Bush sticks to his guns in Iraq

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:59:34 -0700 'EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

hummingbird wrote:

That Bush continues to be in public denial about the magnitude of
his self-made quagmire, is worrying for the American people and its
democracy because it's very clear that the mid-terms were the people
demanding a solution. He hasn't got one.

Bush is becoming more and more isolated - all his past neo-con gang
members are running for the trees, Rumsfeld has gone and today we
hear that the nutjob John Bolton is leaving the UN job. Yet Bush
continues to say he will not leave Iraq until the job is complete.

My own preference is for Bush to be removed from office on medical
grounds and I don't discount this happening. His current state of mind
represents a threat to world peace.

I couldn't agree more! Any hope that the new Congress might
find the guts to impeach the *******?

I think they'd like to but fear it wouldn't go down too well in
the country. They might just settle for making his life hell with
plenty of committees and blocking actions.

--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf

NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)

Of course Hitler committed suicide, didn't he? I'm afraid
that's too much to hope for, in Bush's case.

EvelynVogtGamble

What the world needs now
Is hate, Bush hate

It's the only thing
That there's just too little of....

the old hag crossposting
duuh

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
message de news: ...


hummingbird wrote:


That Bush continues to be in public denial about the magnitude of his
self-made quagmire, is worrying for the American people and its
democracy because it's very clear that the mid-terms were the people
demanding a solution. He hasn't got one.

Bush is becoming more and more isolated - all his past neo-con gang
members are running for the trees, Rumsfeld has gone and today we hear
that the nutjob John Bolton is leaving the UN job. Yet Bush continues to
say he will not leave Iraq until the job is complete.

My own preference is for Bush to be removed from office on medical
grounds and I don't discount this happening. His current state of mind
represents a threat to world peace.

I couldn't agree more! Any hope that the new Congress might find the guts
to impeach the *******?

divathing the suicide priestress

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
message de news: ...


Gordon Levi wrote:

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

"While George W. Bush's many critics and detractors portray him as
facing the same dilemma as Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, Bush himself
seems determined to proceed the way Harry Truman did in Korea -- or, as
some might put it, as Winston Churchill did after Dunkirk.

And some might put it as Hitler did after the invasion of Germany or
Emperor Showa did after losing Okinawa.

Of course Hitler committed suicide, didn't he? I'm afraid that's too much
to hope for, in Bush's case.

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
ups.com...
December 04, 2006
Bush Sticks to His Guns
By Michael Barone

"While George W. Bush's many critics and detractors portray him as
facing the same dilemma as Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, Bush himself
seems determined to proceed the way Harry Truman did in Korea -- or, as
some might put it, as Winston Churchill did after Dunkirk.

Leading Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan have been calling
for troop pullouts from Iraq starting in four to six months. The Iraq
Study Group co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, The New York
Times tells us, will recommend a "gradual pullback" of troops, direct
negotiations with Iran and Syria and pressure on Israel to make
concessions to the Palestinians.

But Bush seems unpersuaded. "There's one thing I'm not going to do," he
said at last week's NATO summit in Riga, Latvia. "I'm not going to pull
our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

In this, Bush has the support of others. Defense Secretary-designate
Robert Gates opposes a quick pullout. So does the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Central Command's Gen. John Abizaid.

Retired generals who have criticized Bush testified that we should send
more troops into Iraq. Democrats seem disinclined to use their
congressional majorities to cut short our mission in Iraq lest they be
blamed for the unpleasant consequences many predict.

So maybe the Vietnam analogy will not apply. And it shouldn't, because
it's misleading. The communists' Tet offensive was a smashing defeat
for them, not us, as outlined in Peter Braestrup's 1977 book "Big
Story." Military historian Lewis Sorley has shown how after Tet, Gen.
Creighton Abrams produced a strategy that was proving successful --
until Congress prevented the United States from fulfilling its promises
of aid against the North Vietnamese offensive in 1975.

In Iraq, our enemies may not be making all the progress they seek, and
changes in our military tactics are likely. Many argue for embedding
more U.S. troops in Iraqi Army units. Other recommendations may come
from the review commissioned -- evidently out of dissatisfaction with
current operations -- by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.

Bush, like Truman and Churchill, seems determined not to concede
defeat. And remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after
Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent.
Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat --
a nuclear attack -- that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to
get the communists to agree to a truce.

But Truman's perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval -- much
lower than Bush's -- was essential in preserving the independence of
South Korea, which now has the world's 14th-largest economy. Churchill,
facing Hitler alone, could promise only "blood, toil, tears and sweat"
until his enemies' mistakes -- Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, the
Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor -- gave him the allies that made
victory possible.

Churchill's stubbornness prevented a Nazi victory in midsummer 1940.

We should keep in mind, as well, Bush's repeated vow not to allow Iran
to get nuclear weapons. That's in tension with the Iraq Study Group's
expected recommendation of direct negotiations with Iran: The obvious
quid pro quo for Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq would be dropping our
opposition to Iran's nuclear program. In fact, the opposite approach
may be what's needed.

Historian Arthur Herman in this month's Commentary calls for airstrikes
not only on Iran's nuclear facilities but also on its ports and
refineries; Iran depends on imports for its gasoline, and without ports
and refineries, its economy and military would grind to a halt.

That's a move that might be condemned by the "international community,"
and it risks antagonizing the people of Iran, many of whom tend to hate
the mullahs and admire America. But it also might destabilize the
regime and dislodge a president who has threatened the destruction of
Israel and America. Who today regrets Israel's strike against Iraq's
nuclear reactor in 1981?

NBC News has declared that Iraq is in the midst of a "civil war," just
as CBS's Walter Cronkite declared Vietnam was lost after Tet. Many in
the mainstream media today, as in 1968, see nothing but the prospect of
American defeat. George W. Bush seems to have other ideas.",

# Comparison of the Iraq War with various other military campaigns is of
dubious merit, because circumstances differ.
But comparison with the Vietnam War is probably most apt; in both cases
the United States forces are on the territory of another nation where there
was no direct threat to its own security, and where any collaboration by
natives can be seen as that of quislings and traitors (rightly or wrongly).
Just as in Vietnam, we are now at the stage of "getting Iraqis to fight
Iraqis" - and probably with the same ultimate success.
True, analogies are not always accurate - the Viet Cong and NLF were a
coherent force, unlike (it seems) the insurgents or resistance in Iraq. But
the end result could well be the same - endless guerrilla warfare, with
constant instability and cost (in lives and money).
Probably, the US can stay on-and-on in Iraq, but is it all worth it? Or,
leave, and negotiate oil purchases with whoever takes over?
As to bombing Iran's nuclear facilities (and Syria?), the extension of the
Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos didn't solve much - perhaps hastened the
end of the war - as well as installing Pol Pot in Cambodia.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:59:34 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:



hummingbird wrote:


That Bush continues to be in public denial about the magnitude of
his self-made quagmire, is worrying for the American people and its
democracy because it's very clear that the mid-terms were the people
demanding a solution. He hasn't got one.

Bush is becoming more and more isolated - all his past neo-con gang
members are running for the trees, Rumsfeld has gone and today we
hear that the nutjob John Bolton is leaving the UN job. Yet Bush
continues to say he will not leave Iraq until the job is complete.

My own preference is for Bush to be removed from office on medical
grounds and I don't discount this happening. His current state of mind
represents a threat to world peace.

I couldn't agree more! Any hope that the new Congress might
find the guts to impeach the *******?

Is '*******' really a suitable word selection from a cultured dame
such as yourself, Evelyn?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 4 Dec 2006 10:45:29 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

Of course Hitler committed suicide, didn't he? I'm afraid
that's too much to hope for, in Bush's case.

EvelynVogtGamble

What the world needs now
Is hate, Bush hate

It's the only thing
That there's just too little of....

What was that, PJ? We need to string up the other half of Americans
that still support him?

Damn, Americans must be as thick as pig **** to have elected that guy
twice given his almost perfect history of failure. Pity breeding
wasn't one of those failures.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out." - Matthew 18:9



Instead of reading your hate filled Koran, read the Holy Bible, you
imbecile.

Muslims are now at evolutionary time scale similar to the Catholic Church
during the dark ages.

Another 1000 years or so, and Muslims may be fit to inhabit this planet.



May the fleas of a thousand Arabian Camels invest your armpits. Inshallah or
whatever :-)

"Kope" wrote in message
ups.com...
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.

http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha

"Gray Nomad" wrote in message
...
"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out." - Matthew 18:9



Instead of reading your hate filled Koran, read the Holy Bible, you
imbecile.

Muslims are now at evolutionary time scale similar to the Catholic Church
during the dark ages.

Another 1000 years or so, and Muslims may be fit to inhabit this planet.

In another 1000 years no human will be inhabiting this planet; make that 200
years.




May the fleas of a thousand Arabian Camels invest your armpits. Inshallah
or whatever :-)

"Kope" wrote in message
ups.com...
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.

http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:59:34 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:



hummingbird wrote:



That Bush continues to be in public denial about the magnitude of
his self-made quagmire, is worrying for the American people and its
democracy because it's very clear that the mid-terms were the people
demanding a solution. He hasn't got one.

Bush is becoming more and more isolated - all his past neo-con gang
members are running for the trees, Rumsfeld has gone and today we
hear that the nutjob John Bolton is leaving the UN job. Yet Bush
continues to say he will not leave Iraq until the job is complete.

My own preference is for Bush to be removed from office on medical
grounds and I don't discount this happening. His current state of mind
represents a threat to world peace.

I couldn't agree more! Any hope that the new Congress might
find the guts to impeach the *******?


Is '*******' really a suitable word selection from a cultured dame
such as yourself, Evelyn?

I thought I was being conservative in my choice of words -
I've heard him called far worse (and tend to agree with
those assessments).