« Maybe I ought to reconsider my opinion of Alcee Hastings... | Main | Court Ruling Protects Bloggers from Lawsuits »

Bush and al-Maliki to Meet in Jordan

It's do or die time. The Pentagon has determined that there are three options: go big, go long, and go home. Bush needs to tell al-Maliki that it's time to go big. Really big.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will meet next week in Jordan to discuss the security situation in Iraq, the White House announced Tuesday.


In a joint statement, the two leaders said: "We will meet in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 29-30 to continue our consultation on building security and stability in Iraq."

The statement was released by press secretary Tony Snow to reporters returning with Bush to Washington from Asia.

Bush will fly directly to Amman from the NATO summit in Rega, Latvia.

"We will focus our discussions on current developments in Iraq, progress made to date in the deliberations of a high-level joint committee on transferring security responsibilities and the role of the region in supporting Iraq," the statement said.

"We reiterate our commitment to building the foundations of a peaceful, democratic and secure Iraq and to strengthening the partnership between our two nations," the statement.

The two leaders also said they look forward to meeting Jordan's King Abdullah II.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush and al-Maliki to Meet in Jordan:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Meet in Jordan

Comments (31)

President Bush: "I Like To ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

President Bush: "I Like To Tell People When The Final History Is Written On Iraq, It Will Look Like Just A Comma"...
$350,000,000,000.00
Umhh, uhh, which comma would that be, the 1st, 2d or 3rd comma?

The White House lied to the... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The White House lied to the American people again, just before the election, declaring that it "full speed ahead" in Iraq, and that we would "stay the course". I can't stomach a government that lies to the people they are elected to serve. It's anti-American. Now we find out that we are indeed deeply into a civil war in Iraq, and that experts such as Kissinger say there is no way to win.

So what's needed! - more slogans! - more jingoisms!

Go deep, go long, or go home? There are many more possiilities, but to make it acceptable to GOP regulars it has to be boiled down small enough to fit onto a fast food placemat -- so that conservatives can understand and get behind it. Amazing.

"Stay the course", another good example.

Ah yes Lee, Lets take advic... (Below threshold)
mizz:

Ah yes Lee, Lets take advice from Kissenger and his failed Realpolitik. Instead you focus on slogans, which in reality is just a way of simplifying what our options are. We should focus on semantics instead of results. I still haven't heard what your advice is...


"I can't stomach a gover... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"I can't stomach a government that lies to the people they are elected to serve."

So where's your screeching outrage at the "be home for Christmas" troops in Kosovo searching for the mass graves the Syphilitic Hillbilly promised us were there, asshat?

What do you care anyway, Lee? Your side never wanted us in Iraq anyway. Your side didn't give a damn how many Iraqis died under Uncle Saddam's heel. Just like your "Save Tibet" bumperstickers - you'd hold candlelight vigils and love-ins and orgasms for peace, but God (whoops, sorry - that's a dirty word to your side, isn't it?) Goddess forbid anybody actually attempt to do anything. That's neoconism. Imperialism. Capitalism. Amerikkkanism. Can't have that.

"There are many more possibilities."

Really, Lee? Well, you treasonous bastards are in charge now. Time to put up or shut up, jackass.

"Really, Lee? Well, you ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Really, Lee? Well, you treasonous bastards are in charge now. Time to put up or shut up, jackass."

No problem, cmd -- we've hired the ad agency that handles the McDonald's fast food account, and put them to work on the problem. They are hard at work coming up with a slogan that conservatives can get behind.

So far "Just Un-Do It!" is in the lead - I'll keep you posted...

Wonder which "pucker puss" ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Wonder which "pucker puss" (lee lee) is posting now as there are 3 of them now? Of coarse all 3 are of the "I know everything" type. Uh "pucker" you already have your slogan-you know the CUT & RUN one. Did the dim decide not use that any more? What are you going to call it now? Redeploy to the North Pole? Oh I know just go kiss some more ass in the "UN" and everything will be solved. Come on mr. "all knowing" tell us your plan as you seem to have it all figured out. Waiting-----------.

"So far 'Just Un-Do I... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"So far 'Just Un-Do It!' is in the lead."

What, no "You deserve a rape today," Lee?

And I note you haven't mentioned a one of your "possibilities." Typical.

If stating a position and t... (Below threshold)
Fwarnt:

If stating a position and then shifting that position after it become obvious it needs to be reconsidered is lying, than I would rather be a liar than whatever it is Lee thinks he is.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. The political environment we have now will make just about any outcome less than ideal.

No, Fwarnt, having the Pres... (Below threshold)
Lee:

No, Fwarnt, having the President of the United States tell the American people that Iraq is under control and we just need to "stay the course" - when he knew damn well that wasn't the case, is lying. Another example - stating that Rumsfeld is staying for the next two years when, we now know, the actual plan was already in place to boot his ass the day after the election.

"If stating a position and then shifting that position after it become obvious it needs to be reconsidered is lying, than I would rather be a liar"

It only became obvious to Bush that Iraq was a debacle the day after the election? Bullshit! The situation in Iraq had not changed --- Rumsfeld's effectiveness had not changed -- Bush was lying.

You're an idiot Lee. You o... (Below threshold)
Fwarnt:

You're an idiot Lee. You only see what you want to see and that always happens to be whatever it is that makes the Republicans look bad. Bush made strategical decisions to fix things so that the last two years of his presidency is spent productively rather than spent in absolute grid lock with dipshits like you that stand pat no matter what.

Take his changing positions as a victory. Your continued negativity makes you look like an even bigger ass.

Lee,You strike me as... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

Lee,
You strike me as most naïve person. I am being generous and gentle in applying that tag to you for I have read your vitriol on this blog for a long time now, and some people, most actually, would have to borrow from your own invective and classify me a "liar" for misstating your true character thus. But never mind, I'll stick with naïve for now.

I wonder about those people who are not in the current Republican Administration in Washington, those people with whom you interrelate on a daily basis, and with whom you have differences. Are they also "liars" when they put forward their view of things and it does not match yours?? Or is that only applicable to the Administration whom you must vilify every time your lips part and your mouth makes sounds.

You have projected a caricature of yourself onto the pages of this blog with your relentless hatred and criticism with never a positive essay of helpful observation. You seem to have no inkling at all of your own foolish self portrait, constructed here over time and fleshed out in ever more garish hues every time you post.

Do you have actual conversations with anyone, anywhere? Or is your entire conversational life a confrontation with whomever you are communicating. In my mind's eye I see a wild eyed, hair unkempt, rumple clothed man with spittle flecked chin from the spray of your "delivery" in constant harangue with anyone he manages to corner for a moment. I daresay you spend an exorbitant amount of time ranting on this blog for the very reason that no one will have anything to do with you and your hate filled opinions. I see people edging away and making their escapes, if possible, when you appear on the scene.

Doesn't it just get a little lonely alienating all of life this way? Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that a civil exchange of ideas is, and has always been, the manner in which humans have always forged intelligent unions that possess the possibility of benefiting the greater whole and are not merely trite venues for triumphalism?

You really should go stand in front of a mirror sometime, shut your mouth and just look at yourself for as long as it takes for the thoughts to arise that will inform you. Try it sometime. You might be surprised at what you learn.

"Bush made strategical d... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Bush made strategical decisions to fix things so that the last two years of his presidency is spent productively rather than spent in absolute grid lock with dipshits like you that stand pat no matter what."

"Take his changing positions as a victory. Your continued negativity makes you look like an even bigger ass."

I do take the fact that the President now agrees with me and other Americans on the situation in Iraq as a vicotory -- for the American people. I am just really disappointed that he's lied so much.

If he said to us today that he has knowledge that North Korea is mounting an attack against the United States within the next 90 day would you believe him?

I wouldn't, and neither would a majority of Americans.

