Hello:

I've been waiting for this moment...

We're OUT of Iraq. From the get go, I've said that George W. Bush LOST this war. I said it time and time again. I haven't changed my mind.

It looks, however, like the right wing agrees with me. Iran is the winner, but it's Obama's fault.. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

And, you guys want to run this country.

excon

Hello Ex good to see your up and about.

I agree that Iraq was a waste of lives and money. It was fought for the wrong reason(s), Saddam needed to go away and we needed the oil. Iraq will never be a democracy but I think Iran will muddy the water even more now that we are pulling out.

Let's not forget that Vietnam was another war we should not have been involved in but LBJ (democrat) found a way in and it took a Republican to get us out.

Have a great day.

I saw a T shirt that said Vietnam, second place. Made my blood run cold but that's what happened. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq we were the British red coats standing in a line in an open field compared to our enemy. Somehow we decided to become the world police force and we aren't very smart about it. The French showed us what would happen in Vietnam but we went in anyway. The Russian showed us what Afghanistan was like, we went in anyway. We need smarter leaders, this coming from a guy who lives in a state where our last two governors are making our license plates.

Obama did snatch defeat from victory by not negotiating a renewal of the status of forces agreement . If we had bugged out of Korea the same way then the NORKS would rule the whole place. No difference.

For the record.. Remaining in Iraq are 16,000 American personel ;many of them re-designated "Diplomats" and Diplomatic Security Personnel" to be at the service of the State Dept. They are housed...or should I say ,"garrisoned " in the largest and most heavily fortified Embassy in the world. Such is the Obama deception.

I hope I am hearing this wrong .
Ali Musa Daqduq to be released when we leave Iraq .

He is a Hezbollah operative trained by the Iran Qud's .2007 he led a terror team into Iraq that killed 5 US troops in Karbalah . He was later captured and has been inUS custody in Iraq .

But there are no provisions to either transfer him to the US or to GITMO to face justice. His compatriots were already transferred to Iraqi control and they shamefully( and swiftly I might add) exchanged them for captured British soldiers .

This was not the only example . There have been literally hundreds of Iranian operatives involved in terror activity in Iraq who have been released and repatriated to Iran .


Daqduq ,besides the specific case of the deaths of the US troops in Karbala trained many of the Iranian and Iraqi terrorists operatives working in Iraq the last decade . He has much more blood on his hands .

Yet it appears that when we exit he too will be handed over to the Iraqis .Must be part of that honourable peace President Obama promised us .

I will be constructing a letter to Att Gen Holder and Def Sec Panetta in support of a transfer to GITMO and a tribunal... not that it will do any good .

I expect Daqduq will get his welcome home parade in the streets of Tehran long before the parade I envision for returning troops down the Canyon of Heroes is ever realized.

Yet it appears that when we exit he too will be handed over to the Iraqis .Must be part of that honourable peace President Obama promised us . Hello tom:

Well, it certainly was part of the negotiations over our withdrawal.

Besides, having gone in WRONGLY, and having killed some 100,000 Iraqi's while we were there, I'm just not sure there IS an honorable peace. There's only leaving.

But, I agree with you. Some of the stuff that goes on is very ugly.. We handed over ONE terrorist.. Israel, recently, handed over 100's. You do, what you have to do.

excon

Obama did snatch defeat from victory by not negotiating a renewal of the status of forces agreement . If we had bugged out of Korea the same way then the NORKS would rule the whole place. No difference.Hello again, tom:

Unfair comparison... WE were INVITED into South Korea to DEFEND them. The NORKS were the INVADERS. WE were the defenders. . WE were the good guys. We REMAIN the good guys. South Korea wants us THERE.

However, in Iraq, WE were the invaders. We invaded for FALSE reasons. THEY were defending themselves against the invaders. THEY'RE the good guys. They want us OUT. We have no business staying there.

Yes, Iran is the winner. That's what happens when you LOSE wars. You get SCREWED. And George W. Bush LOST this one.

excon

Besides, having gone in WRONGLY, and having killed some 100,000 Iraqi's while we were thereWrong... we did not kill 100,000 Iraqis.. they mostly killed themselves.. with the assist of AQ and Iran.


But, I agree with you. Some of the stuff that goes on is very ugly.. We handed over ONE terrorist.. Israel, recently, handed over 100's. You do, what you have to do.
That is a move by the Israelis that I disagree with . But it's their business.
We are only turning over Daqduq because of our weak-kneed leadership who won't do the right thing about handling unlawful enemy combattants ,and would rather free them than conduct tribunals .


Unfair comparison No it is not . The status of forces agreement was in place .It was Obama's refusual to negotiate an extension that was wrong.
You are kidding ,aren't you ? You think they want Iran dominance ? Do you think Maliki would've travelled to Washington this month if he wasn't seeking some kind of deal ?

Maliki is telling anyone who will listen that he wants America there . He is attempting to balance Iraq's long-term interest;but the President's policies are pushing him into the arms of Iran . Yeah I said it!

Yes ,only Obama's policies makes Iran the winners .
Instead of building a new alliance with a free and independent Iraq ;the President is content to allow all the gains of the last decade to be squandered .

