israel and send thousands of suicide bombers throughout the world to hurt US interests.

And again you change the subject from Afghanistan (where we started) to Somalia.

Saudi support of Sunnis is directed towards countering Iranian (Shia) influence. The Saudis have always feared an Iranian attack much more that an attack from Israel. Saudi fear of Iran isn't Saudi support of the Taliban and AlQaeda.

Nice try though.

You need to quote articles that are more recent than 2005. It's 2007 now.

Diplomacy isn't working? How can that be, you said that's what we needed. Make up your mind.

You said we needed diplomacy in the war on terror because military action alone couldn't stop Islamic Fundamentalism. We are conducting diplomatic efforts and you complain and whine that he war on terror is taking too long or we aren't winning quick enough.

A couple of months ago people like you had the silly idea we needed more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about staying the course, how about coming up with a plan and staying with that instead of just saying the exact opposite of the President and anyone else you disagree with. How does that defeat terrorism?

Your policy of running away and chatting with the enemy will give the terrorists exactly what they want.

Still waiting for your plan Stan. Opeartion Iranian Freedom perhaps? Hey, what's another few hundred thousand dead, right?

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
Winston Churchill

Stan, we ran away and chatted with the enemy all through the cold war. It wasn't military action that brought down communism.

As much as you hate them Stan, the Iranians are still human. We need to find a way to address both their needs and ours. Neither side can have everything it wants.

You may find this hard to believe Stan, but just because we have substantial disagreements in viewpoint with another country, war is not always the best answer, and it's certainly not the only answer.

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
Winston Churchill

That's a joke considering what we did with the Brits in WWII. You know about WWII, right?

"Stan, we ran away and chatted with the enemy all through the cold war. It wasn't military action that brought down communism."

We weren't in a shooting war with the communists. The threat of military action, them knowing we could beat them, brought them down. They knew we could nuke them out of existence. President Carter jaw-jawed, President Reagan made it clear we would not back down. That wasn't running away. We won the cold war, remember?

The Iranians don't fear our military, they know we haven't, and won't use one tenth of our military power. They know they can talk forever while continuing to support terrorism and building up heir nuclear capability.

"As much as you hate them Stan, the Iranians are still human...."

Find a post where I said I hate anyone. Your little word games where you lie about what I'm saying are getting a little tiring.

I don't hate the Iranian people. In 1984, I learned Farsi while I was in the AF at a CACI school in VA near DC. My instructors were anti-Khomeini Iranians. I liked them a lot, no hate here.

"...just because we have substantial disagreements in viewpoint with another country, war is not always the best answer,..."

When a country (their leadership) is sending forces into another coutry to kill our people, when they support terrorism, when they threaten to nuke an ally, and when they've ignored us along with the UN, then it is time to put the military option, along with continuing diplomatic efforts on the table.

All we did was jaw-jaw throughout the 90s when we were getting hit by terrorists. It got us nowhere.

Well, now we're getting somewhere Stan.

"We weren't in a shooting war with the communists."

Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaraugua, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, Greece, El Salvador......

"The Iranians don't fear our military, they know we haven't, and won't use one tenth of our military power."

Gee, Stan, would that maybe be because Bush has us bogged down in a useless war in Iraq and has absolutely destroyed the National Guard? Did you see the recent report that 90% of the Guard was judged "Not ready". That's some Commander in Chief we have there. Who are we going to attack Iran with Stan?

Which 90% of our military force are you suggesting we're holding back? The Nukes? Be real. Do you have any idea of what the consequences of us using nukes on Iran would be? Think the rest of the wrld would just sit on the sidelines while we did that?

"When a country (their leadership) is sending forces into another coutry to kill our people,"

First off that's far from proven, even Bush admits that. Secondly, it's not like our people are there on holiday. We invaded and continue to occupy their neighboring country and have threatened Iran continually. If another country invaded and occupied Mexico do you think we might hve a few intelligence types working with the resistance there? We destabilized the region. We created the conditions for the violence that is ongoing. We strenghthened the Iraqi Shia.

"Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaraugua, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, Greece, El Salvador......"

My point exactly, and we still managed to win the cold war without firing a shot at the Soviet Union. Think before you write.

The remaning 90% of our military force doesn't comprise just nukes. You are far from being a military expert.

And now you argument is that there are no Iranians in Iraq. Brilliant.

I'm done jaw-jawing with you. You're too dumb-dumb to be credible.

Talk about Dumb.

I acknowledged that there were Iranians in Iraq. What I questioned, as has the President and General Peter Pace is whether the Iranian high leadership has been ordering it.

So now you DON'T want us to act against Iran? Make up your mind Stanley.

