Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

#1
New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory

WASHINGTON (AP) - No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory"?almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks?enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues?are unsatisfactory.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.
But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.
Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.
Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.
In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.
Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.
Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration's updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is "satisfactory" versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved.
Democrats also say more solid progress could have been made had the administration starting pulling troops out sooner.
"We've tried repeatedly to get the administration to shift responsibility to the Iraqi leaders for their own future, since there is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"The administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again," Levin said.
But whether the next president will be much more successful in forcing the Iraqi government to reach a lasting political settlement remains to be seen.
Whether the new administration starts pulling troops out of Iraq right away, as Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama has promised, or refuses to set a timetable, per Republican John McCain's suggestion, most agree that a functional democracy in Iraq could still be years away because of the complexities of the issues involved and the deeply rooted distrust among the nation's sectarian groups.
"Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multiethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law," Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. "Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people."
 
#2
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Good. Declare victory and bring the troops home; or better yet, send them to Afghanistan where there are people who actually attacked us. . . .
 
#3
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Sadaam Hussein attacked our airplanes patrolling the no fly zone.

Sadaam Hussein had mustard gas that we found during the war.

Cut the crap that we were never attacked and their were no WMD.

That dog won't hunt anymore.
 
#6
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

4113 families think that the benchmarks are not worth it.

I tend to agree.
I would bet that the vast majority of the families feel and hope that their loved ones died for a good cause.
Only the truly sick would look at all the recent progress and hope like hell it falls apart so that they can feel secure in their hate.
 

Reno Paul

EOG Dedicated
#7
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

So you are anti-American if you dislike our president?

Guess 70 to 80% of the country is anti-American if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
#10
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

So you are anti-American if you dislike our president?

Guess 70 to 80% of the country is anti-American if that's the case.
The 80% disapproval for bush is when they ask if people are satisfied with the job he is doing - hell i might say I'm not satisfied. Only a small % of the people that say bush is not doing a good job would be classified as bush haters. But, yea, most of the hard core bush haters are anti-american.
 

Spytheweb

EOG Addicted
#11
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

The 80% disapproval for bush is when they ask if people are satisfied with the job he is doing - hell i might say I'm not satisfied. Only a small % of the people that say bush is not doing a good job would be classified as bush haters. But, yea, most of the hard core bush haters are anti-american.
Anti-American? What American alive has killed more Americans than Bush?
 
#12
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

i don't think all Bush haters are anti-American.but thx 4625 got into the thread and did not remember the title.
 
#14
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Sadaam Hussein attacked our airplanes patrolling the no fly zone.
No he didn't.

Sadaam Hussein had mustard gas that we found during the war.
"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers."

Cut the crap that we were never attacked and their were no WMD.
"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers.

That dog won't hunt anymore.
Your dog has fleas and mange, Nic. Time to put the poor thing out of it's misery.
 
#15
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

The cold hard truth dawg is that several old discarded chemical munitions were found after the invasion, and that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was 100% correct when he said that Iraq still had wmd's. They were rusting in a dump, I grant you, but they were there.
 
#16
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

The cold hard truth dawg is that several old discarded chemical munitions were found after the invasion, and that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was 100% correct when he said that Iraq still had wmd's. They were rusting in a dump, I grant you, but they were there.

Incorrect.

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers."
 
#17
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

The cold hard truth dawg is that several old discarded chemical munitions were found after the invasion, and that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was 100% correct when he said that Iraq still had wmd's. They were rusting in a dump, I grant you, but they were there.
Thanks Merlin -- and yes -- Our Airplanes were attacked patrolling the No-Fly Zone after the first gulf War. People like Dawg just want to stay in denial of the facts so they can rant and rave and go off on Bush.

Here is the backup that American planes were attacked by Iraq.

UN inspections continue in spite of attacks in Iraqi no-fly zone
The Iraqis apparently tried to shoot down the planes as they patrolled the no-fly zone.


... and again here the British Airplanes were attacked by Iraq ...
RAF jets come under fire from Iraqi missiles in no-fly zone

For anyone to say that Sadaam never attacked us is just silly.
 
