Iraq: A War We Just Might Win

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, February 19, 2026 15:12
VIEWED: 3564
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

For all we good citizens know the Times will soon start :
b) Supporting listening in on phone calls to & from terrorist-harboring countries.

so why do they track domestic calls? why did Bush sign an executive order to create a database of dissenting Americans, opposed to the Iraq war(among other things)? sounds more like we're the terrorists too.. which is probably why white men and little old ladies get violated at airports and security points as well

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

It really burns you up that the U.S. might indeed win this war, doesn't it ? 'Sustainable stability' might be the best we get,instead of the ticker tape parade , all out 'end' to the war. I'll take stabilty as being 'victory' , thank you very much.

ok, lets say stability is reached; does that mean Iraq is no longer our obligation? or will we still have to maintain troops? what im hearing is that you advocate the status quo, as if we need troops in 130 other countries. its mind boggling.. and i just cannot fathom why its you alleged 'conservatives'(and not the socialist liberals), who have so foolishly fallen for what amounts to big government centralized planning, in a foreign country, by force of arms. seems very hypocritical to me.. but republicans dont recognize Bushs big government leanings either, so it must just be blind obedience

RUE

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:52 PM

They have been pro-war and pro-surge all along. Their editorial is about as left-wing as Hannity, and their 'facts' as suspect as a FOX broadcast.

Michael O'Hanlon -- -- was one of the signatories to a letter on Iraq policy issued by Project for New American Century

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/grenwald/2
007/07/31/ohnalon/

TUESDAY JULY 31, 2007 08:38 EST

A NEW LOW OF MINDLESSNESS FOR OUR MEDIA

It is difficult to remember a media spectacle to match yesterday's grand pageant where Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon were paraded across virtually every network and cable news show and radio program and heralded as "war opponents" and "Bush critics" who nonetheless returned from Iraq and were forced by The Truth to admit that we are Winning. For sheer deceit and propaganda, it is difficult to remember something quite this audacious and transparently false.

As was demonstrated yesterday, O'Hanlon and Pollack were among the most voracious cheerleaders for Bush's invasion and, as the war began to collapse, among its most deceitful defenders. But it goes so far beyond that.

Even through this year, they have remained loyal Bush supporters. They were not only advocates of the war, but cheerleaders for the Surge. They were, and continue to be, on the fringe of pro-war sentiment in this country. And yet all day yesterday, this country's media loudly hailed them as being exactly the opposite of what they really are. It was 24 hours of unadulterated, amazingly coordinated war propaganda that could not have been any further removed from the truth.

Let's just look at their record within the last year alone. In December of 2006, the NYT -- as it frequently does -- invited O'Hanlon to write an Op-Ed on "The State of Iraq -- an Update," and this is what the vicious Bush critic and war opponent O'Hanlon said was needed in Iraq:
Significant changes are clearly needed. At a minimum, we will probably require some combination of the options now being offered the president by the Iraq Study Group, the Pentagon and others -- a large program to create jobs, a surge of perhaps 25,000 more American troops to Iraq to improve security in Baghdad, an ultimatum to Iraqi political leaders that if they fail to achieve consensus on key issues like sharing oil, American support for the operation could very soon decline.
O'Hanlon -- whom the media spent all day yesterday lionizing as some sort of Abbie Hoffman-like war protester who saw the light on the Road to Baghdad and realized that the war he hated was, in fact, Succeeding -- was advocating the Surge even before George Bush announced it. And now -- so shockingly -- O'Hanlon proclaims that the Surge which he publicly urged was a Great Idea because it is Working. And that was the leading news story all day yesterday.

Far worse still, when supreme warmonger and Bill-Kristol-partner Fred Kagan, who designed Bush's Surge strategy, wanted to unveil his Magic Plan, where did he go? To the Brookings Institution to visit with his friends Mike O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack:
On December 21, 2006 the [Brooking Institution's] Saban Center for Middle East Policy hosted a policy discussion during which Frederick Kagan presented the views of the AEI team. . . .

[A] group led by Frederick Kagan, under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has recently released a study proposing a new approach for stabilizing Iraq, entitled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. The report proposes shifting the focus of the U.S. military deployed in Iraq from training the Iraqi armed forces to securing the Iraqi population and containing the escalating violence. To achieve this, Kagan and his colleagues propose increasing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by roughly 30,000 effectives.
After the War Genius Kagan was done unveiling his Grand Plan for Victory, ferocious Bush critic and fist-pumping Iraq war opponent Mike O'Hanlon spoke:
Following Kagan's presentation, Michael O'Hanlon provided commenta

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:53 PM

Quote:
It really burns you up that the U.S. might indeed win this war, doesn't it ? 'Sustainable stability' might be the best we get,instead of the ticker tape parade , all out 'end' to the war. I'll take stabilty as being 'victory' , thank you very much

"Sustainable stability". Is that sustained with or without US bases in Iraq? If it's with bases then what I see is "sustainable drain".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It really burns you up that the U.S. might indeed win this war, doesn't it ? 'Sustainable stability' might be the best we get,instead of the ticker tape parade , all out 'end' to the war. I'll take stabilty as being 'victory' , thank you very much
"Sustainable stability". Is that sustained with or without US bases in Iraq? If it's with bases then what I see is "sustainable drain".

.

Seeing how they're building a huge air base in Iraq......

We have bases around the world..Germany, Japan, England.... maybe we can close some of those and consolidate ? The US had a huge air base in the Philipines at Subic Bay, before Mt Penetubo blew up.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:36 PM

Oh how thrilling to see the demented Left butt-plug epithet & vulgarity spewing crowd out here in force today. Kinda warms the heart a tad.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:56 PM

Always glad to be of service Jongsstraw.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:11 PM

They have been pro-war and pro-surge all along. Their editorial is about as left-wing as Hannity, and their 'facts' as suspect as a FOX broadcast. Michael O'Hanlon was a PNAC signatory on Iraq policy.

This is news only if you assume they're left-wingers who've seen the light, and if you think their reportage is unbiased. Neither is true.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:35 PM

Quote:
We have bases around the world..Germany, Japan, England.... maybe we can close some of those and consolidate ? The US had a huge air base in the Philipines at Subic Bay, before Mt Penetubo blew up.

I vote for eliminating bases in Antigua, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Greenland, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Italy, most of Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, most of South Korea, Spain, the UK, Venezuela, Kuwait, Qatar, leaving bases in Diego Garcia, some in S Korea, some in Japan, and Afghanistan and Iraq as long as our troops are there.

DOD Base Structure Report
www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
We have bases around the world..Germany, Japan, England.... maybe we can close some of those and consolidate ? The US had a huge air base in the Philipines at Subic Bay, before Mt Penetubo blew up.

I vote for eliminating bases in Antigua, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Greenland, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Italy, most of Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, most of South Korea, Spain, the UK, Venezuela, Kuwait, Qatar, leaving bases in Diego Garcia, some in S Korea, some in Japan, and Afghanistan and Iraq as long as our troops are there.

DOD Base Structure Report
www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf

Leave Antigua and the Bahamas ? Are you friggin CRAZY ? Our military might is needed there more than anywhere else! What is it with you cheese eating surrender monkeys??

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE