Bring home the troops or we’ll start killing them!

Seems that’s the message from Democratic leaders in Congress.  Appropriations from the house, a $50 billion dollar funding, was sent to the Senate where it was defeated because the funding demanded a withdrawal of US troops by December 2008.

Perhaps it has to do with all the good news coming out of Iraq?   And seriously, who wants to retreat from an action we’re finally winning?

There is an answer to that question.  The word starts with a D and ends with “emocrats”.


34 Responses to “Bring home the troops or we’ll start killing them!”

  1. November 17, 2007 at 1:29 am

    Given that US contractors in Iraq have defrauded the American taxpayers of billions, given that about one third of the $30 Billion spent for Iraq reconstruction is completely unaccounted for, and many of the paid for projects, like the $72 million Baghdad Police College are disfunctional and worthless. At least $9 Billion of our money is missing. Gone. And that is an estimate from 2005. It’s likely far higher. Reports say as much as $12 billion is unaccounted for. Think about that folks, that’s 12,000 million dollars.

    363 TONS of US cash were shrink wrapped and forklifted on to planes and sent to Iraq with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.

    What Doc isn’t telling you is the whole truth. The fact is that Democrats were ready to give Bush $50 billion for Iraq and the Republicans killed it because they don’t want to provide any oversight whatsoever.

    This is what happened – the House passed its version of the Iraq funding, providing Bush $50 billion for the war but with oversight strings attached. The bill then moved over to the Senate side and before it could come up for a vote, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell tried to bring up his version of the Iraq funding bill, which contained $70 billion for the war, with no oversight requirements. McConnell didn’t even consult with Democratic leader Harry Reid about this, which is considered protocol. Democrats objected to McConnell’s bill. Reid responded by trying to bring up his Iraq bill for a vote, basically the same bill that passed the House. Republicans objected to Reid’s bill. The objections meant that each bill would need 60 votes (out of 100 total senators) in order to even be brought up for debate. Both votes failed to get 60 votes.

    So Doc, what do you suppose we’re going to ‘win’ in Iraq? Oil? Do you know that the entirety of Iraq oil exports for 100 years wouldn’t repay the US cost of this war? Do you know that Iraq is actually importing gasoline? The price of gas in Iraq has increased from 5 cents per gallon in 2005 to $1.23 in June ’07? The infrastructure is a disaster 5 years after we invaded. Remember Wolfowitz saying the Iraq oil would pay for the war? Remember Rumsfeld saying the war would “last weeks, not months”? Remember Cheney’s ‘last throes’ comment? And 4 1/2 years ago and hundreds of thousands of lives ago, “Major combat operations have ended.”

    With this history, you don’t think we have the right to demand accountability and oversight? Or just bow to the king, like good authoritarians?

  2. 2 docattheautopsy
    November 17, 2007 at 9:23 am

    “What Doc isn’t telling you is the whole truth. The fact is that Democrats were ready to give Bush $50 billion for Iraq and the Republicans killed it because they don’t want to provide any oversight whatsoever.”

    Well, had the Democrats taken out language demanding withdrawal from Iraq, maybe the bill would have passed? Instead they’re too busy pandering to people like Willy to get the troops out.

    I’m all for oversight. I’d be happy for better government oversight on all of its programs. If you think Iraq is the only place we’re wasting money, you’re a fool. If you think the democrats are the people to fix oversight problems, you’re deluded.

    As for “winning” in Iraq, Willy, deposing a dictator and establishing a democracy in Iraq, giving people freedom, and defeating forces of tyranny certainly seems like a worthy goal. I do wonder what you want in Iraq, Willy. All it sounds to me is that you’re happy with defeat at any cost.

  3. November 17, 2007 at 10:35 am

    What John Kerry would have done as President is convened an Arab council of regional nations to assist with Iraq governance and reconstruction. Our president, no, we can foot the $330 million bill ourselves… we can just print more money. (An we can see the how the dollar is getting bashed on the international market). Besides, we won and we get the oil.

    The “defeat at any cost” and “your for us or against us” is classic Rush Limbaugh narrow-minded authoritarian jargon.