#18
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Thanks Merlin -- and yes -- Our Airplanes were attacked patrolling the No-Fly Zone after the first gulf War. People like Dawg just want to stay in denial of the facts so they can rant and rave and go off on Bush.

Here is the backup that American planes were attacked by Iraq.

UN inspections continue in spite of attacks in Iraqi no-fly zone
The Iraqis apparently tried to shoot down the planes as they patrolled the no-fly zone.


... and again here the British Airplanes were attacked by Iraq ...
RAF jets come under fire from Iraqi missiles in no-fly zone

For anyone to say that Sadaam never attacked us is just silly.

Your gullibility never ceases to amaze me...
 
#20
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

ok .. if you say so. I am one who doesn't give Sadaam credit for being an angel.
Neither do I. I simply point out the hypocrisy of the American Government for installing, supporting, and paying this jackass for years... THEN all of a sudden he becomes this huge threat... You believe what you want, Nic. I'm a little deeper inside than you and I know more than you.
 
#23
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Incorrect.

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers."
What, are you joking? We didnt even invade iraq until 2003 and you post some nonsense about what the cia thought before the war. The weapons were found - look it up.
You seem to have some serious hangups dawg about whether the war was justified or not, you'll just have to get over it. The invasion happened, the war is over, the occupation is nearing the endgame, and we will soon hopefully move on to other priorities(iran/afganistan).
 
#24
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

What, are you joking? We didnt even invade iraq until 2003 and you post some nonsense about what the cia thought before the war. The weapons were found - look it up.
You seem to have some serious hangups dawg about whether the war was justified or not, you'll just have to get over it. The invasion happened, the war is over, the occupation is nearing the endgame, and we will soon hopefully move on to other priorities(iran/afganistan).
Yes, Troll, I have hangups about 4000 of my fellow service members dying for a lie. And I don't give a damn a coward like yourself thinks about it. What's sad about you, if you are even a real person, is that you have WILLINGLY went for the ride... You didn't try to get off the hook even once...
 
#25
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Neither do I. I simply point out the hypocrisy of the American Government for installing, supporting, and paying this jackass for years... THEN all of a sudden he becomes this huge threat... You believe what you want, Nic. I'm a little deeper inside than you and I know more than you.
Wow, hypocrisy? how shocking, thats a new concept we have never experienced in this country.
Hmmm, wait a second, you say you're in the military (on the inside), supporting the war effort, but yet you rail about the illegal, misguided, war.... thats not hypocrisy is it?
Keep reading you're constitution buddy.
 
#26
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Yes, Troll, I have hangups about 4000 of my fellow service members dying for a lie. And I don't give a damn a coward like yourself thinks about it. What's sad about you, if you are even a real person, is that you have WILLINGLY went for the ride... You didn't try to get off the hook even once...
This boy needs some anger management counseling.
 
#27
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Yes, Troll, I have hangups about 4000 of my fellow service members dying for a lie. And I don't give a damn a coward like yourself thinks about it. What's sad about you, if you are even a real person, is that you have WILLINGLY went for the ride... You didn't try to get off the hook even once...
You're the one that cant seem to face reality. You wont even admit that Iraq had a wmd program in the 80's, ended it(for the most part), but at least a few old shells were still lying around(and were found after the war).
Coward, Troll, ..psst.. I'm not aboard for the ride.. you are.:LMAO:LMAO
 
#28
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

We all know Iraq had WMD's because we gave them to Saddam. When Saddam stopped being our puppet in the Middle East, we had to pay the piper, metaphorically speaking.
 
#29
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

All things being equal, the WMD's were moved to Syria (official story) after the initial invasion of Iraq, it seems that those nasty WMD's move to where they are needed as so to aid in justifying the aggression of the zionists and neo-cons, now that the truth has been exposed about the fact that they did not exist at the time of invasion, a new threat needed to be developed, that threat comes in the form of a nuclear Iran, of course this threat will be proven to be false eventually.

You would have to be a complete idiot to think that the aggression towards the nations of Iraq, Syria and Iran is about anything other than natural resources and the continued support of the zionist state in the middle east.

What other reasons could there be?
 
#30
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

All things being equal, the WMD's were moved to Syria (official story) after the initial invasion of Iraq, it seems that those nasty WMD's move to where they are needed as so to aid in justifying the aggression of the zionists and neo-cons, now that the truth has been exposed about the fact that they did not exist at the time of invasion, a new threat needed to be developed, that threat comes in the form of a nuclear Iran, of course this threat will be proven to be false eventually.

You would have to be a complete idiot to think that the aggression towards the nations of Iraq, Syria and Iran is about anything other than natural resources and the continued support of the zionist state in the middle east.

What other reasons could there be?
possibly for pure goodness and to free an imprisoned people? More likely for spite at saddams thumbing his nose at us all those years, as well as to finish his fathers job. And thats ok with me.
 
#32
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." [Video of comments]

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading --> <!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with portrait image (c) --><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/m24-image-browser.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/tol.js"></script><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with portrait image (c) --><script type="text/javascript"><!-- /* Global variables that are used for "image browsing". Used on article pages to rotate the images of a story. */ var sImageBrowserImagePath = ''; var aArticleImages = new Array(); var aImageDescriptions = new Array(); var aImageEnlargeLink = new Array(); var aImageEnlargePopupWidth = '500'; var aImageEnlargePopupHeight = '500'; var aImagePhotographer = new Array(); var nSelectedArticleImage = 0; var i=0; //--></script><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with pair of portrait images (c) --><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article --> Michael Smith

<!-- END: Module - Module - M24 Article Headline with pair of portrait images (c) --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --><!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--><!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--><!-- Print the body of the article--><!-- Pagination --> THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown. The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make ?regime change? in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that ?the US had already begun ?spikes of activity? to put pressure on the regime?.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.
During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.
However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.
By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone.
Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to ?degrade? Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.
It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with ?serious consequences? for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors.
The briefing paper prepared for the July meeting ? the same document that revealed the prime minister?s agreement during a summit with President George W Bush in April 2002 to back military action to bring about regime change ? laid out the American war plans.
They opted on August 5 for a ?hybrid plan? in which a continuous air offensive and special forces operations would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait ready for a full-scale invasion.
The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid.
The systematic targeting of Iraqi air defences appears to contradict Foreign Office legal guidance appended to the leaked briefing paper which said that the allied aircraft were only ?entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems?.




RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war - Times Online
 
#33
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Wow, hypocrisy? how shocking, thats a new concept we have never experienced in this country.
Hmmm, wait a second, you say you're in the military (on the inside), supporting the war effort, but yet you rail about the illegal, misguided, war.... thats not hypocrisy is it?
Keep reading you're constitution buddy.
I'm fulfilling the oath I swore to do. Pointing out what the BUSH ADMINISTRATION has lied about, in no way makes me a hypocrite. I will use my voice as I see fit and the more I irritate you, the more I revel in it.
 
#35
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

I'm fulfilling the oath I swore to do. Pointing out what the BUSH ADMINISTRATION has lied about, in no way makes me a hypocrite. I will use my voice as I see fit and the more I irritate you, the more I revel in it.
irritate? are you kidding? other than youngbuck you are the weakest of the bunch. because you cant take even the tiniest morsel of criticism.
 
#37
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

It's so much easier to attack the messenger than attack the argument; is'nt it? Rather than deal with the criminal mismanagement of our country for the last eight years, let's discuss Dawg's alleged "anger problem." PRICELESS. . . .On the other hand, the absolute inability of the party that now calls itself Republican to deal with anything of consequence is the main reason it will be shellacked in November. . . .
 
#38
Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters

Dumb and Dumber is a very funny movie.:pop:




<table id="post1303990" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(43, 41, 94); border-width: 0px 1px;" width="175">tar_baby<!-- google_ad_section_end --> <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1303990", true); </script>
Rush Limbaugh

Join Date: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Notre Dame, IN
Posts: 1,152


</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_1303990" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(43, 41, 94);">
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Re: Very bad news for the Anti-American Bush Haters<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
<hr style="color: rgb(43, 41, 94);" size="1"> <!-- google_ad_section_start --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

This boy needs some anger management counseling.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
the boy needs a lot more than that
</td></tr></tbody></table>
 
Top