• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Remember Bob?

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Entire article; link below; my emphasis.

"Remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf? He was the former Iraqi information minister who became a folk hero in the West because of his unintentionally hilarious daily briefings even as coalition forces tightened the noose around the regime's neck.

Nicknamed "Baghdad Bob" by a credulous American press corps all too willing to parrot Bush administration propaganda, the Iraqi bureaucrat had a talent for lurid prose that hinted at a poetic sensibility beneath the nonsense.

Among my favorites were: "God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of the Iraqis"; "The midget Bush and Rumsfeld deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom-loving people everywhere"; "Washington has thrown their soldiers on the fire"; and "I speak better English than this villain Bush."

Baghdad Bob made his final prophetic utterance on April 7, 2003, before disappearing into the obscurity of occupied Iraq: "This invasion will end in failure."

Three years into a war that has gone worse than expected for America and its coalition allies, it would be hard to find anyone in Washington -- with the notable exception of Mr. Bush -- who doesn't agree with him now.

It wasn't the first time old Baghdad Bob said something prescient. Even buffoons are capable of connecting the dots in ways that would put our current president to shame.

"I would like to clarify a simple fact here," Baghdad Bob said in a lucid moment when he wasn't comparing the U.S. military to a headless snake twisting in burning quicksand.

"How can you lay siege to a whole country? Who is really under siege now? Baghdad cannot be besieged. Al-Nasiriyah cannot be besieged. Basra cannot be besieged."

When not caught in the suffocating grip of his rhetorical flourishes, Baghdad Bob made a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, his was the only voice of dissent countering Mr. Bush's on the world stage for a while.

Democrats in Congress were institutionally AWOL, afraid that even the mildest criticism of the war would result in a loss of precious political clout.

The U.S. media rolled over for Bush months before the military campaign even began. Organized protests against the invasion of Iraq were dismissed by editorial pages and beltway pundits as naive and short-sighted.

Once American news operations agreed to the onerous conditions that were part of the military embedding process, all pretense of objectivity went out the window. The press became just another cog in the military-industrial complex.

Remember Pentagon-sponsored tall tales about Pvt. Jessica Lynch, the wounded supply clerk from West Virginia who allegedly killed several Iraqi soldiers before she was captured and held prisoner for several weeks?

That hokum was only slightly more outrageous than the stage-managed pull-down of Saddam's statue in Baghdad's Fardus Square.

Since then, Mr. Bush's "Top Gun" moment on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 has become the supreme symbol of his administration's willingness to air-brush reality. The "Mission Accomplished" banner that served as the backdrop has become the most ironic moment of his presidency.

Back in the good old days when Americans didn't give a damn about the war as long as we were "winning," Mr. Bush even enshrined a former dictator's pistol in a corner of the White House.

The gun was a souvenir from a night three Christmas shopping seasons ago when U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam Hussein, dishevelled and lice-infected, from an underground lair near Tikrit.

Saddam was packing heat at the time. His sidearm was taken from him and given to his mortal enemy in the White House.

It was promptly mounted and stashed in an Oval Office study where Mr. Bush can make goo-goo eyes at it whenever he feels the need to pretend he's a big, bad Christian warlord.

Now that the flush of war fever has dissipated and American and Iraqi casualties mount daily by the dozens, Mr. Bush probably understands that his cheesy trophy is more a curse than a symbol of his military acumen.

"The shock has backfired on them," Baghdad Bob said in one of his rants shortly after the war began. "They are shocked because of what they have seen. No one received them with roses. They were received with bombs, shoes and bullets. Now the game has been exposed."

Lord help us, but Baghdad Bob was right."


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1208-30.htm
 

jigs

Well-known member
change your name to Hanoi Jane. you make me ill. why are good kids over there getting killed to defend jerks like you?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Credit where credit is due. Baghdad Bob was a team player!

Remember when he was on TV live saying that they, Iraq, had defeated the Americans and there were no Americans in Baghdad...then a huge US tank practically ran him over!!

I kinda liked Bob!!
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Credit where credit is due. Baghdad Bob was a team player!

Remember when he was on TV live saying that they, Iraq, had defeated the Americans and there were no Americans in Baghdad...then a huge US tank practically ran him over!!

I kinda liked Bob!!

I think we all got some laughs out of Bob, but looking at the situation today, he was right about a lot of things.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
jigs said:
change your name to Hanoi Jane. you make me ill. why are good kids over there getting killed to defend jerks like you?

If you mean Iraq, they're not getting killed to defend me. Iraq was not a threat to this country; they didn't attack this country; they had no means to attack this country. They're dying following the orders of the "decider", who decided to invade a small, soverign country that posed no threat to the US. Remember how the world was up in arms because Saddam invaded Kuwait? What's the difference in that and Bush's invasion of Iraq?
 

P Joe

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
jigs said:
change your name to Hanoi Jane. you make me ill. why are good kids over there getting killed to defend jerks like you?

If you mean Iraq, they're not getting killed to defend me. Iraq was not a threat to this country; they didn't attack this country; they had no means to attack this country. They're dying following the orders of the "decider", who decided to invade a small, soverign country that posed no threat to the US. Remember how the world was up in arms because Saddam invaded Kuwait? What's the difference in that and Bush's invasion of Iraq?

ummmmm................. The leader of Kuwait didn't kill thousands of it's own people. :roll: :roll: :roll:

The only thing we did wrong was when Bush Senior didn't march it to Saddam in 91. We wouldn't be talking about this mess.
 

jigs

Well-known member
with the things you post, you are no different than a muslim shooting our guys over there.

you do not deserve the freedom so many have died for. you make me ill.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
Entire article; link below; my emphasis.

"Remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf? He was the former Iraqi information minister who became a folk hero in the West because of his unintentionally hilarious daily briefings even as coalition forces tightened the noose around the regime's neck.

Nicknamed "Baghdad Bob" by a credulous American press corps all too willing to parrot Bush administration propaganda, the Iraqi bureaucrat had a talent for lurid prose that hinted at a poetic sensibility beneath the nonsense.

Among my favorites were: "God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of the Iraqis"; "The midget Bush and Rumsfeld deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom-loving people everywhere"; "Washington has thrown their soldiers on the fire"; and "I speak better English than this villain Bush."

Baghdad Bob made his final prophetic utterance on April 7, 2003, before disappearing into the obscurity of occupied Iraq: "This invasion will end in failure."

Three years into a war that has gone worse than expected for America and its coalition allies, it would be hard to find anyone in Washington -- with the notable exception of Mr. Bush -- who doesn't agree with him now.

It wasn't the first time old Baghdad Bob said something prescient. Even buffoons are capable of connecting the dots in ways that would put our current president to shame.

"I would like to clarify a simple fact here," Baghdad Bob said in a lucid moment when he wasn't comparing the U.S. military to a headless snake twisting in burning quicksand.

"How can you lay siege to a whole country? Who is really under siege now? Baghdad cannot be besieged. Al-Nasiriyah cannot be besieged. Basra cannot be besieged."

When not caught in the suffocating grip of his rhetorical flourishes, Baghdad Bob made a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, his was the only voice of dissent countering Mr. Bush's on the world stage for a while.

Democrats in Congress were institutionally AWOL, afraid that even the mildest criticism of the war would result in a loss of precious political clout.

The U.S. media rolled over for Bush months before the military campaign even began. Organized protests against the invasion of Iraq were dismissed by editorial pages and beltway pundits as naive and short-sighted.

Once American news operations agreed to the onerous conditions that were part of the military embedding process, all pretense of objectivity went out the window. The press became just another cog in the military-industrial complex.

Remember Pentagon-sponsored tall tales about Pvt. Jessica Lynch, the wounded supply clerk from West Virginia who allegedly killed several Iraqi soldiers before she was captured and held prisoner for several weeks?

That hokum was only slightly more outrageous than the stage-managed pull-down of Saddam's statue in Baghdad's Fardus Square.

Since then, Mr. Bush's "Top Gun" moment on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 has become the supreme symbol of his administration's willingness to air-brush reality. The "Mission Accomplished" banner that served as the backdrop has become the most ironic moment of his presidency.

Back in the good old days when Americans didn't give a damn about the war as long as we were "winning," Mr. Bush even enshrined a former dictator's pistol in a corner of the White House.

The gun was a souvenir from a night three Christmas shopping seasons ago when U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam Hussein, dishevelled and lice-infected, from an underground lair near Tikrit.

Saddam was packing heat at the time. His sidearm was taken from him and given to his mortal enemy in the White House.

It was promptly mounted and stashed in an Oval Office study where Mr. Bush can make goo-goo eyes at it whenever he feels the need to pretend he's a big, bad Christian warlord.

Now that the flush of war fever has dissipated and American and Iraqi casualties mount daily by the dozens, Mr. Bush probably understands that his cheesy trophy is more a curse than a symbol of his military acumen.

"The shock has backfired on them," Baghdad Bob said in one of his rants shortly after the war began. "They are shocked because of what they have seen. No one received them with roses. They were received with bombs, shoes and bullets. Now the game has been exposed."

Lord help us, but Baghdad Bob was right."


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1208-30.htm


I can not even figure out were to begin on all this crap, I think I am just going to have to pass on this one. Plus Jigs pretty well summed it up.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
If this is a war and i think some of you believe it to be a war.....why not just bomb the place and get it over with....Another question I have is what is a positive thing to say about this invasion?Would saying its going swimmingly not be a lie?How does speaking out against an invasion,turn one into a shooter of american soldiers in Iraq?.....What is said here has already been said there..,,You can bet even those who did the ivadeing are question why they are still there.....Once the spinning stops and the dust settles thousands of people will of died for what?......And you guys complain about those that speak out ....Get your people home and let that country mend......After being there this long and still no exit plan can only mean one thing....the entrance plan was a bust.....stop looking for ways to validate this invasion.No matter what kind of a spin you can come up with for being there, after this much time,none of them make any sense at all...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
nonothing said:
If this is a war and i think some of you believe it to be a war.....why not just bomb the place and get it over with....Another question I have is what is a positive thing to say about this invasion?Would saying its going swimmingly not be a lie?How does speaking out against an invasion,turn one into a shooter of american soldiers in Iraq?.....What is said here has already been said there..,,You can bet even those who did the ivadeing are question why they are still there.....Once the spinning stops and the dust settles thousands of people will of died for what?......And you guys complain about those that speak out ....Get your people home and let that country mend......After being there this long and still no exit plan can only mean one thing....the entrance plan was a bust.....stop looking for ways to validate this invasion.No matter what kind of a spin you can come up with for being there, after this much time,none of them make any sense at all...

What was the exit strategy this far into WWI, WWII and Vietnam? Oh wait we did use the same exit strategy in Vietnam as you Libs want in Iraq. You Libs like to quit things when the going gets tough. And funny thing is it is Liberal supported rules of engagement in both Vietnam and Iraq that is a big hindrance on us wining.

Libs like to take the power away to win, then quit a loser. I would sure have hated to have you guys on a football team, first time the other team went ahead by a touchdown you would be giving up and heading to the Locker room. :roll:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
is a big hindrance on us wining.

Winning what? Exactly what constitutes a "win" in Iraq? An election? They've had those. A Constitution? They've got one. Elected leaders? They've got those. An Army? The US has trained about 100,000 Iraqis and spent billions of dollars arming them.

So exactly what has to happen before you are willing to call Iraq a "win"?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
aplusmnt said:
is a big hindrance on us wining.

Winning what? Exactly what constitutes a "win" in Iraq? An election? They've had those. A Constitution? They've got one. Elected leaders? They've got those. An Army? The US has trained about 100,000 Iraqis and spent billions of dollars arming them.

So exactly what has to happen before you are willing to call Iraq a "win"?

To be able to pull out knowing that those in charge have a better than average chance of maintaining control of the Country. Even if it does not happen we have to fill that they have a fighting chance of maintaining control. That is not the feeling at the moment.

You Fast Food Generation of Liberals, kill me. How long did we stay in Germany to help set up their government and infrastructure? How much money did us and our allies spend in Germany and Japan?

Only difference here is that Muslim Radical Terrorist are slowing our work because they are swarming to Iraq for the great chance to fight the Americans. This did not so much happen after WWII, but we were dealing with a different mind set then than now.
 

P Joe

Well-known member
I agree with aplusmnt. I think we should have never went over there but we did. Now weather we like it or not we have an obligation to leave it a better place. What that entails, nobody has an answer for. Not even your loving democrats have said they have an answer. And until somebody does, it doesn't make sense to leave.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
a+ and joe and jigs have hiot the nail on the head!
but ask DIS qusting for a solution is like asking who is a bigger traitor her, JANE or ROSE ?
and for that matter cannot discount kolo, even if she does send packages to the guys over there.
none of them have a viable solution, all they can do and did do was try and destroy moral and they are accompling that by their bashing of policy with no clear mention of a solution,
just bash bash bash and be DUMB and DUMBER you folks decide which is which!!!

either present a viable workable plan or leave it to the people who KNOW what is going on!!!!!!!
you sure as he!! dont

cut and past your comments!~ geeze ever have an original thought DIS!!!
nope didn't think so :mad:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Disagreeable said:
aplusmnt said:
is a big hindrance on us wining.

Winning what? Exactly what constitutes a "win" in Iraq? An election? They've had those. A Constitution? They've got one. Elected leaders? They've got those. An Army? The US has trained about 100,000 Iraqis and spent billions of dollars arming them.

So exactly what has to happen before you are willing to call Iraq a "win"?

To be able to pull out knowing that those in charge have a better than average chance of maintaining control of the Country. Even if it does not happen we have to fill that they have a fighting chance of maintaining control. That is not the feeling at the moment.

:roll: This is not an answer. Who decides when they have an "average chance of maintaining control of the Country." And who is "they?" The government is split between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Maliki is in no way "in charge" of the country now. What makes you think he'll ever be in charge? On one hand, it's a good thing that the Sunnis and Shiites are talking about putting together a coalition and replacing him. On the other, it's a bad thing when the country's "leader" is kicked out of power. It took almost six months for these people to agree on Maliki! If they kick him out, how long will they be without a head of government?

You Fast Food Generation of Liberals, kill me. How long did we stay in Germany to help set up their government and infrastructure? How much money did us and our allies spend in Germany and Japan?

I'll repeat again that Germany declared war on the US. Japan attacked us. We were forced to go to war with them. We learned from the first WW that it was better to help our enemies rebuild and become our friends. Iraq did not attack the United States. You can keep suggesting they did by comparing the two wars, but it's not true. George W. Bush chose to make this war in Iraq. Only he can chose to call it off or declare victory.

Only difference here is that Muslim Radical Terrorist are slowing our work because they are swarming to Iraq for the great chance to fight the Americans. This did not so much happen after WWII, but we were dealing with a different mind set then than now.

:roll: What work? Reconstruction has almost come to halt in Iraq. Our government set aside billions of dollars for reconstruction projects. As the insurgency grew, more of that money had to go to security rather than construction. In fact, the budget for reconstruction was cut, almost, killed, by the Bush Administration last quarter. I posted a link to the article on this page at the time. You're listening to Rush too much. Most of the killing being done in Iraq today has nothing to do with Al Quaida. It's Iraqis killing Iraqis. Sunni against Shiite. The Kurds have just withdrawn to their portion of the country and are waiting it out. There is civil war in Iraq. There is ethnic cleansing in Iraq. The US military spends much of their time protecting the Shiites from the Sunnis, then later in the day protecting the Sunnis from the Shiites! And all the while, both of them are planting roadside bombs and doing their best to kill American soldiers. That's not ok with me.

And every week 100 more Iraqis and more Americans die and we spend another $2 billion that we've borrowed from China. :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
aplusmnt said:
Disagreeable said:
Winning what? Exactly what constitutes a "win" in Iraq? An election? They've had those. A Constitution? They've got one. Elected leaders? They've got those. An Army? The US has trained about 100,000 Iraqis and spent billions of dollars arming them.

So exactly what has to happen before you are willing to call Iraq a "win"?

To be able to pull out knowing that those in charge have a better than average chance of maintaining control of the Country. Even if it does not happen we have to fill that they have a fighting chance of maintaining control. That is not the feeling at the moment.

:roll: This is not an answer. Who decides when they have an "average chance of maintaining control of the Country." And who is "they?" The government is split between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Maliki is in no way "in charge" of the country now. What makes you think he'll ever be in charge? On one hand, it's a good thing that the Sunnis and Shiites are talking about putting together a coalition and replacing him. On the other, it's a bad thing when the country's "leader" is kicked out of power. It took almost six months for these people to agree on Maliki! If they kick him out, how long will they be without a head of government?

You Fast Food Generation of Liberals, kill me. How long did we stay in Germany to help set up their government and infrastructure? How much money did us and our allies spend in Germany and Japan?

I'll repeat again that Germany declared war on the US. Japan attacked us. We were forced to go to war with them. We learned from the first WW that it was better to help our enemies rebuild and become our friends. Iraq did not attack the United States. You can keep suggesting they did by comparing the two wars, but it's not true. George W. Bush chose to make this war in Iraq. Only he can chose to call it off or declare victory.

Only difference here is that Muslim Radical Terrorist are slowing our work because they are swarming to Iraq for the great chance to fight the Americans. This did not so much happen after WWII, but we were dealing with a different mind set then than now.

:roll: What work? Reconstruction has almost come to halt in Iraq. Our government set aside billions of dollars for reconstruction projects. As the insurgency grew, more of that money had to go to security rather than construction. In fact, the budget for reconstruction was cut, almost, killed, by the Bush Administration last quarter. I posted a link to the article on this page at the time. You're listening to Rush too much. Most of the killing being done in Iraq today has nothing to do with Al Quaida. It's Iraqis killing Iraqis. Sunni against Shiite. The Kurds have just withdrawn to their portion of the country and are waiting it out. There is civil war in Iraq. There is ethnic cleansing in Iraq. The US military spends much of their time protecting the Shiites from the Sunnis, then later in the day protecting the Sunnis from the Shiites! And all the while, both of them are planting roadside bombs and doing their best to kill American soldiers. That's not ok with me.

And every week 100 more Iraqis and more Americans die and we spend another $2 billion that we've borrowed from China. :roll:

If we were willing to rebuild and help countries like Germany and Japan restructure and help rebuild their country And THEY DECLARED WAR ON US, then if you are correct and we unjustly invaded Iraq and they did not deserve it and did not declare on us. Then we would be Chicken $hits if we left with out doing the same for them.

If your opinion is correct and this was an unjust war then we should stay and fix it even if 500,000 soldiers are lost in doing so. By your opinion of this war we caused the mess and only a worthless person or country would bring it to ruin unjustly and then pull out and leave it to the wolves.

Your opinions on this war should justify us staying lots more than my opinions! Cowboy up and be a man, own up to your responsibility and correct your mistakes. But then how could I expect you to do that, you probably support abortion also, you make a mistake just pull the baby out and leave it for dead, we make a mistake in Iraq then just pull out and leave them for dead. :roll:

As far as listening to Rush, I have about a total of 30 minutes in my 42 years of life on this planet listening to anything Rush has to say. I do not have satellite TV and I sleep days when he is on the Radio.

I get most of my opinions by listening to the network news and reading. All most all sources are liberal media, I am just good at knowing when something does not sound right and then I research it to get to the truth of the matter. Rush does not decide for me, the God installed Bull $hit detector does most of the work.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
If your opinion is correct and this was an unjust war then we should stay and fix it even if 500,000 soldiers are lost in doing so.


You sure 'spend' people lives for them it seems.

Why don't you go over and 'pitch in'? Then they'd need only 499,000 more!!
 

memanpa

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
If your opinion is correct and this was an unjust war then we should stay and fix it even if 500,000 soldiers are lost in doing so.


You sure 'spend' people lives for them it seems.

Why don't you go over and 'pitch in'? Then they'd need only 499,000 more!!

kolo i will go if you go, we can hold hands, nah forget that i will go with soemone that wont STAB me in the back!

here guys i give you a package from home

heheheh but really i am undermining you at home but you do not know it! :mad:

you and did qusting are worse that those women over there that hide the bombs under their clothing knowing we cannot search them!!!

why not just admit you are terriosts of the worse kind, you would get more respect from all of us who REALLY care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

starting to get an idea where your wealth comes from so you can ride first class in stead of coach and drive a fancy car brag on how much you help folks finacially and all the CARE packages to OUR guys .
i understand the terriosts pay a lot of money for people to PRETEND to be loyal and protective of the trops over there but in reality do everything to undermine moral? is this true????


have a good evening chatting with your friends the terriosts on your laptops and plotting more damage to our troops :mad:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
If your opinion is correct and this was an unjust war then we should stay and fix it even if 500,000 soldiers are lost in doing so.


You sure 'spend' people lives for them it seems.

Why don't you go over and 'pitch in'? Then they'd need only 499,000 more!!

You get the point, don't you? If we unjustly killed and set a country into Civil war then we should stay and police, fix, and rebuild it at all cost. Would not be very American to pull out from something we unjustly cost.

Give me your opinion instead of insult! If we are there unjust as you have more than once stated. Would it be ethical to just pull out and allow their country to fall into the hands of the Terrorist, Iran or Syria. How good would it be for us to Help Iran get control of their country.

Come on kolon we are their Unjust so how American would it be to leave them with limited resources, schools half built? Speak up please justify us leaving a Country that we invaded unjustly?

We help to rebuild Germany and Japan when the declared war on us. But we pull out of Iraq when they did nothing to us? Please share your reasoning with us.
 
Top