There were in fact very minor disagreements in the negotiations ,that were easily surmountable, if the President had any intention of pursuing a new alliance . He was not inclined to because of the silly campaign promises he boxed himself into.

Meanwhile he shamelessly touts the accomplishments there as if they are his own . There is no shortage of rhetoric about the great opportunities and freedoms that the "Bush war " gave to these Iraqis. He's right about that of course ;but he had ZERO to do with it ,and his decisions now threaten a reversal of all good that came from the conflict.

Why all the analysis and debate, the US is leaving Iraq, it is largely peaceful, this is a good thing. And you you seem to think you had some sort of propriety rights by reason of conquest. A somewhat outmoded idea

Why all the analysis and debate, the US is leaving Iraq, it is largely peaceful, this is a good thing. And you you seem to think you had some sort of propriety rights by reason of conquest. A somewhat outmoded idea

There is no question that the US invaded Iraq for the flimsiest of reasons - no, read false, not flimsy.

Bush disgraced a great country, was directly responsible for massive killing on all sides, and will go down in history with the other mass murderers of the 20th century.

Just wait... Like Egypt, and Libya... Iraq will soon be run by the Islamic lunatics that call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood... but Obama would like that since he is aligned with them.


And Athos... you like some many of the lefties that like Obamas wars... but hate anything Bushg had a hand in... you are ignoring a key thing...


Saddam violated the cease fire agreement... "W" didn't start a new war... the "First" Gulf war never officially ended... and since selective amnesia is also part of Bush Deraingement syndrome...

Cease fires don't expire... Korea is still under a cease fire agreement... thats been HOW many years.

If anyone disgraced themselves it's the Iraqi people. A large percentage of them anyway. We would have been out of there years ago if they had any civilization in their genes.

Maliki wanted the US to stay .President Jalal Talabani wanted the US to stay and said that only the Mookie al-Sadr faction backed by Iran wanted the US out.
So yeah ;Obama's premature withdrawal guarantees that the thugs in Tehran are the biggest short term winners. In the long term ,smoothy is probably correct... the pan-Islamist jihadists will probably control the most strategically located nation on the Arabian peninsula.

The President seems hell bent on trying to prove his original hypothesis that Iraq was the "dumb war", by guaranteeing a negative outcome.
Well Mr President ;you can proudly display your own"Mission Accomplished " banner during your 2012 convention.Make sure you invite the troops at nearby Fort Bragg to attend .

Iraq was a dumb war instituted by the dumbest President ever to take office in america, so don't try to justify it. Wrap up your paranoia and do what George H W Bush did and leave the muslims to work it out for themselves.

With all due respect to former President GHWBush and to your revisionist history.
1. his idea of letting the muslims ... work it out for themselves was to sit by with our air assets on the ground ,and the largest coalition army since WWII nearby while Saddam's helicopters gunned down 10's of thousands of Iraqi Shia and Kurds.
2. As a result of his decision ,the US and the Brits spent a decade enforcing no fly zones to protect these Iraqis from further mass murder .

Now ,had the world truly backed the sanctions imposed on the Saddam led regime with the same gusto that they did when they decided the South African regime had to go ;then maybe Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been necessary. But unfortunately ;the very countries that opposed the war were the very ones that made it necessary by violating UN sanctions on Iraq.

So yeah ;Obama's premature withdrawal guarantees that the thugs in Tehran are the biggest short term winners. . the pan-Islamist jihadists will probably control the most strategically located nation on the Arabian peninsula.Hello again, tom:

You HIT the nail on the head... Since we DIDN'T win, your scenario is entirely possible... But, it's NOT because we're leaving... It's because we DIDN'T win. The same thing will happen if we leave in 5 years - 10 years - 20 years... That's because we DIDN'T WIN!

You, like your Republican cohorts, are arguing for PERMANENT war, and we ain't going for it.

But, that's cool.. You got another war looming on the horizon just like the one we lost... DUDES!!

excon

I don't know what you mean by win. We must've lost WWII in Europe and Japan because our troops are still there .

Tom Tom the US didn't win or loose Iraq, you conquered Saddam but then the insurgency held you mired in a war for years, a strategy of Iran and Al Qaeda. Ultimately the Iraqi were strong enough to police their own country and you were invited to leave or at least convert your military presence to a civilian one.

Similarly you have neither won or lost Afghanistan but I predict the same outcome.

War is no longer as clear cut as it used to be

True enough .But I wasn't the one who spoke in terms of win or loss.
Goals :
1.Saddam removed... check
2. Accounting of his WMD... check
3. No longer a threat to his neighbors... check
4. No longer a threat to his own people who he mass murdered for years... check
5. A free Iraq with a representative government... check
6 . A secure Iraq... incomplete ;and that is why were are still needed there . It will take Iraq a decade to be in a position to defend it's own air space . It will take them some time to secure themselves from dominance from their neighbor to the East.

Again ;the Iraqis were not pushing us out . Except for the faction already mentioned ,they wanted us to stay... and US business investment is very much in demand.
No... it was a political calculation from the President to undermine the talks for continuing the Status of Forces Agreement that ended US Combat in Iraq in 2008 in victory (with the caveat that you make about the definitions of won /loss ;victory/defeat) .

Edit the specific date of Victory in Iraq Day is November 17,2008 . Mark it on your calendar.

1.Saddam removed ...check
2. Accounting of his WMD ...check
3. No longer a threat to his neighbors...check
4. No longer a threat to his own people who he mass murdered for years .... check
5. A free Iraq with a representative government ... check
6 . A secure Iraq ... incomplete ;and that is why were are still needed there . It will take Iraq a decade to be in a position to defend it's own air space . It will take them some time to secure themselves from dominance from their neighbor to the East. Hello again, tom:

Let's translate #6 into ENGLISH.. It means we DIDN'T WIN. You mention our troops in Japan. We WON in Japan. Our troops are NOT preventing a re-engagement of that war. Same thing in Germany.

Troops left in Iraq, however, WOULD be preventing a war - a war that is going to happen WHENEVER we leave, because we DIDN'T WIN. Plus, our residual force would be TARGETS. We'd CONTINUE to suffer casualties... That ain't a win...

It was LOST before it ever began, because it was STARTED for the wrong reasons. It will NEVER be won. George Bush broke it soooo badly that only a PERMANENT state of war will fix it, IF you want to call that a fix...

Now, you want to do Iran the same way... DUDES!!

excon

Our troops are NOT preventing a re-engagement of that war. Same thing in Germany... Troops left in Iraq, however, WOULD be preventing a war - a war that is going to happen WHENEVER we leave,

Exactly . Troops left in Germany were left there to prevent a war that would've happened when we left. That issue wasn't resolved until 1989 . Japan could've asked us to leave any time . We stuck around in a security arrangement with our allies the Japanese to secure them from the theat of communist neighbors. Why are we still in Korea ? The same reason.
Sorry , don't see the difference.

Iraq was a dumb war instituted by the dumbest President ever to take office in america, so don't try to justify it. Wrap up your paranoia and do what George H W Bush did and leave the muslims to work it out for themselves.

The dumbest President ever to take office in the USA is currently in office (Barrak Obama) he's even too ashamed of his college transcripts to produce them... the second dumbest president was Jimmy Carter...

What about the Iraqi demand that US troops would have no immunity from Iraqi law? That requirement had no impact on the decision to withdraw?

They made a similar "demand " in 2008 . It was negotiable then and it was now .

Face it . The President had to have a least one of his campaign promises fulfilled .
Since the agreement expired gave a pull out date of 12/31/11 then it was easy for him . All he had to do was make a show of an attempt to renegotiate to keep the Generals happy ,and put Panetta into Sec Def .

The dumbest President ever to take office in the USA is currently in office (Barrak Obama) he's even too ashamed of his college transcripts to produce them......the second dumbest president was Jimmy Carter....



Hi smoothy,

I think that is a misunderestimation.


Tut

It was certainly portrayed a lot differently at the time, but I won't defend his negotiating skills which are pretty much non-existent. His opponents must like his negotiations pretty well. They all seem to have broad smiles when they leave the room.

They made a simular "demand " in 2008 . It was negotiable then and it was now .

.

Tom do you realise how arrogant that statement is? Iraq is a soveriegn country invaded by the US. They have every right to ask america to remove their troops. The need for those troops has past and obviously the Iraqi government had reached a stage where the american presence is not tolerable. You might wonder why such wonderful people would be asked to leave? It's cultural, your culture is offensive to the Iraqi. This is something you fail to understand, your culture is offensive to many peoples in this world but no more so than to muslims.

Domestic politics in Iraq required some kind of concession on the issue . The President of course made it publicly clear that troops remaining without immunity was unacceptable... and he is right on that count.
Still there was room for negotiations . For one thing ; as I stated earlier there will be troops left who will be under the State Dept control. By extension ;these troops will enjoy the immunity that we sought. The problem is that there are just not enough to do what is still needed there from us.
But who said that the force being left behind had to be the numbers we are leaving ?

Maliki was in favor of up to 20,000 US troops remaining but there were domestic political issues he had to deal with .Specifically it involved a separate deal he was working out with former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who was trying to tie the negotiations to other concessions from Maliki .

It would've been a small matter to take the size of the force out of the negotiations with the Parliament and have an agreement directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister over the number of troops allowed to be assigned to the State Dept. especially if the force level was going to be in the 5-10,000 range.

For that matter it still would be doable if that was the President's goal . I for one do not believe the line in the news that this was a simple botched negotiation. This was in fact the stated goal of the President .

Clete ;you're not hearing me.. They wanted us to stay.The only reason troop immunity could've been negotiable was if there were ongoing negotiations in the 1st place to have US troops stay.

Why should your troops be a law unto themselves Tom. The laws in that country are very different to the US. Immunity from prosecution is B/S

Go tell that to every diplomatic attachment in every country in the world . There is no reason to have a Status of Force Agreement if terms like immunity are not part of the deal .

The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military operational issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over bases and personnel. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
Your troops in East Timor have such a deal ;as they should.

We did not invade East Timor

The hell with all the politics, the boys are glad to be back, so they can really see what they have risked their lives for.

Wonder if the wingers will call them lazy if they can't get a job? Ya think the "job creators" can at least do that?

One war over, one more to go, unless the righties get there way, and get us in IRAN, or some other conflict. But I can see why they rather fight whoever, because they are scared of everybody that doesn't like the pie they are cooking.

Tal I think you are right there are some people who just can't make money without a war going on. You don't want to fight Iran, you don't want to fight NK. Those a fanatical people which means the only answer is to nuke them and we don't want to do that

We don't have to nuke 'em, we can leave them alone. If they like repression, poverty, and subjugation, let 'em have it.

They want to throw rocks, we throw them two. Talk is cheap, so why get excited over the rhetoric. Starting a war over a robot toy is as insane as the guy next door not returning your ball.

Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.

Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.
__________________


With the current Adm I expect that will be like the Czechs asking England and France for help against Germany 1938 .

All over Iraq the one thing they have in common is the belief that the US just abandoned them .

Doesn't matter what the population may, or may not be thinking, it's the sovereign government that makes the call. They have their future in their own hands and that's what the whole thing was about wasn't it.

It's their call, and they made it, and the bureaucratic hawks, and politicians can live with it. They have no choice, and the rest is just talk.

Leave it to the right wing to think they can control everything all over the world.

It is very clear that it was the President who sabotaged negotiations . It was not because the leaders of Iraq didn't want us there... they did .
Obama had no intention of extending the SOFA because this was one campaign promise that he was determined to honor ,regardless of the consequences.

We left a job undone there in 1990 ;and we had to go back. With this decision I predict we will be back again .

They wanted us there under their terms, not ours, so best leave them to live with their decision, and if they invite us back, then we can reassess the situation.

Never know what happens next. Maybe they don't like Iran, or China, or whomever else they deal with in the future. I don't believe in losing sleep over what ifs, or ruining more of the lives of our youth on a stupid political position.

Let the Iraqis build their own country, at their own expense, at their own pace and peril. Let them make their own decisions and pay their own consequences. Its easier to balance a budget, heal a nation, without fighting someone else's battles.

It's called isolationism Tal but a good policy you stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine

That way the rest of the world can be dominated in peace without our interference. That worked so well for us in 1914-17 ;and 1939-1942.

With this decision I predict we will be back again .Hello again, tom:

If we WANTED a predictable outcome, we should have INSTALLED a puppet. We DO know how to do that, after all. Instead we thought a democracy might be nice... and that's what happened.

But, whomever made that decision, didn't understand that it takes MORE than an election and a declaration that you ARE a democracy, to actually BECOME one. How did they not know that? It's in the history books..

I shouldn't be surprised. Given that they didn't know starting a war for the WRONG reasons ain't real smart, it's not surprising that they'd get this wrong too.

So, who made these decisions?? The DECIDER himself.

I say again, the war was LOST when we went in.

excon

We had an agreement with them that all parties in Iraq wanted renewed . Obama wasn't interested in preserving the gains made . So we left .
There is a parallel to this. We had an agreement with the South Vietnamese too. But at the time that the North Vietnamese decide to have a full scale invasion of the South ,the Democrats in Congress decided it would be a good time to abandon them and to renege on that commitment.
At least this time we won't have images of US personel climbing onto roof tops to get out of Dodge.

There is a parallel to this. Hello again, tom:

My point exactly... It's IN the history books. We started that one for the wrong reasons too.. You'd think we'd learn.

excon

PS> (edited) In fact, we were SO wrong about Vietnam we should count ourselves extremely lucky. Vietnam winds up being peaceful and a good trading partner..

I have NO such illusions about Iraq.

Hello again,

Let me see.. It took the Iraqi's exactly 10 days after we left to ramp up their war - the war that George W. Bush lost. Massive bombings last night. Maliki ordered his vice presidents arrest... It's going to hell over there (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/opinion/iraqs-latest-battle.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211)...

Who, besides me, is NOT surprised by this news? Who, besides me, thinks the people we left there WITHOUT fighters to protect them, are at risk? Who, besides me, remembers our troops who were massacred in Lebanon?

excon

Obama lost this war... he's the one that ran away before everything was stabile.

he's the one that ran away before everything was stabile.Hello smoothy:

So, how long should it take the most powerful military the world has ever seen to conquer a backwards nation like Iraq? 10 years isn't enough??

Do you remember Yugoslavia? Since the end of WWII, that country WAS a civil war waiting to happen. Tito was able to keep a lid on it. After he died, nobody was surprised that civil war erupted.

Since the end of WWII, Iraq WAS a civil war waiting to happen. Saddam was able to keep a lid on it. So were we, kind of. After we left nobody is surprised that civil war is erupting. Ok, maybe YOU'RE surprised.

excon

Interesting example Yugoslavia. You do realize that NATO including US troops are still in the Balkans... that despite gains ,the whole thing could collapse with NATO abandonment ?
Funny that I hear no objections to our continued presence there .
Perhaps if we had bugged out a year or 2 after relative peace those bombs in Baghdad would've been going off in the streets of Sarajevo.
Interesting how you seem to favor the strongman leader in some nations ,and favor their removal in other similar ones.

When asked to leave, you leave. When asked to help, you help. When its time to come home and paint your own house, you go home and fix your own house. Last I checked many of the Balkan countries are part of Nato, or the European union, and Kosovo is the only country still under UN protection.

Lets be real, and let the Iraqis do there own thing and figure it out for themselves. Its not like they are the first country to have a civil war before the unite under one nation. That's there right under self determination. No different than what's going on all over the Persian Gulf, and what has gone on here.

Hello smoothy:

So, how long should it take the most powerful military the world has ever seen to conquer a backwards nation like Iraq? 10 years isn't enough???

Do you remember Yugoslavia? Since the end of WWII, that country WAS a civil war waiting to happen. Tito was able to keep a lid on it. After he died, nobody was surprised that civil war erupted.

Since the end of WWII, Iraq WAS a civil war waiting to happen. Saddam was able to keep a lid on it. So were we, kinda. After we left nobody is surprised that civil war is erupting. Ok, maybe YOU'RE surprised.,

excon

As a Vietman Vet... you should know fighting a war half assed and running away before its time... never ends well. I knew and worked with a few of those South Vietnamese that were fighting with us that dealt with it after our hasty retreat.

A lot didn't survive the next few years. Some got out via Thailand on foot, one got out by boat... all were persecuted by the Communist government.

One was born in Hanoi... but moved south to fight against the Communists back when the French were there and the trouble broke out. Yeah he was a much older fellow back then. He's either dead now or a VERY old man now. I knew him 30 years ago and he was around 60 then. Oldest guy at my office.

And "Measured response" is political jargon for 'lets do this halfassed so we can pretend we did something and leave later.".

Nuke 'em right?

Nuke 'em right??

Not worth that...

But the Iranian Idiot might cross that line if someone doesn't take him out first.

I don't get what all this bellyaching is about. The Iraqi have a few issues they need to work out themselves. I'm sure we were all aware these issues existed and now you will see a repressed people take back what they consider theirs. That the majority in Iraq might be traditionally/religiously aligned with the Iranians is the way it is

Well a lot of it is the left trying to blame this all on "W" Bush... when this all started after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Its been a cease fire ever since with Saddam getting his hormones in an uproar to prove what a big man he was until he poked and prodded one time too many.

The first gulf war never ended... it was put on hold with the cease fire agreement... EXACTLY like the Korean war... which STILL is under a cease fire agreement... the war never actually ended. And can still resume in a heartbeat.

And the fact Obamas been in charge for the last three years means HE has owned it for the last three years.

He wanted the job... he has to take all the baggage that goes with the job.

THe Obamies in their warped world view think "W" was responsible for everything that ever happened anyplace, ever... starting with the extinction of the Dinosaurs.

As a Vietman Vet...you should know fighting a war half assed and running away before its time...never ends well. Hello again, smoothy:

I agree. Fighting a war half assed doesn't work. But, it's the ACT of fighting of it half assed, that CAUSES one to run away before its time. That's because, if it WEREN'T fought half assed, its time would have come LONG ago. Finally, fighting it half assed is the ULTIMATE DISRESPECT for the soldiers who fought it WHOLE assed and lost their lives.

We know who the Commander in Chief was WHEN the war was being fought half assed? We know.

excon

Well a lot of it is the left trying to blame this all on "W" Bush...when this all started after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Its been a cease fire ever since with Saddam getting his hormones in an uproar to prove what a big man he was until he poked and prodded one time too many.

The first gulf war never ended....it was put on hold withthe cease fire agreement.....EXACTLY like the Korean war.......which STILL is under a cease fire agreement....the war never actually ended. And can still resume in a heartbeat.

And the fact Obamas been in charge for the last three years means HE has owned it for the last three years.

He wanted the job...he has to take all the baggage that goes with the job.

THe Obamies in their warped world view think "W" was responsible for everything that ever happened anyplace, ever.....starting with the extinction of the Dinosaurs.

No smoothy when 'W" came to power it proved the dinosaurs where not extinct

Hello again, smoothy:

I agree. Fighting a war half assed doesn't work. But, it's the ACT of fighting of it half assed, that CAUSES one to run away before its time. That's because, if it WEREN'T fought half assed, its time would have come LONG ago. Finally, fighting it half assed is the ULTIMATE DISRESPECT for the soldiers who fought it WHOLE assed and lost their lives.

We know who the Commander in Chief was WHEN the war was being fought half assed? We know.

exconYes... Obama was.

No smoothy when 'W" can to power it proved the dinosaurs where not extinct

Harry Ried and Nanacy Pelosi where pulling their insider trading hijinks that would send anyone else to jail long before W got elected... and they haven't stopped yet. And they are both older than rocks.

The Dems were hell bent to get out regardless of the consequences .
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said that that the U.S. left "without completing the job they should have finished."
So let's stop the pretense that they "wanted us to leave.

It is quite evident that the Dems are more interested in getting the troops out before the 2012 elections regardless of the situation on the ground... declare the "Bush war" a failure, and reap the political benefits. It is irresponsible and shameful.
AGAIN the world will be taught that the US does not keep it's commitments to it's allies when the going gets tough.

Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said that that the U.S. left "without completing the job they should have finished."
So let's stop the pretense that they "wanted us to leave. Hello again, tom:

Of COURSE he'd like us to win his civil war for him...

But, that ain't what our guys should be doing. Where we fight should NOT be based on what foreigners want. It should be based on what WE want. And that's what happened.

Besides, aren't you one of those who complain when we DO the bidding of foreign leaders?? I think you are.

excon

LOL Tom, since when do foreign leaders set our policies for us? If he had REALLY wanted us to stay, wouldn't he give in to what we offered. That's not what happened. He wanted us to stay for HIS purpose, on HIS terms, and we rightfully said NO!

LOL Tom, since when do foreign leaders set our policies for us? If he had REALLY wanted us to stay, wouldn't he give in to what we offered. Thats not what happened. He wanted us to stay for HIS purpose, on HIS terms, and we rightfully said NO!!

Ever since Obama took office we have... he cares more about what others think than what WE think... He couldn't care less about what the American public wants... unless there's something in it for him.

You may be part of the American public, and many might agree with your position, but I bet that "others" do not. I would also bet that MOST do NOT.

You may be part of the American public, and many might agree with your position, but I bet that "others" do not. I would also bet that MOST do NOT.

Really... the Polls say otherwise.

Show me.

Show me.He doesn't deal with facts... jus' sayin'. :)

He doesn't deal with facts...jus' sayin'. :)

YOU , never deal with facts...

The left in general live in a state of denial... oblivious to reality when reality isn't what they wish it is...

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx)

And most of those that DO like him are the freeloaders that don't pay their fair share of taxes... in fact... don't pay any at all. They think they are entitled to a free ride at the expense of others.

And most of those that DO like him are the freeloaders that don't pay their fair share of taxes...in fact....don't pay any at all. They think they are entitled to a free ride at the expense of others.

Strange argument against someone who wants to raise tax. You think that the people who are least able to pay should pay more tax and therefore endure hardship while the real loafers in this world, the speculators should pay less. I'll suggest this to you 10% is a fair tax so when you can demonstrate and I don't mean averages that the rich truly pay at this level, I would suggest that your argument might hold water. By the way this payroll tax thing is joke you don't want 6% deducted. From what I hear most of it is refunded. Do you have a tax system over there or a farce designed to make work

YOU , never deal with facts.....

The left in general live in a state of denial...oblivious to reality when reality isn't what they wish it is...

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx)

And most of those that DO like him are the freeloaders that don't pay their fair share of taxes...in fact....don't pay any at all. They think they are entitled to a free ride at the expense of others.

You mean the rich and corporations who pay no taxes, and create NO jobs? Yes they are freeloaders too, on the backs of us hard working honest taxpayers.

Stange argument against someone who wants to raise tax. You think that the people who are least able to pay should pay more tax and therefore endure hardship while the real loafers in this world, the speculators should pay less. I'll suggest this to you 10% is a fair tax so when you can demonstrate and I don't mean averages that the rich truly pay at this level, I would suggest that your argument might hold water. by the way this payroll tax thing is joke you don't want 6% deducted. From what I hear most of it is refunded. Do you have a tax system over there or a farce designed to make work

We agree Clete, the tax system is rigged, and allows extraction of wealth, by the wealthy. And the peoples failure to hold politicians accountable.

We agree Clete, the tax system is rigged, and allows extraction of wealth, by the wealthy. And the peoples failure to hold politicians accountable.

Sorry Tal did you hit the delete button in the middle of your text or has the phantom editor struck again. I don't understand how the tax system is linked to failure at the ballot box

American politicians are bought and paid for by whomever makes the highest bid. The really ambitious special interests buy the whole party as evidenced by party line votes with not one single member having an independent thought. The founders were not exactly paupers on the average but they did have the best interest of the country at heart I believe. That value is seriously lacking today and there is possibly a big price to be paid.

Sorry Tal did you hit the delete button in the middle of your text or has the phantom editor struck again. I don't understand how the tax system is linked to failure at the ballot box

By Smearcase
"American politicians are bought and paid for by whomever makes the highest bid. The really ambitious special interests buy the whole party as evidenced by party line votes with not one single member having an independent thought. The founders were not exactly paupers on the average but they did have the best interest of the country at heart I believe. That value is seriously lacking today and there is possibly a big price to be paid."

If the electorate doesn't pay attention, and elect responsible people to take care of their interests, and not what corporate America wants, then the tax code will not be fair, nor will any other endeavor of governing be in the best interest of the people.

I point to as an example the last election, where the tea party swept into the HOUSE, along with republican governors through out the states. Now we have a faction in the HOUSE who cannot govern since their goal is to shrink government, and let corporations rule in the vacuum, while governors assault the poor, and working classes, and seek to disenfranchise the right to vote in what's clearly a class war for corporate take over.

