Tweet
dont you mean "driving thru a very NON republican town"? or was that sarcasm? 
-
-
Y'all familiar with the Onion? great stuff..
Iraq Exit Plan - Through Iran!
WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."
Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.
"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."
According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.
Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.
"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."
Questions have been raised about the unprecedented size of the withdrawal budget.
"I'm asking Congress to approve a $187-billion budget to enable us to exit as smoothly as possible," said Casey, whose budget request includes several hundred additional M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 72 new C-130 cargo planes, and two brigades of artillery. "We're concerned about the safety of our troops, so we need to have the capacity to deal with insurgent forces all the way from the Iraqi border through to Tehran."
Casey has requested a budget increase for the Pentagon, so that the government can reward recruits who serve in the U.S. mission to exit Iraq.
"The plan also includes a minor stopover for refueling and provisional replenishment in Syria," Casey said. "But I don't expect we'll need more than 50,000 additional troops for that stretch of the Iraq pullout."
Bush's plan has met with widespread support.
"The people who said Iraq was a quagmire and that the president would never get our troops out are now eating crow," said Sean Hannity on his popular radio show Tuesday. "Of course, I don't expect anyone will have the honor to come forward and actually admit that they were wrong to question our commander-in-chief."
Sioux Falls, SD's Dianne Haverbuck, who has two sons in the military, said she was pleased to hear of the impending exit.
"Don and Kenneth have already been in Iraq an extra four months, so it's so good to hear that they'll finally be leaving that dangerous place," Haverbuck said. "I can't tell you how happy I was when the president said—what was it? I wrote it down. 'Getting our troops out of the Middle East and back home to their families is a viable long-term goal.'"
"I can't wait to see the boys," Haverbuck added.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.
"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."Comment
-
and another!
"I Support the Occupation of Iraq, But I don't Support our Troops"
The U.S. went to war in Iraq to remove an evil and dangerous political adversary from power. Now that we have done that, the American troops must remain in Iraq until the country is a fully functioning democracy, able to spark change throughout the entire Middle East. While I find this obvious, there are still a lot of people in our country who fail to grasp it. I support Bush-administration foreign-policy goals, but I stand firmly against the individual men and women on the ground in the Persian Gulf.
Yes, occupying Iraq does require troops, but they are there for one reason and one reason only: to carry out the orders of the U.S. Defense Department. As far as their overall importance goes, they are no more worthy of our consideration than a box of nails. Ribbons and banners in ostensible "support" of the troops miss the whole point of the invasion, which is to gain a strategic hold over that volatile and lucrative geopolitical region.
Need I remind the reader that it is our flag, not the troops, that we salute? It is our nation-state, not a bunch of 20-year-olds in parachute pants, that deserves our allegiance. As a patriot and true American, my heart sings at the thought of the Pentagon, and the zealous, calculating measures undertaken by the proud military bureaucracy of this great superpower. I feel a surge of pride when I think about our high-tech GBU laser-guided bombs, capable of carrying a 2,000-pound warhead. I tied a ribbon around my tree for the safe return of our nation's F-16s, because our military aircraft are instrumental to finishing our work in Iraq. And on the back of my car, I have a sticker stating my support for the CIA's ongoing efforts in Iraq.
I support the occupation, and the occupation alone, because when we start to support the troops, we pave the way for irrelevant concerns about their families back at home. Before you know it, questions about who is and isn't going to be home in time for Christmas will be interfering with the crucial decision-making process of our commander-in-chief.
I'd like to ask those currently trumpeting their support for the troops a question: Have you ever actually met any of these soldiers in person? Well, I have, and believe me, they are no more impressive than any other low-level functionary of a large institution.
In all honesty, my soul swells with pride at the thought of the military-strategy papers and cost-analysis reports in which the troops are represented as numerical figures. But, as for the men and women—well, in almost every respect, they are average. Although they are no less intelligent than any other American, it is certainly fair to say they lack the ability to devise the complex strategies and tactics to manage their own divisions, much less grasp the nuanced reasons for their deployment.
It is ridiculous that my "heart" is somehow morally or ethically obliged to "go out" to the troops. In fact, had the troops not been put to productive labor by the sheer might and institutional authority of the U.S. military, a good number of them would be sitting around bars, drinking and gambling. In short, we shouldn't view the troops as objects of sympathy, because their very contribution to our society is their ability to carry out simple commands on a battlefield.
Allow me to pursue this from a more personal angle. I have a son in the military. If I may say so, we've never gotten along particularly well. Frankly, he's been a bit of a disappointment to his mother and me. Nevertheless, he is our flesh and blood and always will be, and we wish him no harm. So I speak from a position of personal experience when I say that, while I do not wish death for any of the troops, death tolls should not be our greatest concern. All that matters is the pursuit of the foreign-policy goals of this great land, the land I love. America.Comment
-
Have you guys ever seen this Satanic look he has in his eyes when he talks? First of all, if you listen to him answering a question (not reading a speach that was prepared for him), he sounds as dumb as possible. I mean, you hear him answering the question and you're like, ummm is THIS the president of the US? He is a THUG along with its crew! AND NOW THIS EXIT PLAN?
Before I start showing my anger towards his Exit plan, do you know if this is a reliable source Winoman?
Has anyone told this idiot that Iran has 4 times the population of Iraq? It's not all desert for them to ride their tanks in a massive attach towards Tehran? Bush trying to go through the Zagros mountains reminds me of his dear friend Adolf Hitler taking his troops through Syberia in the middle of winter. GOOD LUCK IDIOT!
And if you read the response that the leader of Iran had about the exit plan with mentioning their special forces and the republican army and stuff, he didn't even have to talk about Iran's Army, Navy and Air Force! That should just ring an alarm for our stupid president. I hope that God has mercy on our innocent troops.
Oh, I just want to add that:
1. 9/11 was planned and executed by either Bush or one of his smart friends!
2. Clinton got a hummer from Lewinsky and they wanted to cut his head off (okay, I exaggerated. They wanted to impeach him or did they actually do it? Ahh, I don't remember) Bush's done all these crimes or warcrimes and we have more than 1000 US soldiers dead (not mentioning the poor Iraqi civilians) and no one is doing anything.
3. The arab world knows that US is after their oil. We push them and push them and push them, and then the spring won't hold up anymore and it'll bounce back and hit us in the face.
When I was in Iran and trying to run away from there, I was so glad that I was gonna leave that xxxxhole and come to US and have all the freedoms. I'm going to become a citizen in a few months after being here for more than ten years. I just don't want US to become the most hated country after I become it's citizen, and that looks like to be Bush's agenda!Comment
-
Yeah, 9/11 was heartbreaking. The more I think about it, the more I dispise Bush and his friends.
Did you guys hear about that guy who mentioned 9/11 in an essay/article and was attacked for it?? Columbia and some other unies invited him to speak and there were freakin protests against it! University students protesting the making of an opinionated/thought provoking speech! Nothing at all wrong with THAT picture...Comment
-
Eyebaba - the Onion is a satire piece. The fact that it could seem plausible though should definatly be some cause for concern...
And I can't agree with you concerning the concpiracy view of 911. As much as we (some?) might disagree, be disgusted with or what have you - some of this administration's actions and policies - its just way beyond fathoming that anyone would go to such obviously criminal/negligent lengths - particularly self inflictred and such - it really is about 0 possibility. Conspiracy theories sound great - but when you are out in the world and see how inefficiently and poorly things are - how difficult it is for people to get along over just simple things - and keep a secret - well don't believe it. That being said I do prescribe to the idea that the US knew that Japs were going to stike Pearl harbor in 1942 and let it happen...and I know there are many similarities her - but still - I'm not buying it. And I would be very surprised if anything of the sort prooved one day to be true - but who knows eh? Sometimes truth is stranger then fiction....I do howver believe that failure to prevent that attack(s) was a supreme act/acts of negligenc eon the part of our government - to the extent that in almost any other Democracy (certainly the parlimentary democtracies) the governemnt would have fallen and new elections would have been held. The fact that this administration managed to get re-elcted is certainly flabberghasting...Comment
-
i dont think it was done by the bushies, i think it was neglected on purpose, so that it would happen, rather having it be prevented... and we all remember the PBMD "Osama Determined to Strike in US"? yes! so maybe if he read this, and he wasnt so stupid... but hten again, we all know that they wanted something like a pearl harbor to happen so that they would have a reason to declare war on the world, and build their "empire"Comment
-
Of related interest perhaps:
I'D RATHER NOT SAY GOOD-BYE, DAN
Wednesday, March 9, 2005
By Greg Palast
Without his make-up, Dan looked like hell warmed over: old, defeated, yet angry. And he told our television audience something that just blew me away. American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions about George Bush or his wars.
“It’s an obscene comparison," Rather said, "but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."
Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps US reporters in line. “It’s that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often.”
Silence as patriotism. He admitted, “One finds oneself saying, ‘I know the right question, but you know what, this is not exactly the right time to ask it." It was making him ill and he was ready to say, basta, enough. Suddenly, there was fire in those eyes.
"It's extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted and I'm sorry to say that, up to and including this moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that."
Of course, Dan said all these things to a British audience. But back in the USA, Dan had promised America he would be a good boy, a trained press puppy who would poop on the paper set down for him. He told his US audience, "George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."
But CBS' million-dollar man was about to step out of line.
In 2003, BBC Television questioned George Bush's career as Viet Nam era Top Gun fighter pilot. In the British broadcast, I held up a confidential letter from Justice Department files stating that Poppy Bush had put in the fix to get Junior Bush out of 'Nam and into the Texas Air Guard. George could spend the war protecting Houston from Viet Cong attack.
A year after the BBC broadcast, the I'm-going-to-be-a-real-journalist-now Rather decided to run the same story on 60 Minutes. And just as he predicted, the press-police at the network and in the White House seized him and lit the tire around his neck.
What was Dan's mistake? Yes, yes, he shouldn't have embellished the story with a document he couldn't fully source. But that memo (not the one in the BBC report) was about a side issue, not the key accusation, that Senior Bush got Junior out of the draft. Despite not a jot of evidence that the main story of draft-dodgin' George was wrong (BBC never withdrew it), CBS cited Rather's insistence on the veracity of that report as grounds to crush his career and his reputation.
Rather was convicted by a corporate kangaroo court. xxxxie Thornburgh, who had been Poppy Bush's Attorney General and owed his big salaries and career to the Bush family, ran an "independent" investigation which concluded -- surprise! -- the Bushes had done no wrong. It was Dan that committed the evil. That whacky conclusion went along just fine with the diktat of Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, CBS' owner, that a "Republican administration is better for media companies."
In "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler explained why old Communists, brought up for trial by Stalin, still sang the system's praises -- just before they were shot. To do otherwise would have been to cast doubt on the cause to which they sacrificed their lives. Now, Dan Rather, like those soon-to-be executed victims of Stalin, has bowed his head in silence in the face of the evil purge. To do otherwise, I suppose, would be to acknowledge that his career has been a path of increasing salaries and celebrity bought by increasing toady-dom.
Imagine if Edward R. Murrow, after having exposed Joe McCarthy, replied to criticism by bowing his head for the noose-man.
Rather died as a journalist years ago by accepting the evil gag orders of the media moguls. Still, I applaud his attempt with the Bush story to kick his way out of his professional coffin. Unfortunately, his current silence simply gives aid and comfort to the censoring corporate news-killers.
Tonight, Rather read off his last "news" broadcast, if you can call it that. To Dan the newsman, and to American journalism, all I can say is, rest in peace.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/contact.cfm.
Click here - http://GWB Draft Dodger? - to see a segment regarding George Bush's war years from the BBC film, "Bush Family Fortunes," winner of the Freedom Film Festival's George Orwell Prize (2005).Comment
-
winoman, what else is new???Comment
-
Hows that? Do you mean your not surprised by what Palast is saying here....or are you asking me (personally) "what else is new (with me)?Originally posted by nunechka
Comment
Comment