[Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a trillion dollars too late . . . .

Mon Oct 22 17:17:38 PDT 2007

I don't try to put that fine of a spin on the news. 

The President came out and said, long ago, that we had to pursue the Iraq
war for years to come, perhaps decades. Now he's doing it. 

I don't know of anyone who believes the American people will stand for that.

So, the President's successor will end the war and he'll take the
responsibility for the loss. President Bush will be busy organizing his
library in happy retirement. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:10 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a trillion
dollars too late . . . .

If you are in a war, you are either winning, losing, or in a stalemate. Bush
certainly does not try to convey that we are losing or in a  
stalemate with phrases like 'the surge is working' and 'we are making  
good progress'. He is trying to convey that we are 'winning'. The good news
is that you and many others have started to tune him  
out because his words are not reliable.  I'm glad to see that you  
haven't noticed him saying it because it means that you have tuned  
out the doublespeak as well.
I'm sure that as we get closer to the primaries and the election the  
phrase that 'we are winning' will be back in heavy use along with the  
added words, 'but winners have to leave 100K troops in Iraq so we  
don't lose'.

Have you ever heard the lyrics to the song 'Hotel California'?  'You  
can check out any time you like......but you never can leave'?  That  
is what it is like in Iraq.  We can win all we want but we never can  
leave.

Katie

On Oct 22, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Two questions:
>
> 1) Who is claiming we are "winning" in Iraq? I don't hang on every
> word the
> President utters, but I've not noticed any such claims from anyone  
> lately...
>
> 2) As I asked Steven before, what does Iraq have to do with
> "terror"? What
> did Iraq have to do with, for example,  Timothy McVey or 9/11? Even  
> the
> President said Saddam or Iraq had nothing to do with either.  
> Certainly,
> those were examples of terrorism. More importantly, they were  
> terrorism in
> our own country!
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:10 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a  
> trillion
> dollars too late . . . .
>
>
> Yep.  But you won't hear anything other than 'we're winning' from the 
> Bushies. 'We are winning in Iraq!' will be the headlines for at least 
> a
> year. Can we
> come home then?  Of course not. We will have 130K troops there
> (and at least that many contractors) until he is out of office for  
> sure. The
> trumpets will blare every time 5000 troops are rotated, whether
> they are replaced or not. And since we have been 'winning' ever since
> our mission was accomplished and we subsequently poured more and more
> troops into the region, we will be 'winning' for a long time to come.
>
> And if a new president makes it into the White House with the 
> intention of bringing our troops home the 'news' will shift and all 
> the war profiteers will send a loud and clear message that we can't 
> 'lose' this war.
>
> Winning will be defined by the same twisted language as torture.  We 
> are winning as long as there are billions to be made in contracts,
> paid for by US taxpayers.   As soon as we have no need to give big
> contracts, then we will be losing the war or starting a new one to 
> 'win'.
>
> Katie
> Who wants to define 'winning' in the region where the Allied Turks and 
> the Iraqi Kurds seem hell bent on killing each other too.  Maybe if we 
> just sell arms to both sides the real winners will be the arms 
> merchants.  Doesn't that just scream out the question WWJBAF?  (Who 
> would Jesus buy arms from?)
>
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
>> Good question, Steven, given the fact we seem to be losing to both 
>> with the course we are on.
>>
>> bob "'nuf said" browning
>>
>> Steven wrote:
>>> Whom do we lose to? Iraq or Terror?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
>>> bounces at rdrop.com]On Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
>>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:32 PM
>>> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
>>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Finally,it's about time - only about a
>>> trillion
>>> dollars too late . . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Bob:
>>>
>>> Y'know, I wonder if it might not be in our (the USA's) best 
>>> interests to lose the Iraq war. It might be in the best interests of 
>>> Iraq too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet