The New York Times Surrenders

[Michael Tee]

<<In all fairness to Sirs, the talk about the Iraq war before it started was generally about the toppling of the then Iraqi government. .>>

Let's keep this factual, shall we?  "Toppling the Iraqi government" was a pretty abstract concept that could take place in a variety of different ways.  Not too many people would have been against such a project and the idea of toppling the Saddam regime in itself was non-controversial.  The talk about Iraq before the war started - - the public debate, if you will - - was about going to war with Iraq.  About INVADING Iraq. 

Of course, in any invasion, there are objectives.  One of the objectives of this invasion was to change the regime.  But please get real.  The debate in the U.S.A. was entirely focused on whether or not to go to war, and very little else.  And here is a small sampling of what your leaders said about that:

<<The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.>> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

Did you get that?  The war would last six days or weeks.  Not "the toppling of the Iraqi government" would take six days or six weeks.  THE WAR would last six days or six weeks.  What part of "the war" do you not get?

<<We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months. >>Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]>>

How did YOU interpret that message?  Did it sound to you like the Veep was saying, "Oh, sure, six weeks or so to depose Saddam and then YEARS of hard fighting, heavy casualties and inconclusive results thereafter with no end in sight?"  THAT'S what Mr. Cheney promised the American people when they were debating whether or not to invade another country?  Or was the debate about going to war with Iraq being addressed with Mr. Cheney's assurances that this would be a relatively painless exercise? 

If the context was the wisdom or unwisdom of invading Iraq, do you think that Mr. Cheney was telling folks, "Oh, hey, the first part, toppling Saddam, will be a snap - - just don't ask about the rest of it?"  Is THAT how you interpret his statement?  Because if you do, you are interpreting this in a way that less than one person in 10,000 would interpret it.  Doing exactly what sirs did - - inserting distinctions into a very plain and straightforward statement in 2007 that just weren't there in 2003 when the statement was made.   

These men were talking about "the war."  The invasion of Iraq and the crushing of all resistance.  They promised that what they proposed would be short and relatively effortless.  Relatively easy.

Those speeches were not complex, Prince.  They meant what they said.  They did NOT mean what sirs now claims they meant. 

[Plane]

<<The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.>> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

Did you get that?  The war would last six days or weeks.  Not "the toppling of the Iraqi government" would take six days or six weeks.  THE WAR would last six days or six weeks.  What part of "the war" do you not get?

Rumsfeild was absolutely accurate in terms of defeating Saddam, which is what he was talking about.

<<We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months. >>Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]>>

How did YOU interpret that message?  Did it sound to you like the Veep was saying, "Oh, sure, six weeks or so to depose Saddam and then YEARS of hard fighting, heavy casualties and inconclusive results thereafter with no end in sight?"  THAT'S what Mr. Cheney promised the American people when they were debating whether or not to invade another country?  Or was the debate about going to war with Iraq being addressed with Mr. Cheney's assurances that this would be a relatively painless exercise? 

Cheny was not correct in that the public celebration was not universal , but does he say that it was going to be universal?

In Kurdistan the Kurds were joyfull because they recognised the truth , that we are in fact liberators , even though the Kurds have plenty to complain about  in our past promises and performance and the Kurds have plenty of oil for us to steal. The truth is that there is no better hope for them than our success and we are not there to steal anything.

The Celebrations in Baghdad and other places did occur but too manyu people were beleiveing the lies that Saddam topld aboutr our being there for nefarious peuposes , even as they celebrated Saddams deposition they beleived him enough to be suspicious. So they celebrated as they tore down Saddams startues , but they wern't celebrateing our arrival .

I will be pleased to see them celebrateing our departure , won't we all?
But if we follow the plan of Cindy Sheehan we won't see a celebration , we will see ethnic cleansing commence.

[Universe Prince]

I'm tempted to repeat what I said in reply #18, Plane, but what would be the point of trying to get you to read it a third time? Plane, you have apparently chosen to ignore my attempts to clarify my position in this thread. If you can't or won't pay attention to what I'm saying, then I have no reason to continue talking to you. But I'll try once more on the off chance that I might get through this time.

Plane, I have not argued that we should not be working against terrorism or terrorists. In another thread at this forum I advocated a rather harsh plan of action against terrorists, a plan with which you did not entirely agree. So stop trying to chastise me for somehow not wanting to stop terrorism. That simply is not the case, and you should know that.

My comments in this thread have been specific to the conflict in Iraq. I've said repeatedly now that I was talking about the conflict in Iraq. I even took the time to explain that I was not talking about the overall "war on terror" but about the conflict in Iraq. I went out of my way to repeat my comments about the conflict in Iraq. So if you still don't grasp that what I said was about the conflict in Iraq, then I don't know how else to explain it to you.

[Universe Prince]

"Toppling the Iraqi government" was a pretty abstract concept that could take place in a variety of different ways.  Not too many people would have been against such a project and the idea of toppling the Saddam regime in itself was non-controversial.

Yes, and the talk pre-war was basically about that. We were going to war to topple the Saddam Hussein government, and to capture the WMD and the production of WMD. That is how the war was presented. Which is part of my complaint.

And here is a small sampling of what your leaders said about that:

Hey, I've already done the quote thing here about how the Iraq war was sold as a short conflict. No need to point this out to me.

Did it sound to you like the Veep was saying, "Oh, sure, six weeks or so to depose Saddam and then YEARS of hard fighting, heavy casualties and inconclusive results thereafter with no end in sight?"  THAT'S what Mr. Cheney promised the American people when they were debating whether or not to invade another country?  Or was the debate about going to war with Iraq being addressed with Mr. Cheney's assurances that this would be a relatively painless exercise?

Hello? What do you think I've been complaining about? We were sold a short war in Iraq and four years later, our troops are still there fighting a war. Does anyone read my posts?

These men were talking about "the war."  The invasion of Iraq and the crushing of all resistance.  They promised that what they proposed would be short and relatively effortless.  Relatively easy.

As I recall, there was no talk about crushing the resistance beyond defeating the Iraq military because allied troops were going to be hailed as liberators. There was, apparently, no plan to deal with a prolonged resistance because no one in charge thought there would be a prolonged resistance. Hence the comments about how the war was going to be short and easy. This also is part of my complaint.

As I and others have said before, many of the folks insisting that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will result in massive and bloody civil war were also telling us before the action started that the conflict in Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. If they didn't know what they were talking about then, why should I believe they know what they are talking about now?

And by the way, why the frak are you arguing with me about this?

[Plane]

Predictions that the military regime of Saddam Hussein would be overcome with ease were accurate , who though was predicting that the  cleaning up of terrorism would be short?

Who was predicting that U.S. troops would still be fighting in Iraq four years after the start of the war? Who? Find me the gorram quotes! I want to see where the administration was explaining how American troops were going to be fighting in Iraq for years. Show me the frakking quotes. I don't believe you can.

At no time did I claim anyone suggested the "war on terror" would be short. I said, and I quote myself again, "many of the folks insisting that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will result in massive and bloody civil war were also telling us before the action started that the conflict in Iraq was going to be a cakewalk." Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". I'll say it again since there seems to have been some confusion. Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". Notice also that there is no mention in that sentence of the overall "war on terror". And in addition, I feel I should point out, that not only are U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq, most folks are still referring to the current conflict in Iraq as "the war in Iraq" or some close variation thereof.

So please, stop trying to sell me cow chips and calling them cookies. Thank you.

You are not paying attention!

The war against Saddam was in Iraq , conclusion , successfull on all counts.

The war on Terror is in lots of places INCLUDEING Iraq no conclusion reached yet success and failure mixed on various frounts.

Do you favor fighting terrorism wherever we must, except Iraq?

Shall we tell Osama Bin Laden that he can have a place of refuge where we will not approach him?

There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).


Now must I really underline everything?

I ususually depend on you to find the crux with much less help.

[Michael Tee]

<<There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).>>

That's bullshit.  It's the same BS that sirs was spouting, which I find kind of surprising.  There was no controversy about the U.S. seeking the replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime comparable to the controversy surrounding the invasion of Iraq.  In the one case, there was a non-threatening political or covert operation that could be conducted in many ways, not only by warfare.   In the other case, there was a shooting war, about to start.  Naturally the idea of a shooting war alarmed a great many Americans and that alarm had to be addressed.  What Bush and the rest of the lying bastards addressed was the fear or concern over invading another country, with obviously dangerous and immediate consequences to the invading force.  What they sought to sugar-coat and minimize were the consequences of invading Iraq, not the consequences of replacing Saddam.

Try to re-write their lying bullshit any way you like, plane, it just makes no sense at all to twist their lies into a commentary on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  That just wasn't what concerned the American people the most at the time and it was not what the lying bastards were talking about.

[Universe Prince]

You are not paying attention!

Oh pooh yi!

The war against Saddam was in Iraq , conclusion , successfull on all counts.

The war against Saddam? Huh. Okay, so, you're claiming that "Iraq War" war is done, over, finished?

The war on Terror is in lots of places INCLUDEING Iraq no conclusion reached yet success and failure mixed on various frounts.

Yeah, got that.

Do you favor fighting terrorism wherever we must, except Iraq?

Nope.

Shall we tell Osama Bin Laden that he can have a place of refuge where we will not approach him?

Nope.

There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).

Okay, now go find me quotes from before the war that said we were making war on Saddam Hussein rather than making war on Iraq. And I am still waiting for the quotes that said the military conflict in the country of Iraq would be difficult and long. I want to see these quotes that promised the U.S. citizens that the military conflict in Iraq was going to going to take years. By every accounting, other than yours, that I can find, the Iraq War started with the invasion in 2003 and is still going on.

Now must I really underline everything?

I ususually depend on you to find the crux with much less help.

I get that you are trying to separate the "war against Saddam" from the "war on terror", but I think that is the wrong distinction. I also get that for many folks the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror". None of that, however, mitigates the fact that the war/military conflict/whatever that was to take place in Iraq was sold by the administration as something that would end in less than a year. In less than six months, if you listened to Rumsfeld at all.

And yes, I get that you're arguing the current conflict in Iraq is part of the larger, unending "war on terror" and must therefore be pursued indefinitely lest we give Iraq to the terrorists. Setting aside for the moment whether or not I think that would actually happen, I happen to believe this method of fighting the "war on terror" is entirely wrong. The notion that somehow we're going to stop the terrorists if we just keep fighting in Iraq long enough is something for which I see no basis to believe. Over the past four years I keep hearing and reading how we've got the terrorists/insurgents on the run, and we'll have them licked if we just hold in there a little longer. And then of course, it's a little longer and little longer and no really this time we mean it, just a little longer. And here we are four years later. About a year back, give or take a few months, I heard arguments that in 12 to 18 months the Iraqi forces would be trained and we could start pulling our troops out of Iraq. And now, we're still apparently 12-18 months away from having Iraqi forces trained sufficiently. And out of all this, I'm supposed to believe we're winning the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". The credibility of those assertions is getting severely strained, imo.

I've explained before that I think trying to pursue this "war on terror" as a war is a bad plan. We need to treat the terrorists not as a unified force we can fight as we would another country's military, but as what they are, a decentralized, loosely organized network. We don't need military action. We need police action. Hunt the terrorists down as we would highly dangerous international criminals. I've even suggested that we amass evidence against and then kill captured terrorists without mercy. Shoot them and then shoot the people who directly and knowingly helped them. So arguing that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror" does not hold any weight with me.

Take your own damn advice and learn to pay attention! When I speak of the conflict in Iraq, I mean the conflict in Iraq. Take your regurgitated talking points about Iraq being a battleground in the war on terror and sho... and clog your toilet with them, because I'm not arguing that we should not fight terrorism or not hunt down the terrorists. And by now, you should know that. I've certainly had to explain it enough times.

[Plane]

There was no controversy about the U.S. seeking the replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime comparable to the controversy surrounding the invasion of Iraq.  In the one case, there was a non-threatening political or covert operation that could be conducted in many ways, not only by warfare.   

That was tried , the result was a large number of dead Kurds and Shia.

Every option ther than invasion was explored , every one that seemed possible to President Bush 41 and President Clinton over the course of twelve years.

[Plane]

You are not paying attention!

Oh pooh yi!


Hahahahaahaa!

The war against Saddam was in Iraq , conclusion , successfull on all counts.

The war against Saddam? Huh. Okay, so, you're claiming that "Iraq War" war is done, over, finished?

yes

The war on Terror is in lots of places INCLUDEING Iraq no conclusion reached yet success and failure mixed on various frounts.

Yeah, got that.[/u]


No you don't see your own comments below.*

There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).

*Okay, now go find me quotes from before the war that said we were making war on Saddam Hussein rather than making war on Iraq. And I am still waiting for the quotes that said the military conflict in the country of Iraq would be difficult and long. I want to see these quotes that promised the U.S. citizens that the military conflict in Iraq was going to going to take years. By every accounting, other than yours, that I can find, the Iraq War started with the invasion in 2003 and is still going on.

*See you are not getting that there is a seapration to be made , it can be established to a reasonable certainty that Saddam and Al Queda were not supporting each other. That the two things are occuring in the same location does not make them the same thing , you would not claim that WWI was thesame as WWII would you ?



I get that you are trying to separate the "war against Saddam" from the "war on terror", but I think that is the wrong distinction. I also get that for many folks the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror". None of that, however, mitigates the fact that the war/military conflict/whatever that was to take place in Iraq was sold by the administration as something that would end in less than a year. In less than six months, if you listened to Rumsfeld at all.


{And it did last less time than even predicted , Saddam was a pushover.}

And yes, I get that you're arguing the current conflict in Iraq is part of the larger, unending "war on terror" and must therefore be pursued indefinitely lest we give Iraq to the terrorists.

{I can't see that you are getting the distinction}

 Setting aside for the moment whether or not I think that would actually happen, I happen to believe this method of fighting the "war on terror" is entirely wrong. The notion that somehow we're going to stop the terrorists if we just keep fighting in Iraq long enough is something for which I see no basis to believe. Over the past four years I keep hearing and reading how we've got the terrorists/insurgents on the run, and we'll have them licked if we just hold in there a little longer. And then of course, it's a little longer and little longer and no really this time we mean it, just a little longer. And here we are four years later. About a year back, give or take a few months, I heard arguments that in 12 to 18 months the Iraqi forces would be trained and we could start pulling our troops out of Iraq. And now, we're still apparently 12-18 months away from having Iraqi forces trained sufficiently. And out of all this, I'm supposed to believe we're winning the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". The credibility of those assertions is getting severely strained, imo.


{Who says a "little longer"? I have brought you a single quote , but it is from the head man , it was made on a public occasion , he asserts that he beleives the fight against terror will be long , ths single quote is entirely sufficient for this point}

I've explained before that I think trying to pursue this "war on terror" as a war is a bad plan. We need to treat the terrorists not as a unified force we can fight as we would another country's military, but as what they are, a decentralized, loosely organized network. We don't need military action.
We need police action.

{Aaaagh No! not that again! Energetic Police action was what faied to stop the explosive growth of Al Queda failed to stop bombings at important sites around the world and multiple attacks on American soil the best police in the world can't make you retroactively safe. This approach was given a fair trial and it resulted in a strong and well fiananced Al Quieda sheltred behind borders it was hard to cross with a badge.}


Hunt the terrorists down as we would highly dangerous international criminals. I've even suggested that we amass evidence against and then kill captured terrorists without mercy. Shoot them and then shoot the people who directly and knowingly helped them.
{Oh , so you aren't for police action after all , you have just described the Bush policy, good to have you on board.}

[Universe Prince]

Plane, please learn to properly close your quote tags. Please.

There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).

Okay, now go find me quotes from before the war that said we were making war on Saddam Hussein rather than making war on Iraq. And I am still waiting for the quotes that said the military conflict in the country of Iraq would be difficult and long. I want to see these quotes that promised the U.S. citizens that the military conflict in Iraq was going to going to take years. By every accounting, other than yours, that I can find, the Iraq War started with the invasion in 2003 and is still going on.

See you are not getting that there is a seapration to be made , it can be established to a reasonable certainty that Saddam and Al Queda were not supporting each other. That the two things are occuring in the same location does not make them the same thing , you would not claim that WWI was thesame as WWII would you ?

In other words, you don't have any quotes to support your position. And apparently you are blissfully unaware that I can understand the separation you are trying to make without agreeing that the separation should be made. I even said I disagreed with you on that, and it is the first sentence in the next part of my post that you quote. Come on, Plane try to keep up.

And yes, I get that you're arguing the current conflict in Iraq is part of the larger, unending "war on terror" and must therefore be pursued indefinitely lest we give Iraq to the terrorists.

I can't see that you are getting the distinction

Then you're not paying attention.

Who says a "little longer"? I have brought you a single quote , but it is from the head man , it was made on a public occasion , he asserts that he beleives the fight against terror will be long , ths single quote is entirely sufficient for this point

You're not getting this. You're not getting this to an astounding degree. You are conflating the war in Iraq with the "war on terror" to the point that you, apparently, refuse to acknowledge that the war in Iraq is not by itself the "war on terror". Therefore any remarks about how long the overall "war on terror" will be you apply to the war in Iraq. Which is, quite frankly, adult male bovine excrement. And yes, I can understand the distinction you're trying to make without agreeing that it should be made.

Energetic Police action was what faied to stop the explosive growth of Al Queda failed to stop bombings at important sites around the world and multiple attacks on American soil

And your evidence for this "Energetic Police action" is what, exactly?

the best police in the world can't make you retroactively safe.

Here's a clue: Neither can war.

This approach was given a fair trial and it resulted in a strong and well fiananced Al Quieda sheltred behind borders it was hard to cross with a badge.

And that is different from now exactly how? But I question your assertion that Al-Qaeda was strong and well financed. It accomplished very little prior to September 11, 2001, and what it did accomplish on that day was not a sign that they were either strong or well financed. The sons of bitches got, for lack of a better word, lucky. And I should point out that reports are that Al-Qaeda is doing as well now as it ever has, not in spite of the war in Iraq, but at least in part because of it. So I have to conclude this war approach is not working to defeat the terrorists. And I would like to see your evidence that we were hunting down the terrorists in the manner I described.

Hunt the terrorists down as we would highly dangerous international criminals. I've even suggested that we amass evidence against and then kill captured terrorists without mercy. Shoot them and then shoot the people who directly and knowingly helped them.

Oh , so you aren't for police action after all , you have just described the Bush policy, good to have you on board.

B'HUH? Now I think you have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't know what I was talking about or you wouldn't claim it to be the Bush policy. I suggest you stop reacting and start reading.

[Universe Prince]

Who says a "little longer"?

Here is an example of the kind of thing I was talking about:

Iraq is a nation gripped by fear and struggling to meet security and political goals by September, U.S. officials said Thursday from Baghdad, dashing hopes in Congress that the country might turn a corner this summer. One general said not to expect a solid judgment on the U.S. troop buildup until November.

   [...]

On the military front, Petraeus told members of Congress in the private meeting that he had seen some "tactical momentum" since infusing Baghdad with additional U.S. soldiers. Petraeus' deputy in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, later told reporters he would need beyond September to tell if improvements represent long-term trends. "In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," he said.

Whole article at the other end of this link.

I will now wait patiently for the accusations that I'm being unrealistic and the affirmations that this sort of goalpost moving is something we have to expect. As a congressman recently said, "This football field has gotten about 3000 yards long."

[Plane]

Who says a "little longer"?

Here is an example of the kind of thing I was talking about:

Iraq is a nation gripped by fear and struggling to meet security and political goals by September, U.S. officials said Thursday from Baghdad, dashing hopes in Congress that the country might turn a corner this summer. One general said not to expect a solid judgment on the U.S. troop buildup until November.

   [...]

On the military front, Petraeus told members of Congress in the private meeting that he had seen some "tactical momentum" since infusing Baghdad with additional U.S. soldiers. Petraeus' deputy in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, later told reporters he would need beyond September to tell if improvements represent long-term trends. "In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," he said.

Whole article at the other end of this link.

I will now wait patiently for the accusations that I'm being unrealistic and the affirmations that this sort of goalpost moving is something we have to expect. As a congressman recently said, "This football field has gotten about 3000 yards long."

Isn't his quote the opposite of saying a "little longer"?

[Plane]

 


And your evidence for this "Energetic Police action" is what, exactly?

.........................


It accomplished very little prior to September 11, 2001, and what it did accomplish on that day was not a sign that they were either strong or well financed. The sons of bitches got, for lack of a better word, lucky.

So you never have been paying attention?

The guy that shot CIA Employees in the CIA parking lot was tracked down and captured in Packistan , the guy that Masterminded the 93 attack on the WTC was tracked down and captured the guys that survived the attack on the American Embassy s in Africa were captured , there was a lot of this kind of police work going on while the US government would take minor military actions against Al Quieda the tecnique is a proven failure .

The growth of Al Quieda during the period that it was treated as a mere organised crime problem was rapid , their financeing was sufficient from several sorces to practicly buy Afganistan with cash and fill it to the rafters with arms and ammo.

The police are not at fault for being unable to arrest an army.

[Plane]

Plane, please learn to properly close your quote tags. Please.

There is a real sepration to be made between the war on the Saddam Hussein regime (relitively easy as predicted in all of the quotes you provided ) and the war on terror (relitively hard and long as described by President Bush in his state of the union speech).

Okay, now go find me quotes from before the war that said we were making war on Saddam Hussein rather than making war on Iraq. And I am still waiting for the quotes that said the military conflict in the country of Iraq would be difficult and long. I want to see these quotes that promised the U.S. citizens that the military conflict in Iraq was going to going to take years. By every accounting, other than yours, that I can find, the Iraq War started with the invasion in 2003 and is still going on.

See, you are not getting that there is a seapration to be made , it can be established to a reasonable certainty that Saddam and Al Queda were not supporting each other. That the two things are occuring in the same location does not make them the same thing , you would not claim that WWI was thesame as WWII would you ?



In other words, you don't have any quotes to support your position. And apparently you are blissfully unaware that I can understand the separation you are trying to make without agreeing that the separation should be made. I even said I disagreed with you on that, and it is the first sentence in the next part of my post that you quote. Come on, Plane try to keep up.

You are still not getting that two fights on the same location are not a single fight .

Saddam had to go and Al quieda had to go but they are not the same entity neither are the Shia that fight us the same , you might make a better case for the Sunni dead end kids that fight us being the legacy of Saddams Fedaeen but they are not fighting with any hope of reinstateing Saddam are they?


      If you were fighting Tom and after you beat Tom you were attacked by Dick and Harry (who hated Tom enough to let you beat him first) I suppose I could remind you that you had boasted that you could beat Tom yet here you are still fighting. Were you misleading me when you said you could beat Tom?

"...you are blissfully unaware that I can understand the separation you are trying to make without agreeing that the separation should be made...."

If you understand that there is a demarcation in fact why do you refuse to acnoledge it? President Bush said both that Saddam would be beaten and that the fight against Terror would be long lasting , he was accurate on both counts but eraseing the distinction he was drawing from the first is causeing you to be confused about the statements made.

[Universe Prince]

Isn't his quote the opposite of saying a "little longer"?

At least three different people were quoted in that post. So which one are you talking about?

The guy that shot CIA Employees in the CIA parking lot was tracked down and captured in Packistan , the guy that Masterminded the 93 attack on the WTC was tracked down and captured the guys that survived the attack on the American Embassy s in Africa were captured , there was a lot of this kind of police work going on while the US government would take minor military actions against Al Quieda the tecnique is a proven failure .

Yet, we captured all those people. Doesn't look like a failure to me. Unless you want to suggest that because crimes still take place law enforcement is a proven failure.

The growth of Al Quieda during the period that it was treated as a mere organised crime problem was rapid , their financeing was sufficient from several sorces to practicly buy Afganistan with cash and fill it to the rafters with arms and ammo.

And you base that statement on what, exactly?

The police are not at fault for being unable to arrest an army.

Probably not, but then, Al-Qaeda is not an army any more the Mafia is an army.

You are still not getting that two fights on the same location are not a single fight .

Are you just being deliberately dense?

Saddam had to go and Al quieda had to go but they are not the same entity neither are the Shia that fight us the same

No kidding? They're not the same? Really?<--sarcasm

If you were fighting Tom and after you beat Tom you were attacked by Dick and Harry (who hated Tom enough to let you beat him first) I suppose I could remind you that you had boasted that you could beat Tom yet here you are still fighting. Were you misleading me when you said you could beat Tom?

Bzzzz. Wrong, but thank you for playing. If you said you could go into a house and defeat everyone in it and be back out in 10 minutes, and 90 minutes later you were still not through fighting people in the house, would I be wrong to think your declaration of 10 minutes meant you had not properly understood the nature of the situation when you went into the house?

If you understand that there is a demarcation in fact why do you refuse to acnoledge it? President Bush said both that Saddam would be beaten and that the fight against Terror would be long lasting , he was accurate on both counts but eraseing the distinction he was drawing from the first is causeing you to be confused about the statements made.

See the problem here is that you're still trying to limit all the quotes about how short the military conflict in Iraq was going to be to being purely about defeating Saddam Hussein, and that, if you look at the content and context of the quotes, is clearly not the case. The quotes were about how long the conflict was going to last in Iraq. And four years later, the quotes and the people who first said them have clearly been proven wrong. This is not rocket science. This is not brain surgery. This isn't even building a fully interactive website from scratch. This is simple, basic, elementary reading comprehension. Your attempts to misconstrue the quotes as meaning something they did not mean is nothing more than wishful spin.

And for the record, I am not refusing to acknowledge the 'demarcation' you are trying to make. I simply do not agree that it should be made. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that as a possibility?