Swamp TV: Bush sets 'success' as new goal in Iraq

Success as a goal in Iraq? Sorry, that won't fly with the Democrats.

Bush can say success but his definition keeps changing. You hates to get pinned down when you don't know what you are doing.

... And MY goal is "world peace, an end to hunger, and tremendous personal wealth and happiness."

Look, I'm not saying this isn't a terrific goal, but if you don't have a plan to bring it all about (and, in Bush's case, even so much as a means of measuring what "success" MEANS), it's just a bunch of crap. There has been no plan in place once we blew Iraq to smithereens and toppled Saddam, and we're suffering because of that -- our troops in particular.

The President needs to stop generalizing and start specifying.

Bush is a psycho!

But I thought it was "Mission Accomplished"? OR "The Insurgents are in their last Throes"? OR "We have to fight them there so they do not follow us home"? That is what this Lone Ranger Cowboy does with his Zombie Followers. Repeats Catch Phrase blurbs so all of the simplistic "W" bumper sticker wearing Repubs can fall in line and repeat the mantra over and over

We have already succeeded. Sadam is dead. The weapons of mass destruction are gone. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Have we added another goal? What is that? If we reach that goal, will we add yet another? And another?............

For all you Loons who keep saying we should bomb Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hikackers came from there, maybe this CNN will rattle some of that dense air in your heads. Looks to me like the Saudi government is fighting Al Qaeda on several fronts:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/14/reformed.jihadist/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

John D, how many of the hijackers were from Iraq? Has Bin Laden been brought to justice yet? Just curious. It's only been six years since 9/11, maybe Bush needs more time.

"Posted by: John D | September 14, 2007 2:29 PM:

Nobody in here mentioned Saudi Arabia or wanting to bomb anybody. Are the voices in your head causing THAT much of a problem for you that you can't stay on-topic, John D? Maybe you ought to seek psychiatric assistance or get yourself institutionalized.

The President never said "mission accomplished" even once. How anyone can say its a mantra shows how delusional the left is.
That lone ranger cowboy tag is pretty original though. Did you think that one up while in the third or fourth grade?

Stuff it John D! President Bush is an utter and complete failure.

Success = January 20, 2009 with President-elect Obama taking the oath of office.

Immediatly after which Sean Insanity, Rush Limpbag, Bill O'Lielly, Ann Coltergeist and all the rest of the far-right wing nut jobs get together and slit their own throats from one ear to the other while singing the Rolling Stones "Can't get no satisfaction."

Posted by: John D | September 14, 2007 2:29 PM

So John D, the "Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", thinks that ONE reformed Saudi Arabian terrorist going out on the preaching circuit means we should ignore how the House of Saud has looked the other way repeatedly regarding its home grown terrorists.

[quote]
Here's a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — "Country A" and "Country B" — and you tell me which one is America's ally and which one is not.

Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A's women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force. On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A's radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it's a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda's nihilism.

Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.

Country B's private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B's mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B's leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

Question: Which country is America's natural ally: A or B?

Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]

source: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/thomas-friedman-iran-is-not-our-enemy/

John D:

The Saudi Arabians don't fight al-Qaeda terrorists - they just pay them off:

[quote]
The Saudi royal family paid $300 million in "protection money" to
both Osama bin Laden´s al-Qaeda terror network and the Taliban
government in Afghanistan, according to a report in the London
Sunday Times, August 25, 2002. Affidavits and testimonies included
in a lawsuit filed by over 600 families of victims of the September
11 attacks state that fear drove the Saudis to pay off bin Laden,
following attacks in the mid 1990s against U.S. training facilities
by Islamic fundamentalists opposed to the presence of U.S. troops in
Saudi Arabia. The attacks, which killed 25 U.S. service personnel,
occurred in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and at the USAF´s Khobar
Towers barracks.

Through an exhaustive investigation, attorneys Allan Gerson and
Ronald Motley revealed that representatives of the Saudi royal
family met secretly with Osama bin Laden in an effort to strike a
deal to protect their kingdom. Bin Laden agreed not to use his
operatives to subvert the Saudi royal family, while the Saudi
government agreed to ensure that American requests to extradite al-
Qaeda members responsible for the Riyadh attacks, and demands to
close al-Qaeda training camps in the kingdom, would not be carried
out. The "protection money" helped Osama bin Laden fund the Afghan
training camps used by the September 11 hijackers. According to the
lawsuit, the Saudi royal family is in part responsible for the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a result of
their payments. In addition, the Saudi royal family agreed to supply
oil and financial assistance to both the Taliban and its patron, the
Pakistani government.
[/quote]

source: http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=146345