So yes, its important to know who you elect, on the federal, state and even local levels because you never know who tries to profit on your ignorance.

That faction being Speaker Bonehead and the establishment Repubics .

Or the uncompromising tea party, led by Eric "the snake" Cantor.

Naaahhh . Speaker Bonehead let the President highjack the tax cutter mantle this week... ridiculous . He has to go. Cantor is also an insider . I'm looking for Paul Ryan to lead the party if they have any hope.

Do you think a 2 month extension of a bad tax cut is a good thing ? Why should a bad idea get passed in the spirit of compromise ?

Bad Tax Cut??

I need that 42 bucks!! Keep it going for the rest of the year!!

And if you can't take a few bucks from multi millionaires, then leave my freaking check alone!!

Are you serious??

Sorry I don't trust any of those "young guns"! Plus we all know it will be another hostage situation in 2 months any way.

As the President designed it. He wants to demogogue that raid on the Social Security fund throughout the campaign.

Point 5 percent surtax on the second million dollars doesn't sound like too much to ask for when we need some kind of job creation. Now just me, if the banks can be saved, and now they are rolling in dough instead of BROKE, point 5 percent as a return is more than fair.

Then you don't have to raid social security, which is probably the right wing goal any way. That's the whole problem. You know how that looks? Making granny pay while protecting the irresponsible rich guys who ruined things.

We would increase growth, and GDP if republicans would get out of the way and stop watering down initiatives, and then holler they don't work. You can't move forward with an anchor on your back, or by going back to the good old days, of blind dumb following like sheep.

There's some red meat for you Tom.

Do you think a 2 month extention of a bad tax cut is a good thing ? Why should a bad idea get passed in the spirit of compromise ?Hello again, tom:

Politically speaking, if you're the tax cut party, it's a BAD idea to be AGAINST a tax cut.

Besides, I think a two month tax cut for middle class people is MUCH better than a TEN YEAR tax cut for the rich..

excon

There is no such thing as a good temporary tax adjustment either cut or increase. 2 months is absurd .

The TP Republicans are more than willing to allow the payroll tax cut to be permanent. They were willing to let it go on temporarily for another year. It's the President that wants it to be an issue throughout the election cycle so they can keep feeding lines to tal about the obstructionist Congress.

LOL Tom, the prez has nothing do do with it. The righties are just too greedy. You know if they talk crazy on Fox News, imagine how they sound on CNN, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. How about the Washinton post? Even they think the right is NUTS.

The Compost thinks the right is nuts... eh ? What else does the President have ? He can't run on his accomplishments besides the ridiculous and self delusional claim that he is the 4th best President ever. So he concocts this Trumanesque strategy about demonizing Congress. Well that would be true if they were in fact doing nothing. The truth is that they have passed a budget while the Dem dominated Senate has passed nothing of substance beyond short term extensions.


I need that 42 bucks!!

Then you must be in the 6 figure income level. That is the only way the reduction adds up to $42. In the President's hypothetical $50,000/year income the weekly reduction is $19 . Do the math.. It's a 2% payroll tax reduction from 6.2% to 4.2 % .
But the President used $40 a week in his demagogery and people accepted it without question. Would someone making $104,000 (the annual income of someone who actually gets that $40 week reduction) need it so they could not sacrifice the occasional pizza night ... or deny their kids a new pair of shoes? Of course not .

But what it does do is reduce the amt of money going towards Social Security .Despite the rhetoric ,the Dems aren't really concerned with keeping SS solvent .
But Speaker Bonehead is too timid to mention these obvious truths... or maybe he didn't do the math either .

By the way... for a $42 saving/week you need to make $109,200 /year .

You tell me you want a permanent 2% marginal tax cut I'm on board . These phoney targeted temporary tax adjustments do nothing .

Lol, Tom, I said nothing of $42 a week. That would be great, But that 42 bucks is a month. And funny you cite SS being neglected, since they have not used a raise in the income ceiling, or means testing or any other tool from the box, and there are many, as possible offsets, or pay fors that the right can use. No, they go for the poor getting less, the rich getting more, like they always do.

SS is only in danger if the right gets there hands on it. A clean simple bill would be nice, I mean we can argue the kitchen sink later.

I have no problem with bringing a means testing formula into it. At least we would know the extent of the welfare fraud called Social Security... instead of the lie that it's a self funding insurance plan.

I have no problem with bringing a means testing formula into it. Hello again, tom:

Of course, you don't. Means testing is the first step in eliminating it.. Right now, it's an ENTITLEMENT... Everybody paid. Everybody gets it. When you start means testing, it becomes program for the poor. In other words, welfare.. Welfare is much easier to get rid of than an entitlement program. Everybody hates welfare, don't they?

excon

So you don't want means testing ? That's what all the SS reformers on the Left say should happen. They know what you and I know.. it's a fraud as advertised.

BTW .tal... when the President demagogued the payroll tax cut this week was the $40 he was talking about monthly ? Not sure if he was talking biweekly or weekly . I know it wasn't monthly .

So you don't want means testing ? That's what all the SS reformers on the Left say should happen. Hello again, tom:

Not only that, I'm for REMOVING the means testing that has the RICH paying a SMALLER percentage of their income in SS taxes than the poor. EVERYBODY should pay the SAME percentage of their income in SS taxes..

That sounds eminently FAIR to me, and that would take care of ANY shortfall - EVER. You could call it a FLAT tax. I thought you guys LIKED flat taxes.

excon

The pay out is proportional to the pay in isn't it ? The rich have a cap in paying and a ceiling of how much they can take out. Otherwise it's just a take from the rich and give to the poor welfare system.

Face facts ;we were destined to be screwed upon conception of the scheme . The only ones who truly come out good are the parents of the WWII generation . But of course that was going to happen they knew they'd get much more than they'd put in . That was an easy sell for Roosevelt .

Otherwise it's just a take from the rich and give to the poor welfare system. Hello again, tom:

I guess you could categorize ANY progressive tax that way... And, you DO!

excon

Yup... at least you call it a tax. Roosevelt knew he couldn't sell it if he said it was a tax. So he lied and called it insurance.

Means testing is for disbursement not exemption for paying into it. Don't confuse it with raising the contribution ceiling, another mechanism for adding funds. Geez, don't you guys know how it works?

And the 40 bucks is per paycheck, typically every two weeks which poor and middle classes are subject to. That's why they call it a payroll tax cut, everybody who is employed by someone else pays this as they go. Making a bald face lie of the notion they pay NO taxes.

But the righties who hate welfare, or anything for the 99%, love corporate welfare, and want even more. But what do you expect from somebody that says greedy fat rich cats are job creators? Its still trickle down economics, old story, new terms, same thing.

SS has a variety of options, and combinations of options to fund it, has for decades.

And the 40 bucks is per paycheck, typically every two weeks which poor and middle classes are subject to. That's why they call it a payroll tax cut, everybody who is employed by someone else pays this as they go. Making a bald face lie of the notion they pay NO taxes.



OK let's go with the biweekly scenario. That's in excess of $50,000 /year income. Not rich but certainly not poor.

SS has a variety of options, and combinations of options to fund it, has for decades.

Nope it's only payroll taxes that fund it .
Why can't you admit that your Dems and the President are raiding the Social Security trust fund... just like they are bankrupting Medicare... another "entitlement" ;by transferring it's funds to finance Obamacare .


Means testing =screwing people who have paid into the system by having the audacity to have self funded their own retirements beyond the pittence the government "gives them " in social security benefits. Raising the income ceiling is another means of screwing people by taking more of their money .
What you are saying is that you think Social Security is just another welfare plan... which doesn't surprise me since it was always in the back of the minds of the redistributionist Democrats/"progressives "..

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

That's really easy where I come from they have a "reasonable benefit limit" based on your earnings so if your fund earns well or you sock too much away then everything above that limit gets taxed heavily, this can create a big tax bill for your estate. The government givith and the government taketh away. I don't know why you aren't more relaxed about tax, tax is so complex no one can understand it, so why worry

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

Wait until the banks steal from it! Oh wait, they have already! How much did you lose, and how long will it take for you to get it back?

FDR quote from ssa.gov/history:

"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

I lost nothing . I went to a muni bond fund and that has performed well after a slight downturn .

Nonetheless... I'll take my chances running my own than having the government taking it out of my pocket and running it for me...

By the way...
I am serious about rumblings about the government confiscating it and depositing it into a "government managed " annuity program.

Look up the name Professor Theresa Ghillarducci of The New School and see what she has in mind for 401-K and IRA's . She has the Dem's ears .



... or you sock too much away

Very telling that the Aussies are sheeple who let the government decide how much of your money saved is "too much" .

.

Very telling that the Aussies are sheeple who let the government decide how much of your money saved is "too much" .

The problem is the system is too damn complex for the average person and only the top earners are going to be trapped so no one cares. If you are in that position it is better to make your own investments and avoid these supposed tax protected schemes. That way you have full access to your money, capital gains protection and no investment rules to restrict you. You see such schemes are put in place by "socialist" goverments and are too complex to unravel, they always include a sting for the high end earner. The last liberal government unwound the problem a little by giving self funded retirees access to the pension scheme. As I said the government givith and the government taketh away. By doing it this way they buy the maximum number of votes. Anyway the losses of recent years have made the possibility of a sting very doubtful for most.

You both have made my case for an informed electorate. Then we can hold our elected leaders to a higher standard, and make them accountable to the people. NOT THE MONEY!

Thanks guys.

Well gee... we find something we agree about. I have to warn you.. an informed electorate is less likely to be dependent on the government .

I have to warn you .. an informed electorate is less likely to be dependent on the government .Hello again, tom:

AND, less likely to give up their rights.

excon

well gee ...we find something we agree about. I have to warn you .. an informed electorate is less likely to be dependent on the government .

And less likely to get screwed by the government. More likely to take back their power, and less likely to give it to a crook. More likely to track the crooks down, and make 'em pay, and less likely to just look stupid after a robbery.

More likely to know there own value, and less likely to be assigned value, and told what to do.

All win-win situations.