NationStates Jolt Archive

Just last month, Vice President Dick Cheney said the Iraqi insurgency was in its "final throes (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/cheney.interview/)". But the Pentagon now says the insurgency is as strong as it's ever been.

U.S. commander says insurgency strong in Iraq (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119566054786_114975254/?hub=World)

The top American commander in the Persian Gulf told Congress on Thursday that the Iraqi insurgency has not grown weaker over the past six months, despite a claim by Vice President Dick Cheney that it was in its "last throes."

Fallout from fellow Republicans:

Hit by friendly fire (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm)

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

McCain disputes Cheney on Iraq (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/19/mccain/)

Sen. John McCain disagreed Sunday with Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes," and called on the Bush administration to stop telling Americans victory is around the corner.

So Cheney goes back to CNN:

Cheney sticks by remark that Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050623/pl_afp/usiraqcheney)

US Vice President Dick Cheney refused to take back his remark that Iraq's insurgency was in its "last throes" despite the latest surge of violence in the occupied country.

However, Cheney has a new definition for the word "throes":

"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a, you know, a violent period, the throes of a revolution," Cheney said.

Now in today's news, we get this from Rumsfeld:

U.S. has met with Iraqi insurgents: Rumsfeld (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119787712052_48?hub=topstories)

"It isn't a matter of negotiating with terrorists. There's no one negotiating with Zarqawi or the people that are out chopping peoples' heads off," he said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press.

Rumsfeld also warned it could take up to 12 years to defeat the insurgency.

Sure looks like organized confusion to me. Does anybody know what is going on?

Concerns, comments?

Wait, that had nothing do to with the topic.
Carry on.

Insurgency implies a homegrown aspect. The insurgents are dissipating quite quickly. The problem and the reason it's getting bloodier is because a bunch of cannon fodder is coming in from Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The question then becomes how long are the terrorists going to keep importing themselves.

It's good to see Congressional Republicans actually checking on a Republican President.

I especially like the "It's like they're just making it up as they go along!" Word-for-word exactly what I was saying to some of my college mates last week.

It definitely sounds like severe disorganisation. The administration seems to have a wanton need to lie to make things seem peachy, and then a lack of ability to do it cohesively. Take for example the editing of the governmental website stories about "combat operations" being over in Iraq to say "major combat operations" after it became apparent that combat was far from over. They changed the White House site, and then failed to change the DoD site for ages. Not to mention that good ol' GoogleCache had the old pages stored anyway.

I propose the US drop a nuke on the Syrian capital Damascus, as warning to all other countrys in the Middle east that covertly support terrorism, by doing little about insurgents coming from their own countrys into IRAQ, that should fix the problem.

It's good to see Congressional Republicans actually checking on a Republican President.

I especially like the "It's like they're just making it up as they go along!" Word-for-word exactly what I was saying to some of my college mates last week.

It definitely sounds like severe disorganisation. The administration seems to have a wanton need to lie to make things seem peachy, and then a lack of ability to do it cohesively. Take for example the editing of the governmental website stories about "combat operations" being over in Iraq to say "major combat operations" after it became apparent that combat was far from over. They changed the White House site, and then failed to change the DoD site for ages. Not to mention that good ol' GoogleCache had the old pages stored anyway.

Excellent points. I agree, it's good to see Congress doing something besides bieng a rubber stamp or megaphone for the washed-up hippy generation. It's nice to see them doing their damn job for a change.

I propose the US drop a nuke on the Syrian capital Damascus, as warning to all other countrys in the Middle east that covertly support terrorism, by doing little about insurgents coming from their own countrys into IRAQ, that should fix the problem.

NO. a thousand times, NO. It wouldn't work the way you want it to, first off. Nuclear weapons are the weapon of last resort, it's indiscriminate killing, and doing a city??? Damascus is not populated by terrorists, nor by those that idolize them. Those are People, just like the people in Kabul, or Paris, or London, or your home town. They just want to get through their lives without being hassled by the gangs, the hoodlums, and the creeps in power.
You don't bring over a hundered thousand people to ten-thousand degrees Farenheit to make a point that will be lost on your target audience.
All nuking a city will do, is make the residents martyrs-for-the-cause... unwilling martyrs, and the death toll would make the cause you're fighting legitimate in the eyes of many of our allies.

plus of course the fallout would get to Israel, no way America would dare alienate its only real ally in the Middle East by nuking them.

They said WWI would be over by Christmas...
They also said WWII would be over by Christmas...
They said that Vietnam would be over by Christmas...
I bet the Romans said that the invasion of Britain would be over by their Christmas-equivalent.

Face it, when a politician says a war is almost over, you have at least a year to go. If you ask a leader, on the front, who is not a politician as well, when the war will be over, they will say something like, "Gee, I dunno. These things are kinda hard to predict.", because they are.
Its a politicians job to lie, thus %90 of them do it, about %10 of them do it well, and thus get elected into some kind of office.
Meh.

Insurgency implies a homegrown aspect. The insurgents are dissipating quite quickly. The problem and the reason it's getting bloodier is because a bunch of cannon fodder is coming in from Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The question then becomes how long are the terrorists going to keep importing themselves.
I couldn't disagree more. Most insurgents are from Iraq and apparently are growing in strength and in tactics.

Insurgents in Iraq show signs of acting as a network (http://csmonitor.com/2004/0428/p03s01-usmi.html)

Far from limited to a small group of "dead-enders" and Saddam "thugs" as Pentagon officials claim, the armed opposition to the US occupation in Iraq has reached the point where some experts say it threatens to become a full-fledged nationalist insurgency.

Bolstered by former Iraqi military and security personnel, today's insurgents are at the least conducting increasingly sophisticated coordinated attacks. In addition, they have built networks to recruit fighters, make weapons, and funnel funds from Iraqi businesses and charitable groups, military experts say.

Perhaps most important, insurgents are now motivated primarily by nationalism and Islam, rather than by loyalty to Saddam Hussein, they say.

Well, reality finally hits the Whitehouse.

It's good to see Congressional Republicans actually checking on a Republican President.

I especially like the "It's like they're just making it up as they go along!" Word-for-word exactly what I was saying to some of my college mates last week.

It definitely sounds like severe disorganisation. The administration seems to have a wanton need to lie to make things seem peachy, and then a lack of ability to do it cohesively. Take for example the editing of the governmental website stories about "combat operations" being over in Iraq to say "major combat operations" after it became apparent that combat was far from over. They changed the White House site, and then failed to change the DoD site for ages. Not to mention that good ol' GoogleCache had the old pages stored anyway.
I agree, and it appears that the party is running out of excuses and bold declarations. When a bold declaration is made now, it becomes a political circus.

Anyone remember the "Mission Accomplished" (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html) histrionics by George Bush:

The landing came just hours before Bush is to tell the nation that major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

That was on May 2, 2003.

I propose the US drop a nuke on the Syrian capital Damascus, as warning to all other countrys in the Middle east that covertly support terrorism, by doing little about insurgents coming from their own countrys into IRAQ, that should fix the problem.
Thank God that you are nowhere near the controls. It is comments such as yours that bolster the insurgents and fuels anti-Americanism. Good job. :rolleyes:

"No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period -- the throes of a revolution." - DICK CHENEY

I guess people from this forum aren’t the only ones who rely on semantics to get them out of having to admit they were wrong.

"No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period -- the throes of a revolution." - DICK CHENEY

I guess people from this forum aren’t the only ones who rely on semantics to get them out of having to admit they were wrong.
Yes indeed. When in doubt, they refer to the dictionary to look for the broadest sense of the word when they suddenly realize that they have been impaled by their improper choice of words and feel a burning need to redeem themselves.

Yes indeed. When in doubt, they refer to the dictionary to look for the broadest sense of the word when they suddenly realize that they have been impaled by their improper choice of words and feel a burning need to redeem themselves.

Everybody seems to do that, even on this forum. Even I've been known to.

Thing is, dictionaries try to be as all-inclusive as possible with definitions, so it's almost always possible to bolster one viewpoint using one selected definition or interpretation of definition. Damn dictionaries!

YOU WERE DEFINATELY WATCHING THE DAILY SHOW TODAY. this was talked about on the daily show abou 4 hrs ago.

how dick cheyney said "final throes" and donald rumsfeld said "the insurgency could last for up to 12 years"... that whole thing.

i honestly think the strength of the insurgencies havent really changed much @ all. I dont think you need to use this as a justification for hating the administration even more than you probably do. The fact is, we will fight off the insurgencies, and we will pull out of iraq once there is a trained army and police and defence forces. no clue how long it will take.. but it doesnt matter.. what matters is that it gets done.

Everybody seems to do that, even on this forum. Even I've been known to.

Thing is, dictionaries try to be as all-inclusive as possible with definitions, so it's almost always possible to bolster one viewpoint using one selected definition or interpretation of definition. Damn dictionaries!
Yeah, I do agree with you, but then you and I aren't running a country, and have far less influence.

I think Senator Mc Cain made the proper rebuttal even though it not might be highly regarded in the White House:

"McCain disagreed Sunday with Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes," and called on the Bush administration to stop telling Americans victory is around the corner."

*CanuckHeaven" throws the ball back to you.

YOU WERE DEFINATELY WATCHING THE DAILY SHOW TODAY. this was talked about on the daily show abou 4 hrs ago.

how dick cheyney said "final throes" and donald rumsfeld said "the insurgency could last for up to 12 years"... that whole thing.

i honestly think the strength of the insurgencies havent really changed much @ all. I dont think you need to use this as a justification for hating the administration even more than you probably do. The fact is, we will fight off the insurgencies, and we will pull out of iraq once there is a trained army and police and defence forces. no clue how long it will take.. but it doesnt matter.. what matters is that it gets done.
Well, I wasn't definately watching the Daly Show today, since this thread originated before then. Regardless, with US public opinion running low on the war in Iraq, I am sure most Americans don't like the thought that this could go on for another 12 years?

I think two of the biggest gambles in this war, and there are many, was that the administration thought the war would be over rather quickly and that the Iraqis would welcome the US troops with open arms. Neither has materialized and this causes a problem on the homefront?