That is a terrible, sickening situation, Fwarnt, and for us to have to spend the next two years without White House leadership we can trust is a national crisis.

Wow! Right on, MichaelC! He... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Wow! Right on, MichaelC! Head, meet nail.

Back to the subject:
Maliki better get the sternest warning possible to stop turning the other cheek when it comes al-Sadr's Mahdi militia and (damnit if the name doesn't escape me) the seocnd militia that are causing problems south of Baghdad.

There I go again, expressing my opinions about a situation where I don't every single fact at my disposal. No doubt Hugh's perfect feathers will be ruffled...

Update on the "Just Un-Do I... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Update on the "Just Un-Do It" slogan... The agency did some focus group testing among deep-south conservatives, and found a problem. These conservatives were reading the slogan as "Just Un-Minus-Do It".

Anticipating a spate of conservative blooger reactions, with bloggers in an uproar over the "Dim Double-Negative", the agency has decided to drop the hyphen.

"Just Undo It" is how it reads now. Hopefully conservative America can get behind the new slogan. "Stay the Course" served us well for several years, yes indeed, and hopefully "Just Undo It" will work equally as well. lol...

Lee,As someone wit... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Lee,

As someone with 16+ years of ad agency experience, I can say this much: Don't quit your day job.

Oh come on Peter. Just U... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Oh come on Peter. Just Undo It is brilliant. We know that conservatives need a simple slogan that they can rally behind.

All that conservative talk in the weeks leading up to the election about Democratic platforms on the war was just a yearning for a new slogan. If we weren't for "Staying the Course" and we claimed to not favor "Cut and Run", then what was our slogan????

Now we have it - "Just Undo It"... lol

No need to repeat what wasn... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

No need to repeat what wasn't orginally funny in the first place, Lee. It's amusing only to you.

The rest of us hear crickets and tumbleweeds.

Unbelievable there are stil... (Below threshold)
saf:

Unbelievable there are still idiots over there in the states that actually still think this war is winnable your really dont understand this war at all, to all the republicans do you guys actually love your country or do you just love your party and the country can go to hell, here in the UK i am a labour party supporter yet i am totally against Blair and the war as are many Labour supporters, the republican supporters simply do not seem to care what happens to their country as long as their party is not humilated.......

Let me spell this out for you, you cannot ever hope to win this war,,,and if the sunni arabs who represent 20% of the population have caused this much mayhem imagine what will happen if you upset the 60% shia population as one guy seems to have been suggesting..

saf:You've demonst... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

saf:

You've demonstrated just how little you know about this war; how little you know (or even care) about Islamofasicsm (even in its present state in your country) in the world; how little gravity you give to possibly losing this war and the consequences therein; how your hopelessness is enormously pathetic and defeatist (thank GOD you weren't around in WWII; and, finally, you represent everyhting about Europe that makes, oh, 60% of America, want to vomit in the face of your cowardice.

Be ashamed of yourself; your forefathers are.

How little I know about thi... (Below threshold)
saf:

How little I know about this war..lol..nothing amazes me from you idiots, we on this side are fully educated about the war and don't have to be force fed our information from news outlets like Fox, over here channels like Fox are treated like comedy shows and I find it amazing that in the most developed country in the world people use fox to get their news and opinions.

Let me tell you something about this war I have lived in that part of the world and over here we have Iraqi refuges something that you've probably never come across in your life, every Iraqi Arab both Sunni and shia detest the united states and fully blame the US for the destruction and fully blame the US even for the rise of Saddam. The only area the US has support is with the Kurds that's 20% of the population. I am not a defeatist I simply don't support the occupation of Iraq why the hell should I support the biggest terrorist regime in the world that of George W Bush, why shall I support a country that on the one hand goes round bombing the hell of another country, supporting the destruction of another country as in Lebanon and also props up dictatorships all around the world and then on the other hand lectures on democracy, I'm not a defeatist I'm simply wishing for the US to get its arse kicked over there and I'm proud of that sorry to say its just supporting the insurgency is supporting the lesser of the evil at least they're fighting to simply rid their country of occupation unlike the US which is simply fighting for oil ( well at least that was the plan originally.

I simply know through common sense that if you have such a large proportion of the population against you then that insurgency can not be defeated, the US will learn that same message as they did in Vietnam its only a matter of how many lives it will cost before

saf: You're a terr... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

saf:

You're a terrorist-loving, freedom-hating, conspiratorial piece of European shit.

Peter: I'm not ... (Below threshold)
saf:

Peter:
I'm not terrorist loving, i can simply think for myself and have a brain unlike you and the morjority of the population in your country...freedom hating...so is your goverment supporting freedom in Saudi arabia, Kuwait, Jordon, Eygpt, Uzbekistan these are all evil dictatorships fully supported by the US,,thats just a short list i could go on,,,no i hate terrorist thats why I'm against the US, the biggest terrorist regime in the world everyone can see that and see why they doing i just wonder at times how the hell have they managed to brainwash idiots like you so easily.

saf:Because you ar... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

saf:

Because you are relying on vacuous and vitrolic anti-war rheotoric ('Amercia is the biggest terrorist') that cannot be susbstantiated with any facts whatsoever, your argument is beyond banal; it is utterly baseless. And for all of our so-called atrocities against humantiy, you conveinently forget that Saddam was responsible for anywhere between 400,000 and 800,000 deaths. And that's just what we know about. Now, if you dare use the Lancet study and try argue that the Coalition is responsible for 650,000+ dead which does NOT distinguish between those killed by Coalition troops and those killed/massacred by terrorists/insurgents, you will get argumentative smackdown you'll never forget. And, finally, let's remember ONE very important thing; We target the bad guys, not the innocent; the terrorists target the innocent, almost exclusively because they know that if they come against us they will die. Period. Yes, innocents get killed in war and that is a terrible thing. But it is NEVER the sole purpose of the US military to intentionally target civilians. (Why the hell do you think smart bombs were invented?) Oh, and one last thing about the US being the world's biggest terrorist. 50 million Afghanis and Iraqis are now free of genocidial regimes and are fighting for their lives. More over, how many hundreds of millions are free of Communism since the fall of the Soviet Empire, courtesy of the red,w hite and blue. So, before you open your yapper, perhaps you should take a history lesson or two. That, and present some fucking facts to support your assinine accusations.

Actually, yes, Democratic reforms are indeed happening in Kuwait, SA, Jordan, and Egypt. As cfast as anyone would like? No, but they are happening. (you also forgot to mention Libya which has abandoned its WMD programs and institued democratic reforms.)

Finally, not terrorist loving? You directly called for the defeat of The Coalition. That only makes for one winner: the terrorists. At best, that makes you a terrorist sympathizer; and that's just perversely sick and disgusting.

Peter, Once... (Below threshold)
saf:

Peter,
Once again reading some of your stuff it looks like your like the majority of the American population you never research anything but just take it as it's fed to you by Fox news. Reforms in those Middle Eastern countries are a total nonsense and you forgot to mention Uzbekistan where you government could not even bring itself to condemn a slaughter of innocent protestors for fear of upsetting a friend. I'm not saying its just America over here in the UK the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan condemned the boiling to death of a civilian, and Tony Blair rewarded him by sacking him. Total hypocrisy.

I do condemn Saddams Brutal regime but unlike your pathetic brain I can think and question why did I not hear my government question these killings when they happened in the eighties why did Mr Rumsfield go ahead meet and shake hands with a man responsible for killing thousands, why did we not hear about these events when they happened instead of hearing about them over 20 years later when Bush decides he has to satisfy some corporate bosses.

Libya oh yea that's the country run by that evil terrorist dictatorship who has backed terrorists and slaughtered thousands of his own people, but how come suddenly now all is forgiven and he is our new best friend so I guess we wont be hearing about his evil deeds for a while during which time his people still suffer.