    In Iraq, we hopefully will see an end to violence but unless the US is committed to be there forever, despite any temporary lulls or ‘victories,’ this region will continue to suffer from sectarian strife as it has for a millenium.

    GHW Bush knew that. He wrote, “Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.”

    But, here’s the idiot son’s level of understanding of what we were getting ourselves into:

    Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, according to US Ambassador Peter Galbraith, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

    Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

  4. November 17, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Thats $330 million EVERY DAY for the past 4 years and with no end in sight.

  5. 5 docattheautopsy
    November 17, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    “What John Kerry would have done as President is convened an Arab council of regional nations to assist with Iraq governance and reconstruction.”

    Such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan? Geez, Willy, how would that have turned out?

    You can whine about the money. Are you telling me that every other government organization doesn’t lose money? That’s funny. I’m no fan of large government boondoggles, but I tend to grant them some latitude when they’re actually doing something useful. And in the case of Iraq, it actually seems to be working (unlike 3 years ago).

    As for your personal grudge against GWB, lighten up. It really makes you a ranting lunatic with an axe to grind. And raving lunatics get classified as trolls.

  6. 6 docattheautopsy
    November 17, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    “What John Kerry would have done as President is convened an Arab council of regional nations to assist with Iraq governance and reconstruction.”

    Such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan? Geez, Willy, how would that have turned out?

    You can whine about the money. Are you telling me that every other government organization doesn’t lose money? That’s funny. I’m no fan of large government boondoggles, but I tend to grant them some latitude when they’re actually doing something useful. And in the case of Iraq, it actually seems to be working (unlike 3 years ago).

    As for your personal grudge against GWB, lighten up. It really makes you a ranting lunatic with an axe to grind. And raving lunatics get classified as trolls.

  7. November 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Yes, it is just speculation on what could have been if Kerry were president but when it comes to my quotes about the figures of money being spent in Iraq, the fraud and waste, the incompetent strategy, I can cite facts and expert opinions from our commanders that served in Iraq. Raving lunatics don’t usually quote unimpeachable facts, but people who can’t handle the truth and have a limited perspective often demonize the messenger … (as a “raving lunatic” for example). You seem to think there is no problem that in just the first 5 years of Bush, hid administration has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined – over a trillion dollars. You think this is competent management? How about the fact that President Clinton produced record federal budget surpluses for 2000 ($230 billion+) 1999 ($122.7 billion). Compare that with the top four budget deficits in US history:
    1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
    2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
    3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
    4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion

    Again, I ask you – do you think this is competent management?

    In the past 4 years I’ve toured 6 countries as a performer in three trips through Europe and have many friends in Italy, Germany, France, Poland, Romania, England…. It’s nice to get out and talk with people from around the world to get some perspective. Regarding Bush, it’s seems everywhere I go, the sentiment is unanimous. I’ve become aware of how much his policies have made the America untrusted and very unpopular throughout Europe among nations considered our friends and allies. I have never seen it so bad! It is a marked change from just 8 yrs ago. It will take years to repair the damage. How many countries have you toured in the past few years Doc? What do you hear from your colleagues in other parts of the world about US policy?

    You probably could care less because you subscribe to this short sighted greed inspired neocon isolationist ‘might makes right’ cowboy diplomacy… which has failed on a number of fronts. It makes the US a feared and hated neighbor, not particularly good for our security.

    A Rhodes Scholar put it best:
    “we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill,
    jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.”
    — W.J. Clinton – the president who received a spontaneous standing ovation before the UN during a time where his approval rating were near 70% and he was being impeached by righteous republicans who were questioning his involvement in Kosovo where he brought down the dictator Milosevic with a NATO coalition that suceeded without losing a single American life.

    During that time Governor G W Bush stated:
    “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
    — George W. Bush, 6/5/99

    Sure, it’s great to see violence going down in Iraq. I look forward to the day that Iraqi kids see the Iraqi police as heros instead of bin Laden. Part of the reason for the violence in Iraq was the US presence as demonstrated the British withdrawl from Basra. According to Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, since the withdrawl, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels.


    Those sects that wish to fight for control know that the US can’t sustain the all-time high of 175,000 troops that we have there now for very long. I would be happy to declare the surge a victory and bring the troops home if I didn’t have a memory of the past four years. A lot of the violence has been reduced because of the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place. If you want to call ‘victory’ the displacing of 4.2 million Iraqis and the failure after 4 years to implement a viable government, then go for it.

    deposing a dictator and establishing a democracy in Iraq, giving people freedom, and defeating forces of tyranny certainly seems like a worthy goal.

    But that’s not what the UN mandate for our purpose there was. We went to war to disarm WMD and to protect America. Instead we’ve created worldwide hate for America among extremely important allies in the region and throughout the world. Not to mention more terrorists.

  8. 8 docattheautopsy
    November 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    “Raving lunatics don’t usually quote unimpeachable facts”

    Actually, they do. They often take those facts totally out of context or use them to make crazy statements.

    Thanks for posting GWB’s deficits. While it upsets me that we are back in the habit of deficit spending, considering we’re in a war that costs $330 million dollars a day and deficit’s gone down every year since 2002, I’d say GWB’s statement that the deficit could be eliminated within 10 years is accurate. And all the while he’s cut taxes.

    You totally gloss over that in your latest rant, which again shows that you can only see one side of argument.

    “How many countries have you toured in the past few years Doc? What do you hear from your colleagues in other parts of the world about US policy?”

    I don’t tour other countries with my band, Willy. I’m a scientist. I work over the summer on drug formulation and polymer synthesis. I’m also married with children, so travel to exotic locations is pretty much ruled out in favor of buying clothes and school tuition.

    But I do know that most of the world hates GWB, mainly due to (mis)perceptions in the international media. Remember, much of the world hated Reagan, too, and I think we all will thank him for ending the Cold War and starting an economic boom that has lasted until this day.

    Presidents are remembered by what their policies have achieved. Carter’s Presidency is remembered for bringing Israel & Egypt to the table, as well as suffering through the OPEC embargo. His mismanagement of the Iranian Hostage Crisis is often cited as the reason why the Iranian Alyatollahs came to and held onto power, because his lack of action gave them legitimacy. Just look where that’s got us today.

    “You probably could care less because you subscribe to this short sighted greed inspired neocon isolationist ‘might makes right’ cowboy diplomacy”

    Whereas diplomacy without might has no teeth. How many resolutions did Sadaam ignore from the UNSC? 14? 15? And he ignored them all because he knew Clinton wouldn’t act against him. He was going to ignore the new ones as well. The Norkers ignored UN dictates as well. As did (and do) the Iranians. They do this because they don’t fear military action because they know there won’t be any military action.

    Does that mean you should bomb everybody to the left and right of you? Of course not. But if you don’t show your resolve to implement your strategies, nobody’s going to take you seriously.

    It’s like children. If you have a toddler who draws on the walls, and you say, “Ok, that’s enough drawing on the walls!” does it stop the toddler? No. Now, suppose the parent has been saying, “Ok, I’ve called your father, and he says stop drawing on the walls. We’re in consensus. Stop drawing on the walls!” The toddler won’t stop drawing on the walls. No matter how many times you say it, if there’s no consequences to disobedience, the child knows it has nothing to fear. Now, if the other parent comes home, says, “Stop drawing on the walls,” the child refuses, and the parent then spanks the child, the child will stop drawing on the walls. But everyone in the neighborhood will be aghast. “He spanked his toddler!” they’ll say. But did it get the kid to stop drawing on the wall? It certainly did.

    Diplomacy of these types has to have appropriate consequences attached to it or it’s meaningless. How long has the UN been asking Iran to stop building centrifuges? They’re up to 3000 of them now and can have enough material for a good bomb in a year’s time. Should we use military action to stop Iran if they keep thumbing their nose at the UN, Willy? How’d that work for North Korea? Is having a nuclear Iran a good idea, or a bad idea?

    You won’t even consider these actions. All you care about is getting rid of W, because everything he does is wrong. If Bush bombs Iran, it’s wrong. If he doesn’t and Iran gets the bomb, it’s wrong. If he embargos Iran, it’s wrong. If he beams in “Family Matters” to every TV in Tehran, it’s wrong. Bush can’t win with people like you Willy because you’re opposed to everything he does to the point of derangement. And that’s why you’re a raving lunatic, because you’re unable to be pleased by anything Bush does.

  9. November 18, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    As a chemist, certainly you know that producing an atomic bomb through centrifuge uranium enrichment is 1940’s technology. Without a breeder reactor producing plutonium, the likelihood of Iran being able to produce a significant nuclear arsenal is impossible, let alone integrate it with a reliable delivery system. Do you actually believe Iran would attack the US or Israel with a nuclear weapon if they had one? Bush apparently believes this is possible because he is talking about WWIII in terms of Iran. But considering now that both China and Russia are now backing Iran, you think it would be in our best interest to unilaterally attack Iran? Or would you be more likely to support the Reagan approach that brought down the Soviets without a shot? Unfortunately, US aggression has brought back tension with Russia, thanks GW.

    As the Commander of all coalition forces during the Iraq invasion, Gen. Sanchez mentioned the Bush neocons “lust for power” and that they would have “faced court martials for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.” Citing “a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.” The General was proven correct and the extent of this ruthless lust for power even transcended US national security when the Bush Administration retaliated against Wilson by outing his wife Plame who was, according to current and former intelligence officials, a CIA agent in the Directorate of Operations in an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran. Her outing her outing resulted in “severe” damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

    The CIA’s Directorate of Operations conducted a serious and aggressive investigation of damage assessment of Plame outing on the orders of the CIA’s then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. The assessment showed “significant damage to operational equities.”

    So, the bottom line is that Plame was working to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. As the 60 Minutes interview revealed, she was ” “involved in one highly classified mission to deliver fake nuclear weapons blueprints to Tehran.” It was more important to Bush to smear someone who called him on bogus intelligence – Plame/Wilson, than to protect America from the so called ‘axis of evil’.

    This Iraq/Niger uranium claim the Bush Administration KNEW was dubious before the infamous SOTU address, but used it anyway to stoke fear of ‘mushroom clouds’. On January 12, 2003,”the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) “expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries.”

    Moreover, the memo says that the State Department’s doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims had been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

    Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 – one week after Bush’s State of the Union address – to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.


    Again, all Bush Admin. lies, including the famous and familiar ‘mushroom cloud comments are neatly catalogued here for reference on this US government website:


    And… BTW Doc, I don’t “tour other countries with my band” … I perform with a chamber ensemble and as a concerto soloist in some of the great concert halls and cathedrals in Europe. Yes, I think it has given me a perspective of world opinion that maybe others who have spent their whole academic lives in one rural area of one state may not have.

  10. 10 docattheautopsy
    November 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    “Unfortunately, US aggression has brought back tension with Russia, thanks GW.”

    Funny. Nothing about Putin’s rise to power nor his consolidation of power. And, had you read my blog, you would understand that Putin is attempting to exert power through Gazprom by monopolizing energy resources in Asia. The entire reason he opposes intervention in Iran is because he wants the Iranian oil reserves to himself. China has a sweetheart deal with Iran for oil, and is providing the Iranians assistance with their nuclear program in exchange for price breaks on the enormous amounts of oil China is securing (which, in turn, is driving up gas prices).

    As for an Iranian nuke, you’re right they won’t be able to produce fission/fusion weapons anytime soon, so the odds of an Iranian 1 MT warhead are low. But, as they have four proposed nuclear reactors being built, and all fission reactors produce Pu-239 as a fuel, the can make weapons grade plutonium quite easily, just at lower concentrations than they would if they used a breeder design.

    But Iran isn’t interested in the big weapons. Their missile can’t sustain the mass of one of the fusion bombs, but it can sustain a smaller fission warhead, which is what they are seeking right now.

    So, you’re OK with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons than can strike Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Just want to make sure. Because you do know that Ahmadinejad has threatened Israel on numerous occasions, and Iran does supply Hezbollah with weaponry. It’s only a matter of time before Hezbollah can start lobbing little nukes to Northern Israel. But that’s OK, right? Because they’re just the Little Bombs?

    So your entire diplomatic strategy is to really, really sternly tell them not to make nukes, and when they do, throw up your arms and say, “Oh well! I told them not to!”

    You’re probably missing the finer points of this whole mess. Because Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation, Israel is going to take preemptive measures against an Iranian state with a nuke, and that’s not going to be pretty. Iran’s going to be waiting, so to make sure Israel gets their point across, they’re going to “give Iran their first nuclear weapon”, so to speak. Of course, that could be averted if the UN you worship so would actually get off their pedestal and take military action against Iran.

    And then, like a good raving lunatic, instead of talking about how to contain Iran, you launch into a tangental diatribe on Valerie Plame. You never cease to amaze me, Willy. You can’t go a post without dragging something unrelated into an argument and start bashing the Bu$$$$hitler.

    If you don’t believe Mohammed el Baredai and the UN (who’s concerned about Iran’s evasiveness on their nuclear program), and you think Bush is trying to bomb Iran, then you aren’t going to believe anything from anyone unless it comes from Media Matters.

    “And… BTW Doc, I don’t “tour other countries with my band” … I perform with a chamber ensemble and as a concerto soloist in some of the great concert halls and cathedrals in Europe. Yes, I think it has given me a perspective of world opinion that maybe others who have spent their whole academic lives in one rural area of one state may not have.”

    Fantastic, Willy. Glad to hear it. Just remember when you were touring Europe with your chamber ensemble, there were chemists working diligently over the summer to cure cancer and develop alternative energy sources. So why don’t you leave the “I’m better than you” crap at the door. You’d be surprised where I’ve been and what I’ve done, but you’re too busy making inaccurate statements based on your faulty assumptions.

  11. November 18, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Point of clarification:
    Murdoch’s London Times reports:
    “”Iran could build atom bomb within one year, says nuclear watchdog”

    Alarmist and dishonest reporting.

    The IAEA report mentions nothing about a timeline to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. The report says that Iran has only managed low level enrichment barely adequate for reactor fuel, and that 3,000 centrifuges are running way below capacity.

    US scientists have calculated Iran’s enrichment capability at 20% efficiency and note that problems with contaminated fuel.

    The IAEA report also says is that all of the enriched uranium produced to date “remains under Agency containment and surveillance” and that the centrifuge cascades themselves are subjected to an annual audit by the IAEA and surpise inspections. NOTE: seven such inspections have been carried out since March. Bottom line: it is impossible for Iran to use 3,000 centrifuges to secretly make a nuclear weapon.

    Is Iran dangerous? Of course. Dangerous to us enough to warrant an invasion? Certainly not now. But don’t worry, Israel can take care of itself.

  12. November 18, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Bush had a chance to enlist Russia in the fight against Islamic radicals but instead he alientated them.

    From Asia Times

    Initially, Moscow supported Washington’s “war on terrorism”. However, the US invasion of Iraq changed this support into resistance, and later into active efforts to counterbalance the US.

    Moscow is working diligently to strengthen its ties with Iran, Syria and China – countries that Washington considers to be adversaries. In addition to supplying Tehran with dual use nuclear technology, Russia is also selling Iran a broad array of conventional military equipment. Many believe that Moscow is also supplying Tehran with missile technology and equipment.

    Early this year, Israeli media reported that Russia had concluded a deal with Damascus to sell Syria sophisticated shoulder-fired and stationary missiles. Both Syria and Russia denied the existence of this deal. However, the benefits to both Moscow and Damascus from such a deal are unmistakable.

    Asia Times

    Russia does not propose to ally with the Muslim world against the United States. Putin’s initiative should be thought of as a hudna, a brief truce in a long war. With justification, Putin cites Russia’s experience with the Islamic world. It has been enmeshed in imperial ventures on its southern border for 300 years and now stands at the frontier between Islam and the Western world.The new Chechnya offers a likelier model for the new Middle East than the Bush administration’s delusional pursuit of democracy.

  13. 13 docattheautopsy
    November 19, 2007 at 9:40 am

    Still, Willy, it’s hard to doubt the purpose of 3000 centrifuges.

    Iran sits on top of one of the biggest reserves of oil, if not the biggest, in the world. It could generate buckets of energy without batting an eye, yet it’s developing nuclear tech. It’s only a matter of time until the centrifuges are running at high efficiency and producing highly enriched uranium.

    To get nuclear fuel, you only need between 4-6% uranium enrichment, which can be achieved with a smaller number of centrifuges. The only conceivable reason to have 3000 centrifuges is to start making weapons-grade uranium.

    When will Iran be up & running with purified U-235? I’d give them 3 years before they have an actual, honest-to-Allah mass of uranium that can be used for their first test weapon. One year to get all of their kinks out is a little ambitious, but if you’re a nation that’s directly threatened by such a development (read: Israel), you’re going to want to take action as soon as possible.

    Will the US invade? Unlikely. Will they bomb? Possibly. Will they stop Israel from bombing? No, just ask Syria.

    As for the Bu$$$$$hitler spoiling relations with Russia (I had hopes– your first post didn’t mention him at all, and then you fell off the wagon), you’re using Russian PR propaganda. Putin never intended to work against terrorism unless they’re from Georgia or Chechnya. He could really care less about Iraq, but he’s concerned with Iran because it falls directly into his plans for energy dominance in Eurasia.

    Putin’s a smart guy. He was in the Kremlin when it fell apart because the Soviets were trying to desperately hold on to a military infrastructure they couldn’t afford. He knows the best way to reassert Russian dominance is through economic power (because it was that economic power that defeated the Soviets). So he’s establishing a Gazprom empire that controls massive amounts of energy, from nuclear fuel & technology to oil to natural gas. Putin’s taking advantage of the US invasion of Iraq to cozy up to Iran and try to grab their oil. In fact, he’s probably hoping Israel will nuke Iran so he can go in with a “humanitarian” force and slowly start controlling the Iranian oil fields directly. At that point, he can squeeze the China and the rest of the world.

  14. November 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    We could learn a lot from those who will never be president:

  15. November 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. … I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
    — GW Bush on Putin

    “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
    — G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

    “So I don’t know where he [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. … I truly am not that concerned about him.”
    – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02: White House Press Conference

    “The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue.” “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . .different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. ”
    — W.F. Buckley, father of modern conservatism & National Review

  16. 16 docattheautopsy
    November 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    And the derangement shows its ugly head again.

    Willy, what’s Bush supposed to say? “I talked to Putin. He’s a total snake in the grass. I hate every fiber of his being.” It’s called diplomacy. You don’t insult leaders of ally nations in the press.

    As for the rest of it, it’s old news. We know where Bin Laden is, we just can’t get to him without starting a war.

    Interesting, once Buckley stated that Iraq was beyond the point of rescue, Iraq began to stabilize.

  17. November 19, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    If you call 4.2 million people displaced from their homes and most without basic services like water, electricity, and sanitation after 4+ years and a half trillion $ spent … yea, stable?. We had one good months after 4+ years and you call it ‘stable’? How long do you think this lull in violence is going to last? Already deaths are up this month from last.
    It too bad the US has isolated itself and our military is being broken by this calamity and all the hundred of billions being spent with no end in sight. We had time, we had Saddam hemmed in by no-fly zones, satellite surveillance, weapons inspectiors roaming the country up until Bush pulled them out just days before the invasion. Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat. We had time to do it right, time to get a coalition like Desert Storm in 91. Instead we’ve alienated the Turks, Saudis and all our prior coalition members that helped us foot the bill in ’91. We had time to do it right but no, instead of doing it right, with did it the arrogant unilateal ‘cowboy way.’ And now, what do we have to show or it but a resurging Taliban, and a broken and unstable country with no good options and no end it sight. The US military deserves better than this type of incompetent leadership and the generals know that. You think it was a worthwhile decision doc? Can you honestly say this is has been a competently managed plan? Is that what you believe?

  18. 18 docattheautopsy
    November 20, 2007 at 8:27 am

    Obviously you have difficulty with the English language, Willy. Stable and stabilizing are not synonymous. If I say, “Iraq is beginning to stabilize” it does not mean “Iraq is stable”.

