1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[maineman]

"That may be putting it mildly. The chief of the independent Government Accountability Office, David Walker, told Congress Sept. 4 that the Iraqi government is “dysfunctional.” While not as sharply worded, the new administration report concludes that the Iraqi government has to get energized, start delivering municipal services far more widely and push harder to reconcile warring parties, or all the security progress won’t mean a thing."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/military_newprogressreport_070917/

Is the GAO "actively promoting the destabilization of the Iraqi government" by issuing that report? Is the AirForceTimes doing the same by publicizing it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course I can. You cannot simply attach motives to speech in absence of any proof.

YOU do, you fucking asshole -- why can't he?

To suggest that you know WHY someone said what they said - is patently absurd.

Except when YOU do it --- right, Skippy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"That may be putting it mildly. The chief of the independent Government Accountability Office, David Walker, told Congress Sept. 4 that the Iraqi government is “dysfunctional.” While not as sharply worded, the new administration report concludes that the Iraqi government has to get energized, start delivering municipal services far more widely and push harder to reconcile warring parties, or all the security progress won’t mean a thing."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/military_newprogressreport_070917/

Is the GAO "actively promoting the destabilization of the Iraqi government" by issuing that report? Is the AirForceTimes doing the same by publicizing it?

Not the News but yes the GAO is destabilizing the Government of Iraq. Actively, I would say no since they are looking for a movement in said Government. But that is NOT what the Leaders of the Dems do in Congress. They actively threaten to cut off funding and support to the Government, they openly condemn it and it's leaders and they actively are trying to remove the US military from helping said Government protect it's citizens.

But again neither here nor there, YOU made a statement that is patently false and you have even admitted it.

 

[maineman]

Not the News but yes the GAO is destabilizing the Government of Iraq. Actively, I would say no since they are looking for a movement in said Government. But that is NOT what the Leaders of the Dems do in Congress. They actively threaten to cut off funding and support to the Government, they openly condemn it and it's leaders and they actively are trying to remove the US military from helping said Government protect it's citizens.

But again neither here nor there, YOU made a statement that is patently false and you have even admitted it.

bullshit. I have made no such statement and no such admission. Democratic leaders threaten to cut off support for the Iraqi government...because they are tired of throwing money - our money - at an Iraqi government that does not seem to be able to get its act together. That is completley different than actively promoting the Iraqi government's inability to get its act together.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

bullshit. I have made no such statement and no such admission. Democratic leaders threaten to cut off support for the Iraqi government...because they are tired of throwing money - our money - at an Iraqi government that does not seem to be able to get its act together. That is completley different than actively promoting the Iraqi government's inability to get its act together.

And you are wrong yet again...

the Iranians.
I know of no democrats who are "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".

post 737


and

and are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government? really????

post 745

So much for your claims.

 

[maineman]

And you are wrong yet again...
post 737
and
post 745

So much for your claims.

let me get this straight:

are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?

So...if that is the case, were all the republicans who were critical of President Clinton "actively promoting instability" in our nation's government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?

Why not?
After all, according to your pathetic ass, linking Iraq and AQ is the same thing as linking Iraq and 9/11.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

let me get this straight:

are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?

So...if that is the case, were all the republicans who were critical of President Clinton "actively promoting instability" in our nation's government?

Depends? Did they threaten to remove any of his money? Any of his power? Any of his authority? Other then the legally authorized Impeachment process perhaps you can point me to any attempt to convince the Government agencies and the people to boot him from office?

Perhaps you can point me to any attempts to aid armed enemies to kill him or his supporters. Threatening to cut off the Presidential Budget? Denying the money to Democrats in Congress? Threatening to remove the Capitol police from the White House or shutting down the Secret Service? I will, as you say, wait for an answer.

 

[maineman]

Depends? Did they threaten to remove any of his money? Any of his power? Any of his authority? Other then the legally authorized Impeachment process perhaps you can point me to any attempt to convince the Government agencies and the people to boot him from office?

Perhaps you can point me to any attempts to aid armed enemies to kill him or his supporters. Threatening to cut off the Presidential Budget? Denying the money to Democrats in Congress? Threatening to remove the Capitol police from the White House or shutting down the Secret Service? I will, as you say, wait for an answer.

so you really are suggesting that having a debate as to the wisdom of continuting to fund an Iraqi government that even the administration admits is dysfunctional is synonymous with actively promoting the destabilization of that government? do I have that right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so you really are suggesting that having a debate as to the wisdom of continuting to fund an Iraqi government that even the administration admits is dysfunctional is synonymous with actively promoting the destabilization of that government? do I have that right?

That is not what your dems have done though. They have openly threatened to cut off funds to an ally if that Democraticly elected Government does not do what THEY say must be done. And they have done it by threatening the leader of the Country openly and Publically.

It is one thing to debate what should be done it is totally wrong to threaten a leader of a democratically elected Government and an ALLY.

Remind me again how the Republicans during Clinton's term threatened to remove Police and Secret Service, to deny him use of Airforce one or command of the Military. Prove me wrong, go ahead, I am still waiting.

 

[maineman]

That is not what your dems have done though. They have openly threatened to cut off funds to an ally if that Democraticly elected Government does not do what THEY say must be done. And they have done it by threatening the leader of the Country openly and Publically.

It is one thing to debate what should be done it is totally wrong to threaten a leader of a democratically elected Government and an ALLY.

Remind me again how the Republicans during Clinton's term threatened to remove Police and Secret Service, to deny him use of Airforce one or command of the Military. Prove me wrong, go ahead, I am still waiting.

It is not threatening. It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can. It is NOT "actively promoting instability". Why won't you just admit that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not threatening. It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can. It is NOT "actively promoting instability". Why won't you just admit that?

It is not linking Iraq and 9/11. It is suggesting that Iraq was linked to AQ. It is NOT lying to the American people that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Why won't you just admit that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not threatening. It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can. It is NOT "actively promoting instability". Why won't you just admit that?

Gotta go for awhile, BUT I won't admit it because it is not true. Openly threatening the President of a Country and Publically calling him incompetent IS a personal attack. Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it.

 

[maineman]

Gotta go for awhile, BUT I won't admit it because it is not true. Openly threatening the President of a Country and Publically calling him incompetent IS a personal attack. Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it.

No one is threatening the man. Democrats are calling him incompetent. Do you think that he is competent?

you said: "Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it"

so.... when republicans were complaining that Clinton should have stepped down rather than put the nation through the tribulations of the impeachment trial, those calls for Clinton's resignation were an act of destabilizing our government? Correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is threatening the man. Democrats are calling him incompetent. Do you think that he is competent?

you said: "Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it"

so.... when republicans were complaining that Clinton should have stepped down rather than put the nation through the tribulations of the impeachment trial, those calls for Clinton's resignation were an act of destabilizing our government? Correct?

Why do you people always bring Clinton into this?

Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?

 

[maineman]

Why do you people always bring Clinton into this?

Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?

I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy. If you can't answer RGS's questions for him perhaps you should step aside and wait til he gets back and can try to carry his own water.

But to answer YOUR question.....not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration. Governments are bigger than individuals. Democrats would LOVE the Iraqi government to be stable. They have ZERO desire to destabilize it. They DO, however, want to see the current leadership of that government start showing that they are being effective stewards of the boatloads of american taxpayer dollars we are pouring into that government. Our own military commanders on the ground now see the inability of the Maliki government to settle the political landscape as the greatest single threat to longterm Iraqi stability....moreso than sectarian violence or foreign extremists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy.

No, you do it because you know your point can't stand on its own and you need to deflect attention away from your own incompetence.

What a fucking trog.

But, I expect that from you, as that's all you ever do.
Now, on to more important matters:

I asked you:

Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?

You said:

Not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

For you to be right, you must show that, in Iraq, this to be the case.

Get busy, Skippy.

 

[Alpha1]

I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy. If you can't answer RGS's questions for him perhaps you should step aside and wait til he gets back and can try to carry his own water.

But to answer YOUR question.....not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration. Governments are bigger than individuals. Democrats would LOVE the Iraqi government to be stable. They have ZERO desire to destabilize it. They DO, however, want to see the current leadership of that government start showing that they are being effective stewards of the boatloads of american taxpayer dollars we are pouring into that government. Our own military commanders on the ground now see the inability of the Maliki government to settle the political landscape as the greatest single threat to longterm Iraqi stability....moreso than sectarian violence or foreign extremists.

In fact, we demand,(mandate) that our leader step down after 8 years ...
and by having an election sooner, seems like the citizens have the opportunity to have him step down after only 4 years....does this destabilize the United States.....I think not...

 

[maineman]

In fact, we demand,(mandate) that our leader step down after 8 years ...
and by having an election sooner, seems like the citizens have the opportunity to have him step down after only 4 years....does this destabilize the United States.....I think not...

and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?

 

[M14 Shooter]

and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?

This would be amazing funny, if it weren't so pathetic.

Aside from the fact that what you typed had absolutely nothing to do with what he said....

If the Bush administration suggested that we have "some modicum of input", regardless of context, you'd be the first fucking trog among a zillion fucking trogs to scream "Bush's puppet government!"