So we should negotiate with the Iranians, and we shouldn't fight the Iranians. Ok Got it. Do nothting. Typical Republican response to a problem.

Please tell me about the vast forces we haven't drought to bear. Why hasn't Bush used them? Is he trying to lose? If we have all these extra forces why have we run the National Guard into the ground? We are there units on their third deployments?

“…it is time to put the military option, along with continuing diplomatic efforts on the table.”

Those were my exact words. Again you lie about what I’ve said. Why would I expect any less from you?

Go back to comparing the Middle East and the war on terror to Mexico. That was pure genius.

"My point exactly, and we still managed to win the cold war without firing a shot at the Soviet Union. Think before you write."

“…it is time to put the military option, along with continuing diplomatic efforts on the table.”

"Your policy of running away and chatting with the enemy will give the terrorists exactly what they want."

Pick a side Stan, any side. Is it a good idea to confront Iran militarily or not? Is negotiating a good policy or not?

I'm still waiting for your expination aof the vast array of non-nuclear military forces we have at our disposal that Bush hasn't used, while destroying the National Guard.

"Pick a side Stan, any side. Is it a good idea to confront Iran militarily or not? Is negotiating a good policy or not?"

Already answered, twice. Find someone to help you with the big words if you don't understand.

"I'm still waiting for your expination aof the vast array of non-nuclear military forces we have at our disposal that Bush hasn't used, while destroying the National Guard."

There all being used to guard against the threat from Mexico.

Stan,

I'll take those stunning responses as your unconditional surrender. You can't explain your contradictions and you can't back up your "facts".

Tony,

Take them any way you want. Anyone can read both sides and see who won. If you think it's you, more power to you.

I'm not worried about my ability to hold my own against you.

If you're the best the left has to offer, the cream-of-the-crap, bring it on.

I wonder how that black guy feels working on a plane named after a person who worked so hard to keep racism ingrained in the law. Does the plane have a 'Blacks only' bathroom to keep the 'Spirit of Strom Thurmond' alive?

"bring it on."

You Republican's really like that phrase don't you?

It's worked out so well for the President. But I'm sure he'll be using that 90% of our military force you claim he hasn't been using to show them real soon.

"You Republican's really like that phrase don't you?"

I like it a lot. It's sounds better than cut-and-run.

"You Republican's really like that phrase don't you?"

I like it a lot. It's sounds better than cut-and-run.

Posted by: Stan | Mar 5, 2007 9:42:24 AM

Yeah, a good sound bite is worth 3,165 dead.

Too bad that's all it is to you, 3165 people, nothing more than a sound bite.

Stan, I'm not the one who thinks the President challenging people to kill our soldiers was a great quote. Why doesn't Bush support the Troops?

By the way there is a word you probably want to look up in the dictionary. it's "SARCASM".

"Stan, I'm not the one who thinks the President challenging people to kill our soldiers was a great quote. Why doesn't Bush support the Troops?"

Too stupid for words. Another lie about what I said.

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." Gerge W. Bush.

"You Republican's really like that phrase don't you?"

I like it a lot. It's sounds better than cut-and-run.

Posted by: Stan | Mar 5, 2007 9:42:24 AM

I'm the one lying?

Stan, try and stand by your statements just once.

Here's the 1st lie.

I never said the President made a great quote because he challenged people to kill our soldiers.

He was saying the US wouldn't not cut-and-run. That made it a good quote. 'Great' is your word.

Now for the 2nd lie.

Your first lie, saying that the president wants people to kill our troops, leads to your second lie about Bush not supporting them.

I beg you pardon. I mistated your position. It was a "good" quote, not a 'great" quote for the President to challenge people to kill or troops. How careless of me.

"He was saying the US wouldn't not cut-and-run."

Nope. Nat at all what he said.

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on,"

He invited the attacks. Those are his words, not mine.

"your second lie about Bush not supporting them."

Stan, how can you say a President who has presided over a mismanaged war, where our troops have been sent into combat without the required equipment and training in some cases, where the wounded are treated in appalling conditions upon their return, and who has let the National Guard become so degraded that 90% of the units are unready for their mission, supports the troops? He supports the war, n0t those fighting it.

"Nope. Nat at all what he said."

That's exactly what he said. He said this at the same time.

"We'll stay the course in Iraq," Bush said. "We're not leaving until we accomplish the task, and the task is going to be a free country run by the Iraqi people."

"Bush used the phrase in July 2003 to say U.S. troops would not be scared off by Iraqi insurgents' attacks." - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Inauguration/story?id=406639&page=1

"He invited the attacks. Those are his words, not mine."

No Tony, we've both quoted what the President really said. He never said "I invite the bad guys to kill our troops."

Those are your words.

Stan-

It was a challenge from President Tough Guy. "Bring them on". Very clear english. The "them" refers back to the previous people named, the people feeling they can attack us.

"My answer is bring (those who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there) on.

That's what he said in simple english.

I note you didn't even try to refute anything about Bush's shameful lack of support for the troops.

"That's what he said in simple english."

Simple English seems to kick your butt.

Now you agree with me, he never invited the bad guys to kill our troops.

"I note you didn't even try to refute anything about Bush's shameful lack of support for the troops."

Telling the enemy we won't back down, by saying:

"We'll stay the course in Iraq," Bush said. "We're not leaving until we accomplish the task, and the task is going to be a free country run by the Iraqi people."

and you ignored this also,

"Bush used the phrase in July 2003 to say U.S. troops would not be scared off by Iraqi insurgents' attacks." - ABC News

those quotes don't show a lack of support in the troops, it shows the exact opposite. It show confidence in them and their ability to complete their mission.

"Now you agree with me, he never invited the bad guys to kill our troops."

Stan, a lie from you? The Horror!

"those quotes don't show a lack of support in the troops, it shows the exact opposite."

No Stan, he supports the war not the troops.

The troops need equipment.

The troops need training.

The troops need adequate care when wounded.

Bush has fallen short on providing all of those items.

Bush simply does not support the troops needs.

Even GWB admits he shouldn't have said "Bring them on"

"In his speech, the president mentioned that mistakes had been made. Asked what mistakes he was talking about, Bush tells Pelley, “Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, ‘Bring them on’ was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/13/60minutes/main2358754.shtml

"those quotes don't show a lack of support in the troops, it shows the exact opposite."

Too bad you didn't finish my quote. It shows how lame your argument is.

You can't argue the topic so you change subjects again.

You ignored 90% of the previous post that had to do with a specific quote from the President.

What was the original subject that got us going? Oh yeah, the one you avoided.

Give it up.

Oh yeah, the original topic...

You were going to explain about the 90% of our military force that Bush hasn't used yet while allowing the National Guard to be destroyed.

I'm still waiting.

The original topic was Afghanistan.

You couldn't respond so you changed it to Iraq, you got kicked an that subject so you changed it to Saudi and Pakistan. After getting spanked there you moved on to Somalia and Iran. After that you had the brilliant idea to talk about Mexico. Then finally you got to 'Bring it on'. SInce you can't debate that you now want to talk about Bush destroying the National Guard.

Afghanistan was the original topic, remember?

Still can't explain the 90% huh?

Afghanistan- when last we left it, you couldn't decide whether "running off to chat with our enemies" was a bad thing or not.

Want to give that one a try?

You should know by now I'm not in favor of "running off".

This was the last post on Afghanistan.

"So, back to the original question – What diplomatic moves will deter Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS? (caps for emphasis, not yelling) The AlQaeda types that want to destroy the US, the ones that attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban are not interested in diplomacy. You said we needed more than ‘the fallacy of a military solution.” Let’s hear your plan, Forrest."

Here is one response from me.

"it is time to put the military option, along with continuing diplomatic efforts on the table."

Here's one of your brilliant reponses:

"If another country invaded and occupied Mexico..."

"Still can't explain the 90% huh?"

90% of the time your posts are foolish.

Stan, so you meant the statement:

"Your policy of running away and chatting with the enemy will give the terrorists exactly what they want."

to be a pro-diplomacy statement? yeah, ok.

"The AlQaeda types that want to destroy the US, the ones that attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban are not interested in diplomacy."

"it is time to put the military option, along with continuing diplomatic efforts on the table."

Two contradictory statement. Which is it Stan? either we can negotiate with the enemy or we can't. And when has the Military option ever been off the table in this administrtion?

"Here's one of your brilliant reponses:

"If another country invaded and occupied Mexico..."

Here's a task for you, go look up the word Analogy.

You can do it while you are looking for the 90% of the armed forces that you claim aren't being used. They really shouldn't be that hard to find, that's alot of troops. Did Bush misplace them maybe?

"Here's a task for you, go look up the word Analogy"

The first four letters describe you.

We're beating a dead horse here. Let's agree to disagree. We can both agree you're a fool to disagree with anything I say.

There, we're done.

Bye bye

Terry-

I'm pleased to take your surrender again.

Name calling is the last refuge of the intellectually defeated.

Keep looking for that 90%. Maybe they're in the seat cushions of your couch along with Iraq's WMDs.

Terry ???

Sorry, I find your style and Terry's style to be very similar in the way both of you refuse to acknowledge facts. I sometimes forget which I'm arguing with.