    You may want to read the New York Times this morning about progress being made in Baghdad.


  19. 19 docattheautopsy
    November 20, 2007 at 8:28 am

    You may want to read my entire post on why we invaded Iraq.


  20. November 20, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Oh, ok so you think it was a competent strategy.

    BTW… Scott McClellan confirms today that Bush lied and deliberately hid the identity of an administration official who leaked the identity of CIA operative, Valerie Plame, causing significant damage to US efforts to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It is a criminal offense to protect someone who leaks intelligence information damaging to the security of the USA. I think it’s called treason, right Doc?

  21. 21 blacktygrrrr
    November 20, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving My Friend.

    eric aka http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

  22. 22 docattheautopsy
    November 21, 2007 at 12:32 am

    “Oh, ok so you think it was a competent strategy.”

    Did I say that? No. Why didn’t I respond to you? Because it’s tiring arguing with a troll.

    Look, Willy, the immediate post-invasions strategy was botched, and keeping Rummy around perpetuated the botch. But Bush changed gears after the 2006 midterms, and Petraeus has done wonders with Iraq.

    It’s hard for you to admit. So much so, that you have to put words in my mouth, then say Bush is treasonous. Again, you can’t go a minute without accusing Bush of being Xenu.

  23. 24 Bobak
    November 21, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Hey doc looks like someone else has picked up my slack……well until he realizes that its stupid since no one really looks at this trash you call a website (this is not meant to be an argument, its an insult)

    Facts –

    Bush has been backpedaling for his reasons for going into Iraq (you may have your own reasons that make sense way after the fact but thats not why we went there)

    1st Reason – Saddam has WMDs and that is somehow a threat to the US
    2nd Reason – Saddam was connected with terrorists. Now there is little or no proof of this. Even if there was some connection, then by that logic we should have invaded Iran way before Iraq, not to mention Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia……well everyone in the Middle East but Israel (who for some reason are our “friends”). Since we have not done so this is obviously a lie
    3rd Reason – Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Duh, but I could have pointed to almost any country in Africa and showed you a ruthless dictator. Obviously a lie.
    4th Reason – To “stabilize”the region. Well since the Iraq war has started Hamas has won a democratic election. Turkey wants to Invade northern Iraq. Iran gain strength and influence in the region. Lebanon has been overrun by fear from these countries and the organizations they support. Pretty stable, huh?

    The war has cost the US taxpayers – $470,608,448,206 and counting….money that could have been spent for (oh no, I’m gonna say it) HEALTHCARE, or to feed our poor, help kids with college tuition or education in general, but no – jackasses like yourself would rather have 3873 dead troops and countless injured (mentally and physically) than to do any of that.

    I got an idea: Why don’t you admit you’re a pathetic TA (we all know how useful those guys were in College -lol) who will support Bush no matter what he does!

    or you could be like the rest of the people with some sense and demand that we find Osama Bin Laden before we spend another penny in Iraq. We have more troops on the Korean Peninsula than we have looking for this guy!

  24. 25 shirley
    November 21, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Hey blogger, you didn’t respond to William. You circle the wagons in typical winger fashion and turn a blind eye to lie after lie after lie… how can anyone believe anything you have to say? When a president lies to his own press secretary, then sends him out to lie to the media, and you stand by and think it’s ok, wtf is wrong with you? Haven’t you any sense of integrity?

  25. 26 Bobak
    November 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Doc – Listen to Shirley…..you toolbag…

  26. 27 docattheautopsy
    November 22, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    “Hey blogger, you didn’t respond to William. You circle the wagons in typical winger fashion and turn a blind eye to lie after lie after lie… how can anyone believe anything you have to say? When a president lies to his own press secretary, then sends him out to lie to the media, and you stand by and think it’s ok, wtf is wrong with you? Haven’t you any sense of integrity?”

    I’m thinking Scott McClellan is trying to sell books. Strange that you guys wouldn’t believe him when he was press secretary, but now that he’s writing a book critical of the Bush Administration, he’s the paragon of truth.

    It wouldn’t be the first time a former administration official stretched the truth to make themselves some money.

  27. 28 docattheautopsy
    November 22, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    Nice to have you back, bobak. Happy thanksgiving.

  28. November 22, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    “The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country. There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result”
    — Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad


  29. 30 docattheautopsy
    November 22, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    Nice to see you’re actually rooting for the US to lose in Iraq, Willy. You pretend to care for the troops, but you really want the sacrifice of the troops to go for naught. Just so long as you get what you want– a black eye for the US reputation.

  30. November 22, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    And all you desperately want is to save face, for your failed president and failing neocon ideology at the expense of as much death and destruction as it takes. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban are retaking the country.


  31. 32 docattheautopsy
    November 22, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Another war to root against the troops. And this is all Bush’s fault that the Taliban is resurging. Regardless of the fact that NATO’s been running operations in Afghanistan for about 4 years now. You want a losing operation there, too. All the sacrifice of those fighting for a free Afghanistan should be tossed to the side, all so you can revel in a black eye for Bush? Admirable, Willy.

    I bet a little part of you rejoice with each car bomb. A little part of you jumps up and down with glee each time you hear a casualty report from Iraq or Afghanistan. And you get angry and depressed when you hear good news from either location– so much so you run out and try to pan it when you hear it.

    Face it, Willy. You’d rather revel in the pain and suffering of others as they succumb to totalitarianism because such a horrific event embarrasses your political adversaries.

    Time to look yourself in the mirror, Willy, and see who the true authoritarian is. Enough projecting onto me.

  32. November 23, 2007 at 12:34 am

    The old authoritarian mantra, “you’re with us or against us”. “You are invested in defeat.”

    What the majority of America is trying to get through your obstnate neocon brain is that our troops deserve better. They deserve a leader with a competent strategy befitting this great nation. They were sent in without enough men, without enough international cooperation, without adequate armor, and without a leadership that had the vaguest understanding of the sectarian culture and history of the region. The failure that you’ve supported is called ‘cowboy diplomacy.’ It’s the failure of our leadership that is responsible for the Taliban resurging in Afghanistan, running away before the job was completed, allowing bin Laden to escape when our military had him cornered at Tora Bora. Running to attack Iraq to cover a failed attempt to get bin Laden.

    You would think someone who supports the troops would want to see them led by a competent leader. Almost every commander of note in Iraq including Sanchez, Abazaid, and Batiste has called the Bush plan incompetent yet Tony would rather see Bush save face at the expense of more young kids getting their faces burned off and limbs ripped off. That is how authoritarians ‘support the troop’.

  33. 34 docattheautopsy
    November 23, 2007 at 8:50 am

    ““you’re with us or against us”. “You are invested in defeat.””

    Well, Willy, when you refuse to accept any good news from these places, and instead focus only on the negative, it’s clear that you ARE invested in defeat. And our troops DO deserve better than the likes of you.

    If I spent 5 years fighting in Iraq where the press would only only report the bad, the leadership in Washington was incompetent, and there were constant attacks against us, I’d be tired and exhausted because it looked like my sacrifice was for nothing. Now, though, it looks like things are improving. Washington has changed the strategy and it’s working, and the my blood sweat and tears are finally providing a new life for the Iraqis. Now you want me to abandon my post just as we’re succeeding? Do you understand why pulling the troops out now would be incredibly demoralizing to them? Don’t you understand that always concentrating on the negative, regardless of the good news, does nothing but demoralize those fighting for the good news?

    You claim I’m the one who’s authoritatrian– that I’m the one with the one-track mind, blindly following the neo-con agenda and Bush. But if you had read my blog, you’d know that I don’t agree with Bush all the time, and that we’ve had foreign policy failings. I disagree because I think and critically analyze what’s in front of me. I don’t blindly discuss talking points from Media Matters.

    Not all Democrats are “against us”. But I do know for sure, Willy, that you don’t give a damn about the troops, because you’re compassion for the troops is absolutely phony, just as your concern for the poor is phony. All you care about is yourself and your political ideology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).



World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 131,650 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: