Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Yankees please stay!!

As America withdraws its troops from Iraq, we are now getting a somewhat different story.

Even the BBC is changing its tune judging by the news last night.

After hearing how the nasty evil BushHitler regime was subjugating Iraqis as well as killing too many Americans and Iraqis, we are now hearing of dreadful consequences that might arise should the Amercian troops depart.

Iraq trembles, says the Times of London, US news company McClatchy also notes the fears of many ordinary Iranians.

The LA Times wonders if the job has been done.

Well, it was certain that 'the Surge' supported by John McCain and opposed by TOWMNBM did work in curbing the violence of the rival militia. Now, the US has been pressurised into a early withdrawal, we might see groups taking advantage. I guess this is what happens when politics takes precedence over military reality.

We can only wonder what the resuly might be of the withdrawal this week.

Is the US pulling out too soon because of leftist campaigning and if so, how much blood might be on the hands of TOWMNBM and his like?


Anonymous said...

Barrys gonna make Saddam look like a choir boy as regards causing bloodshed. Onec the yanks and Brits are gone that place is going to blow big time. The towelheads just cant help themselves

They are full of hatred for each other and us


Psycho Milt said...

Try actually reading what the left writes about this stuff, Fairfacts. We accuse Bush and his dumbass advisors of breaking the country with no prospect of being able to fix it. It was a fair accusation in 2003 and it remains fair in 2009, after 6 years of Bush and his unfortunate successor flinging huge piles of cash and a significant number of lives at the problem. If you don't like the fact we were right, harden the fuck up.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Actually Milt, at the time, 2003, the Left were all for it. That was, of course, before they were against it.

Redbaiter said...

"Try actually reading what the left writes about this stuff, Fairfacts."

Why don't you practice what you preach Melt?


Redbaiter said...

Forget the link. Here are the direct quotes-

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, and others. Dec, 5, 2001.

Psycho Milt said...

Redbaiter: remember how you reacted when I said John Key was a right-wing politician? Right back acha, buddy - don't quote Democrats at me as "left," thanks.

KG said...

"don't quote Democrats at me as "left," thanks."
Shit, no! We all know how the likes of Pelosi are all for free speech and capitalism and freedom of the individual, after all.
The fact that they've just nationalised a whole lot of industries, are sucking up to the U.N. and show utter contempt for the Constitution makes them centrists Redbaiter.
Real lefties, after all, have gulags and killing fields and everything. This lot have a way to go before they qualify in Milt's eyes.

Redbaiter said...

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus, the American Arm of Socialist International.

Her election as minority leader has firmly established the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International. Another 58 Democrats are members of the same Progressive Caucus.

Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin.

Every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.

The Democrats are still not far enough left for Melt though.

Fucken hopeless aint he??

Psycho Milt said...

And naturally KG chimes in - another one who expressed outrage at the concept that John Key was a "right-wing" politician. Sauce for the gander, fools.

KG said...

Let's see if I have this straight. John Key has consistently acted and spoken in ways which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'right wing' and I criticised him for that.

Milt denies that democrats are lefties when they demonstrably (as RedB points out) are just that, and somehow there's some kind of equivalence between those two positions?
And I notice you haven't answered Redbaiter's information about Pelosi, which demolishes your assertion that Democrats aren't lefties.
I used to think you were misguided, not stupid PM but as ever, I'm prepared to modify my position based on real-time data....

Psycho Milt said...

John Key has consistently acted and spoken in ways which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'right wing'...

And yet you're quite happy for Redbaiter to list Democrats speaking and acting in ways that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'left-wing' and demand I accept them as left-wing positions merely because a Democrat voiced them.

Either accept that those Democrats were not voicing left-wing views on Iraq, or accept that Key's views are right-wing simply because a Nat voices them - you can't have it both ways (although I don't doubt you'll try).

Lucy said...

Psycho Milt is well named isn't he? Definitely a Psycho

Psycho Milt said...

How long did it take you to come up with that gem, Lucy? I'm picking you spent most of the day on it.

WAKE UP said...

" We accuse Bush and his dumbass advisors of breaking the country with no prospect of being able to fix it."

Milt, you are dead right for a change. The psychopathic monster Sadaam Hussein indeed had Iraq totally under control. No problem there, the country was just peachy keen and fine, wasn't broken at all.
Unless you don't like the idea of psychopathic monsters running a country and doing what they like with it, of course.

You're the one who needs to harden up, Milt.

Psycho Milt said...

We didn't seem to have any problem with it in Central America in the early 80s.

I agree, it takes a pretty hard man to flush the US economy down the toilet and kill hundreds of thousands for the sake of replacing a dictator with a ruinous insurgency and failed state. Not a smart man, for sure, but a tough one alright.

WAKE UP said...

Interesting perspective Milt, watch that space...and wait for the cries of "bring back Bush" (and that'll be Americans, let alone Iraqis :)

Anonymous said...

The BBC has always supported with invasion of Iraq, spreading the lie that Saddam had WMD and was stopping the UN inspectors (something that the UN inspectors themselves denied).

The BBC is just the official outlet of the UK government, and has always been that. 99% of the news they do comes directly from the UK government. Only 1% is independent news, that doesn't follow the government line.