“When Nancy Pelosi showed up at the White House Wednesday to talk with the president it was obvious she’d spent a lot of time thinking about . . . what to wear. She wrapped herself in a rich red shawl. Dick Morris said it looked like a straitjacket. I thought she looked like a particularly colorful mummy.”

That’s some serious criticism of great depth.

They are so obtuse that they take the side of the enemy who would line them up first to kill.

They will be the reason Offensive (ie: opposite of defensive) Jihad will be nearly impossible to defeat.

The U.S. economy has never been healthier… right?

Why on earth would they do that?

According to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, the United States is worse than Saddam ever was in terms of treatment of Iraqis. For what reason would they come here?

Who’s this “us,” Kemosabe? The neocons who engineered the invasion to ensure gas profits? You and the rest of the Republicans at the State Department who turned a blind eye to a kickback violation during the oil-for-food scandal in our own backyard?

Was it that easy to ignore a United States vendor, Bayoil, under supervision of a United States agency, OFAC? Despite the UN asking for an inquiry twice about unusual shipments, OFAC decided to look the other way accounting for Bayoil’s contribution to the Hussein government. It’s pretty rich to cast blame to other countries and the UN when a US company was lining Hussein’s pockets to the tune of $37 million and privately sanctioned by the State Department.

And where did the majority of this illicit oil-for-food reserve end up anyway? In the US of course. Three-quarters of this oil came our way and 52% of the total amount was being surcharged. All the cruddy crude was still finding its way to US shores and we didn’t really seem to mind then.

And if you even cared about the reality of the situation, rather than parroting talking points, you’ll see that Hussein made far more money from oil smuggling to his neighbors, rather than kickbacks and the the US was well aware but allowed it to continue since most of this was flowing through Jordan and Turkey.

I think it’s safe to say that had Democrats not poked around and exposed the fraud, Bayoil would probably still be operating as per usual. Do you have some news that would indicate that Republicans would have taken up the cause otherwise? A bit hypocritical of to praise the US for being law-abiding when the Republican cast of clowns wouldn’t have done anything to stop them otherwise. Does that mean you’re actually praising Democrats for being responsible and law abiding?

Actually, I do: Offer a U.S. Green Card to every Iraqi. Within months, the country would be virtually empty. No people, no violence! Problem solved!

Yup. The democratically-elected government of Iraq will, as is its right, grant oil rights to the companies it chooses, with the oil proceeds to benefit both the companies doing the exploration and the Iraqi people.

We know you preferred the previous system of a brutal dictator parceling out favors on the basis of which companies would help keep him in power and using the proceeds to benefit only himself, but trust us, this way is better.

And Russia has been our ally since when? Speaking of the “flowering of Democracy” when can we see that fully implemented in the former USSR? And what exactly has been the increase in military weapons funding to United States government contractors during this period?

And the relevance of any of this to the topic at hand is…..?

And as to the last, perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that you didn’t bother to provide links to your statement, which would illuminate much farther why your Bayoil point is rather laughable; at the very least, unlike the UN and European governments, the US government prosecuted people who broke the law.

So in deposing Hussein, we’ve nobly restored financial control of the Iraq oil reserve to the people of Iraq away from privileged contracts with European nations, right?

Is that why the Iraqi government, in a few days, will pass a US designed law giving exclusive 30-year oil rights to the largest Western oil and gas companies with nearly no debate? It will give companies like BP, Shell and Exxon up to three quarters of that profit during the early part of this period. Even after these companies recoup their initial drilling costs, they will still be allowed to retain 20% profit which is still twice the industry average. Better us than Europe I guess, huh? And I wonder who all those top energy executives are? Surely not anyone associated with the Bush government, right?

2. Buy billions of dollars in weapons from Russia on credit — thus creating debts that would be virtually uncollectible if he was deposed.

And Russia has been our ally since when? Speaking of the “flowering of Democracy” when can we see that fully implemented in the former USSR? And what exactly has been the increase in military weapons funding to United States government contractors during this period?

3. Provide enormous sums to UN bureaucrats responsible for overseeing your actions — thereby cutting off a major source of income, on the order of millions of dollars, for these individuals.

The US was just as complicit. The Senate Permanent Subcommitte on Invetigations concluded that we looked the other way during the Oil-for-Food program because it benefitted our allies of Turkey and Jordan. In fact, it seems we actually facillitated some of those sales. For example, the Houston-based Bayoil and its CEO were both indicted for such actions.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil – more than the rest of the world put together.

This argument that the US was some white knight coming to rescue the Iraqi people from the evil clutches of Hussein – that we stood up to the greedy nations of the world – makes an inspiring, yet untruthful, story.

First, troop / strategy changes proposed by the GOP are not why Iraq became difficult. Iraq became difficult in 2006 – after a hope-inspiring year in 2005, with 3 triumphant elections and the training of the first effective native armed forces and much terrorist ass kicked – because Iran jumped in to foment both Sunni and Shia death squads. Please refer back to #28, where I gave some info / links on that.

Second, you are in effect criticizing the President for wanting to adjust his strategy as new realities become apparent. That’s just senseless.

Let’s put it this way: If the President weren’t adjusting strategy (including troop levels) as new realities became apparent, you – and Boxer – would surely be criticizing him for that instead. Thus we arrive in the territory of criticism for its own sake.

Third, I notice that – functionally speaking, at least – your reply to my question was to say “Boxer has always opposed the war”. In other words: Boxer has no ideas or suggestions for how American can improve the situation. Thank you for admitting that (if only by implication).

Anyone else? Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

Boxer has always opposed the war. She would probably prefer the troops come home. I don’t really know or care what flip floppers like Clinton or Schumer are planning.

The problem is that one side may not have any plans, but the other side, the GOP, has said that there should be no more troops, then said there should be more troops, back and forth.

Additionally, vaara you either can’t or don’t want to “read before playing”. I already answered the questions you pose in #61. I answered them in #7 – from the first sentence of the link provided.

In case you have CTS and are scroll-challenged, here is the link again: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2008#comment-316332

Also, here are the questions I had for you in #33, that you STILL HAVE NOT tried to answer:

As for “phased withdrawal”: what phases? on what timetable? with what expected results or effects on the people of Iraq?

That leaves us still with my main question:

Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

If you want to play, please try a tad harder, OK?

(See? I can do the “broken rec-rec-rec-record” thing too.

You are more qualified than Boxer or Condi Rice.

Amazing. Thank you, Carl.

Now Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

Sure, I’ll admit that. Boxer herself basically said the same thing. You are more qualified than Boxer or Condi Rice.

BTW, although it may make you feel more important to think that I was somehow afraid to answer your question, I didn’t get around to checking the thread until tonight. I hope that makes you feel better.

And JAQ, when will you understand that the people elected Bush as their President in 2004? And that doesn’t go away, just because the opposition party happened to do well in a Congressional election? How many times, and in how many ways, do the people have to tell you Bush is President?

On other topics:

- 30+ hours since #45, and no sign of Carl. I guess Carl really was babbling.

- 35+ hours since #33, and no sign of vaara answering it. I guess vaara was babbling. (about Democrats allegedly having a plan for Iraq)

- Other comments above: so very long on disproven Left shibboleths and the tired rhetoric of Left hatred; all too short on affirmative, positive ideas for what America can do next to succeed. I ask again:

Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

That was because Saddam Hussein, unlike Slobodan Milosevic, made the correct deduction as to what would protect him best.

1. Make lucrative contracts with European nationalized and partially-privatized companies, both in providing oil rights and in purchasing large amounts from them — all of which would be invalidated if he was overthrown.

2. Buy billions of dollars in weapons from Russia on credit — thus creating debts that would be virtually uncollectible if he was deposed.

3. Provide enormous sums to UN bureaucrats responsible for overseeing your actions — thereby cutting off a major source of income, on the order of millions of dollars, for these individuals.

In short, Saddam Hussein made certain that his removal would cost the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the UN literally billions of dollars. Given that, they had ample incentive to leave him alone — and, in order to cover up the fact that they were doing it for purely-financial reasons, they chose to stoke anti-Americanism as a reason for doing it. Furthermore, they knew that Democrats, as so obviously exemplified by the Clinton administration, would do whatever they said.

They didn’t count on an American President who was independent enough to decide that pleasing them wasn’t worth it.

Saddam was many times the genocidal maniac that Slobodan was. But Slobodan didn’t owe that many Europeans money and didn’t pay off that many UN diplomats. That’s the crucial difference that allowed Saddam to starve, imprison, torture, and murder literally millions of people without Europe, Russia, China, and the UN raising a finger — and in fact, doing their level best to sabotage any effort to remove or restrain him.