Marsha Blackburn: "Save the Incandescent Lightbulb!"

[edthecynic]

like he dragged his feet on sending sufficient amount of troops to quell the violence in Iraq to appease more left wing idiots.

BULLSHIT!

Bush was told he was sending an insufficient number of troops by the "Left" before he ever invaded!!!

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required to stabilize Iraq after an invasion
- General Shinseki, before Congress, 2003

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

 

[eagle7_31]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Now why do I get the feeling if Blackburn were a Democrat this would not have appeared on this board?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

always nice to see leftist cheer for tyranny and mock those that want freedom returned.

the honesty is refreshing

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

like he dragged his feet on sending sufficient amount of troops to quell the violence in Iraq to appease more left wing idiots.

BULLSHIT!

Bush was told he was sending an insufficient number of troops by the "Left" before he ever invaded!!!

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required to stabilize Iraq after an invasion
- General Shinseki, before Congress, 2003

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

 

[edthecynic]

like he dragged his feet on sending sufficient amount of troops to quell the violence in Iraq to appease more left wing idiots.

BULLSHIT!

Bush was told he was sending an insufficient number of troops by the "Left" before he ever invaded!!!

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required to stabilize Iraq after an invasion
- General Shinseki, before Congress, 2003

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

 

[guno]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Save the horse and buggy

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

like he dragged his feet on sending sufficient amount of troops to quell the violence in Iraq to appease more left wing idiots.

BULLSHIT!

Bush was told he was sending an insufficient number of troops by the "Left" before he ever invaded!!!

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required to stabilize Iraq after an invasion
- General Shinseki, before Congress, 2003

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

 

[edthecynic]

BULLSHIT!

Bush was told he was sending an insufficient number of troops by the "Left" before he ever invaded!!!

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required to stabilize Iraq after an invasion
- General Shinseki, before Congress, 2003

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

One general does not constitute the left. Especially when you consider the left referred to Petraeus as 'betray us' for sending more troops.
Many on the left, including and especially HR Haldeman Clinton, initially OK'd the invasion before attempting to seize the opportunity of an ostensible Vietnam redux when the aftermath went south.
Don't even try to rewrite recent history again.

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

 

[edthecynic]

It was your MessiahRushie who came up with the "Betray us" monicker first pinning it on GOP Senator Hegal for opposing the escalation in Iraq. MoveOn just turned around Porky's own quote.

January 25, 2007
RUSH: By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

And Shinseki was NOT the only one, though the most prominent.

Army Chief Raises Estimate of G.I. s Needed in Postwar Iraq - NYTimes.com

Many senior Army officers have cautiously expressed concerns that the administration, by committing only about half the 500,000-member force that fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, may not have enough ground forces in place if problems arise or the force becomes bogged down dealing with refugees.

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Regardless of who coined any term it's about the application. No military experts predicted the type of result in Iraq that occurred. There was always trepidation about being prepared for some kind of comprehensive backlash but not the type ultimately experienced. I'm sure the smaller-than-necessary force was part of the deal needed to get so many dems on board in the first place.
What happened afterward obviously required a larger force and it was Bush's appeasing politically opportunistic Vietnam-glory-days dems who prevented that necessary reinforcement from happening.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

 

[edthecynic]

Cheney changed his view on Iraq - seattlepi.com

Dick Cheney in a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Then-SecDef Dick Cheney explaining why *not* to invade Iraq.



But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — ... Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you've just gotten rid of; you can't just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. ... The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

No incandescents aren't being phased out, just made more efficient, they are still incandescents.
You are lying in order to satisfy a bias.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

1992.

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

No incandescents aren't being phased out, just made more efficient, they are still incandescents.
You are lying in order to satisfy a bias.

No, they're being phased out. Halogens are among the only incandesents practically available.
The squeeze has created a market not conducive to incandescents and it's all due to the phony AGW agenda.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Anybody with half a brain KNOWS the new bulbs contain Mercury. So while saving energy they are toxic for land fills and life as we know it.

We did NOT have that problem with the old bulbs. So you are saving a penny a month and killing the planet. That makes YOU the fool.

which bulbs are those? LEDs? high-efficiency halogens?
or are you worried about the CFL, the ones that save much more than a penny a month, are recyclable, and only contain about 5mg of Hg?

How many people actually recycle light bulbs? How much mercury is contained in 1 million bulbs? Oh, and are you not aware of just how highly toxic mercury is? What do you think happens when you drop one of those and that mercury vapor ends up in the air?

 

[edthecynic]

And experience has shown nothing had changed by 2003, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

No incandescents aren't being phased out, just made more efficient, they are still incandescents.
You are lying in order to satisfy a bias.

No, they're being phased out. Halogens are among the only incandesents practically available.
The squeeze has created a market not conducive to incandescents and it's all due to the phony AGW agenda.

Lies on top of lies topped with more lies.

Incandescent Bulbs where Bulb Technology is Incandescent Bulbs.com

 

[Yarddog]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Anybody with half a brain KNOWS the new bulbs contain Mercury. So while saving energy they are toxic for land fills and life as we know it.

We did NOT have that problem with the old bulbs. So you are saving a penny a month and killing the planet. That makes YOU the fool.

Don't forget that some actually have physical problems with exposure to florescent lights for extended periods.

Hey, well strobe lights make the crazy leftists feel right at home .

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What? There was no violation of postwar agreements by saddam and 9-11 didn't happen?
So, can you not appreciate the ambient effect of incadescents that alternatives can't produce?

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

No incandescents aren't being phased out, just made more efficient, they are still incandescents.
You are lying in order to satisfy a bias.

No, they're being phased out. Halogens are among the only incandesents practically available.
The squeeze has created a market not conducive to incandescents and it's all due to the phony AGW agenda.

Lies on top of lies topped with more lies.

Incandescent Bulbs where Bulb Technology is Incandescent Bulbs.com

You make my point since they need to be ordered. You have no clue. Old incandescent street lights were removed from my historic neighborhood because lefty AGW Nazis are too stupid to know what they ruined. I bet you have no clue about that, too.

 

[Freewill]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Anybody with half a brain KNOWS the new bulbs contain Mercury. So while saving energy they are toxic for land fills and life as we know it.

We did NOT have that problem with the old bulbs. So you are saving a penny a month and killing the planet. That makes YOU the fool.

Only the one that have mercury are the fluorescent ones, and despite the fact that their output is much higher than standard fluorescent bulbs, they use far less mercury, and last far longer. So the amount of mercury going into the environment is far less from these bulks than what we have been using for 75 years. But then, you republicunts have never cared about the environment before, so why now?

Unlike mercury emissions from power stations that are dispersed over a large area. Bulbs containing mercury can release mercury in a small enclosed area. Besides they don't work well in the cold.

 

[Freewill]

Just for anyone who wants a good laugh

Save The Incandescent Light Bulb U.S. Congressman Marsha Blackburn

House Rep Marsha Blackburn (TN) is sponsoring a bill (HR 91) to save the incandescent lightbulb.....

...

Really, this is real. She believes Obama's energy standards are going to lead to the incandescent lightbulb disappearing and not being available to middle class Americans. She lists this as one of her top 7 priorities for her current term in Congress.

What's up for next year Marsha? "Save the Fax Machine"? "Save the Dial-up Modem"? "Save the Pay Phone"?

Anybody with half a brain KNOWS the new bulbs contain Mercury. So while saving energy they are toxic for land fills and life as we know it.

We did NOT have that problem with the old bulbs. So you are saving a penny a month and killing the planet. That makes YOU the fool.

Only the one that have mercury are the fluorescent ones, and despite the fact that their output is much higher than standard fluorescent bulbs, they use far less mercury, and last far longer. So the amount of mercury going into the environment is far less from these bulks than what we have been using for 75 years. But then, you republicunts have never cared about the environment before, so why now?

Unlike mercury emissions from power stations that are dispersed over a large area. Bulbs containing mercury can release mercury in a small enclosed area. Besides they don't work well in the cold.

the EPA and the first clean water act was passed by Republicans. Funny when I think about it the only thing the left ever passes is feel good BS that hurts people while they say they are doing just the opposite. Really think of one good thing the left has ever done. Oh right, got rid of sodomy laws, good job taking care of self interest.

 

[edthecynic]

What Cheney said then has proven out to be true today.
"What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi'a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba'ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?

If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Incandescents still are available for purchase today with the exact same ambient effects.

Incandescents are being phased out by Nazi-esque law and 9-11 changed the entire foreign policy dynamic. You are reaching in order to satisfy a bias.

No incandescents aren't being phased out, just made more efficient, they are still incandescents.
You are lying in order to satisfy a bias.

No, they're being phased out. Halogens are among the only incandesents practically available.
The squeeze has created a market not conducive to incandescents and it's all due to the phony AGW agenda.

Lies on top of lies topped with more lies.

Incandescent Bulbs where Bulb Technology is Incandescent Bulbs.com

You make my point since they need to be ordered. You have no clue.

How does proving you lied about incandescents make your point?
It's you who is clueless!