Reading some of your posts its clear you lack intellect its clear you have never been to Middle East or South Asia unlike myself, have you ever met an Afghani and asked him if he loves America, Afghanistan, Iraq all America is done is empower one particular faction over another I don't call that spreading freedom its just a clever way of changing regimes and putting in something that is more friendly.

Again in Iraq the people you call terrorist are not all terrorist the vast majority of them a fighting for freedom to get rid of an occupying force. Go and check the stats on www.globalsecurity.org. It will show that the insurgents are killing over 50 Americans a month and injuring god knows how many, now considering there are only 150,000 troops in Iraq and the majority of them are too cowardly to leave their bases I think you'll find in proportion to the Iraqi population they are killing a fair share of American troops in fact in proportion of the Iraqi population more Coalition troops are getting killed or injured.

So no there not scared of American troops you really need to snap out of this dream .

saf:Like a typical... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

saf:

Like a typical liberal, you superfiscial historical references lack any context. When Rumsfeld went to Iraq in 1982, there are several things you must remember:
1.) It was the height of the Cold War; Russia was the enemy.
2.) Also recall that just 3 short years earlier the Islamic Revolution came to power in Iran lead by the Ayatollah Khoimeini, held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days and was, essentially, a Soviet satellite state and a much greater enemy than Saddam's Iraq.
3.) So, ever reluctantly and quietly (because who really wants to take the side of a thug publicly), we backed Saddam for a short time.
4.) Rumsfeld's trip to meet Saddam was that of a private citizen, and a part-time advisor of Reagan's government. He spoke to Saddam for 90 minutes to discuss Syria's occupation of Lebanon, increasing Iraqi oil production, decreasing Iran's ability to export arms, arming Iraq and, yes, Iraq inquired about chemical weapons which the US denied in providing Saddam, both in knowledge and hardware.
5.) The Iranians started the war with Iraq, and the instant Saddam used CW, all ties, political, economic and diplomatic, were quietly cut off.

So your citing of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, as if to infer some type of nefarious actions, is again historically inaccurate and false.

No, I have never been to Afghanistan or the Middle East, not frankly to care to visit such hell holes. And this somehow makes me intellectually inferior to a troll such as yourself? What a bunch of elitiest crap. But let's addfress your feckless point.

In the people that I've spoken to as friends and that have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, tell significantly different stories from you, my so-called well-traveled friend. And while the US may be seen as an occupying force and, indeed, the citizens of those countires do see them as an occupying force, yetin study after study and poll after poll, they are asked these similar questions 1.) Do you wish America to be gone? The answer? Yes. 2.) Do you want to America to leave? Again, yes.3.) Do you want America to completely withdrawl now? Overwhelming no. And why? Because they know what will happen when we leave: Genocide. So, predicatbly, while we may be seen as an occupying force we are not a repressive occupying force.

Finally, your recitation of Americans killed in relation to the size of our forces is--again, surprise!--lacking in context. For instance, last month during Ramadan, a month that has been consistently violent since the Iraq War started, more Americans were killed than any other month. Hmmm, now why is that? Well, for startes, there were increased American presence throughout major cities in Iraq. AMerican forces were working with Iraq special forces in rounding up terrorists. More Americans in the streets means more confrontations to be had. Couple that with crannky Muslims fasting throughout the day during Ramadan and you get violence. As for your numbers, the percentage of troops dying, while obviously painful and not to be callously dismissive of their losses, is a blip on the statistical radar in terms of relation to overall troop strength. As for the numbers of dead terrorists, well, the Pentagon does not count their dead; it estimates.What we do know is that some 10,000 suspected terrorists were caught and detained. Nearly 4,000 Iraqis were killed, mostly by the hands of terrorists, who's sole purpose is to negatively influence public opinion on the war via the Western media and to influence brainless twats like yourself.

One last thing: nice to see that deny that you're finally accpeting your moniker as terrorist-sympathizer.

Again, where are your facts? Nowhere to be found. Just cheap, baseless rheotric.

Great post, thank you. I d... (Below threshold)

Great post, thank you. I don't know if you saw this article/video of Saddam and his inner circle right before the war, but I found it fascinating...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

So you don't deny that Amer... (Below threshold)
saf:

So you don't deny that America did back Saddam well at least that's something, you still have'nt answered why the hell did the states not attack this guy when he carried out these atrocities why the hell did we not hear about them back then rather than when Bush decides he wants a war with saddam.

The surveys you talk about have they ever mentioned which parts of Iraq they took place in and who they asked the questions was it a Sunni area or a Shia area, like I said all the Americans have done is Empower one group over another, as in Afghanistan. Like I said its pointless debating brainwashed idiots like you, in fact you prove the point by pointing out how Rumsfield was discussing Syrian occupation of Lebanon but fail to mention that this was an occupation that was invited by the US and Israel, I mean if they were going to discuss the destructions in Lebanon then the biggest contributor to that was Israel.

My point about the American casualties was simply to point to the fact that the insurgents are not running from the US in fact they are searching and attacking the US troops whenever they can find them on patrol and they are winning this War so you simply need to accept that fact.

Why would I deny the histor... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Why would I deny the historical fact that the US loosely backed Saddam for a short period of time? Denying history is something liberals like yourself are masters of it.

You really need to brush up on your history. Saddam was massively cutoff by the international community after gassing the Kurds in 1988. Since our diplomatic ties were already severed and the Cold War was still happening and the Iraq-Iran war was nearing an end, there was little reason for the US to get involved in a conflict that would have drawn the ire of the Soviets, and strained a budding relationship between the US and the USSR.

Second, error in fact. Like hell the US backed Syria's take over of Lebanon. Who the hell do you think the US was protecting in 1982 when the barracks were bombed and 250+ Marines were killed by a truck bomb? That's right Lebabon, from Syrian-backed fighters working in concert with Iranian-backed Hezbollah who were hellbent on taking down the Lebanese government. Bullshit on your little screed about how Israel. You're moving the goalposts. That, and your anti-Semetic skirt is showing. (AND, just for fact, Israel is the original home of the Jews and has been for thousands of years--that is, before the Arabs came in, slaughtered the Jews and took their homeland. So it doesn't belong to the Palestinians no matter how much you or they want to think so. And if you want to bitch about it, go complain to the UN, they helped form the Jewish state after most of Europe's Jews were wiped out by Hitler. But let's stick to subject...)

Last, instead of rationaly and reasonably debating an issue, you've turned to ad homenin attacks but referring to anyone who can prove you wrong as being "brain dead idiot". Classy, byt typically expected from a feckless little crapweasel that has nothing but phony facts, cheap rhotoric and revisionist history to rely on.

Peter: Yo... (Below threshold)
saf:

Peter:
You really do talk right out of your backside at times:

You really need to brush up on your history. Saddam was massively cut-off by the international community after gassing the Kurds in 1988.

Saddam was not cut of by the international community everyone from the Europe to the US continued backing him, go and check the congressional records congress tried to pass a bill cutting of aid and loans to the regime but the President vetoed I don't think it can get any more clearer than that, in fact the regime was being backed all the way up to August 1st 1990, and Saddam had already been gassing Iranian soldiers for years but that was perfectly acceptable to the US.

Secondly this is not a secret which is why I find it astonishing that you should dispute it but then again like I said before Americans are easy to brainwash so I guess that's what's happened to you, Syria originally invaded Lebanon in support of the Christian minority but two years later changed sides and switched support to the PLO but having said all the way up to the very late nineties America and West supported Syrian presence as stabilising factor this is not a secret is open known fact.

Your saying that I call anyone who has proved me wrong is brain dead idiot, well I didn't say brain dead I said brainwashed and where the hell have you proved me wrong.

Have you proved me wrong when I asked you to question why your government did not cut off aid to Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.... No

Have you answered why the hell no one heard much about WMD or human rights abuses whilst they were being committed by saddam instead of all these issues being brought up two decades later.

Have you disapproved that Iraq is a mess, even the British Prime minister has admitted this, but fools like you continue to live in denial.

Have you disapproved that most Iraqis hate America, have you disapproved that America is losing the war,

Finally where have you disapproved that Iraq had no WMD and that this war was about nothing to do with WMD or spreading freedom but simply about Oil and strategic interest.

Finally if Palastine belongs to the Jews cuz they lived there thousands of years ago, I guess America belongs to the Indians who lived there only a few hundred years back.

Finally where have you d... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Finally where have you disapproved that Iraq had no WMD and that this war was about nothing to do with WMD or spreading freedom but simply about Oil and strategic interest.

Bullshit. If this is a "war for oil", then why does the US receive absolutely 0% of its oil from Iraq. (It's rhetorical question.) Related, why do Russia and China, who were opposed to the war, receive a large percentage (upwards of 30%) from Iraq prior to the war? And nary a drop is flowing out of the place now. War for oil, my ass. And of course it's for strategic interest, you nit. What war isn't about strategic interest.

Syria originally invaded Lebanon in support of the Christian minority but two years later changed sides and switched support to the PLO but having said all the way up to the very late nineties America and West supported Syrian presence as stabilising factor this is not a secret is open known fact.

Well, half of what you said was true, at least until the fact that US supported Syrian presence, as if it were an open policy. And let's try and remember it was an PLO-appeasing Clinton who turned the other check.

And horseshit on your point that the US continued supporting Saddam after he gassed the Kurds. I want to see verifiable proof, complete with reputable links.

Brainwashed or brain dead--what the hell difference does it make. It's still an ad homenien attack.

And listen you little fuckwit (hey, as long we were calling each other names), everyone knows that Iraq is a mess. No one has denied that. I dare you to attempt to prove that.

And I do deny that most Iraqis hate Americans; I want to see the proof of your cheap assumption. Again, links.

Again, when it came to the Iraq-Iran war, the US and most of tjhe international community were against IRan. Mutliple companies, including those in Europe and some in the US, supplied precursors for CW to Saddam and faced heavy penalties, with some US companies even being forced out of business. But it was NOT US policy to supply Saddam with CW. Period.

Finally, you trite and cheap comparison of American Indians to Palestinians is weak. The US has made ample reparations for the massacre of Indians. American Indians have their own lands, pay no state taxes and receive ample tax breaks and medical coverage from the US. Again, your anti-Semitic skirt is showing.

And I've proven you wrong time after time and in post after post; disproving your assertions, debunking your version of history and backed it up with facts and not heresay and ridiculous comparions as you have done.

I'm done with your pathetic, liberally-brainwashed and weak Euro-ass, saf.

Your hilarious, there is a... (Below threshold)
saf:

Your hilarious, there is a difference between brain dead and brain washed, brain dead means your brain does not work brainwashed means it simply been manipulated by someone in your case the right wing media in exactly the same way that many extremist brainwash people to becoming suicide bombers. Hope that's clear enough for you. Which point of mine have you proved wrong you seam to be thinking here that somehow you

As for what happened after the gassing of the Kurds there is no point me providing you with loads of different links to different sites are you will simply dismiss them as liberal mouth pieces, below is a passage from article and this can be checked by checking your congressional records we get that here in the UK for house of parliament so surely you must have something similar there.

In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars.
It was not until Iraq occupied the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein became America's bogeyman, referred to by George Bush as a new Hitler.
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
this resolution and veto has been mention on several sites just do a quick search on Google and as I said before you should have some sort of congressional records you can look up for this.
As far as you saying that American Indians have been repaid for the crimes committed against them, well I'm sure their forefathers are grateful that they don't have to pay any taxes and get all these other benfits..Wow wee....I guess it aint that hard given them




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy