Mission Accomplished
by matt at 8:00 pm on October 3rd, 2006 in Economy, Iraq WarIn Bill’s Fine Print, $20 Million to Celebrate Victory in the War (NYT):
Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.
Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.
The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”
With all the “progress” we’re making in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that $20 million could end up being billions by the time we need it through the magic of compound interest.
Bob wrote:
Isn’t it depressing being such a pessimist 24/7? Your glass is neither half empty nor half full; you smashed your glass just so you could whine about it being empty AND broken.
Iraq and Afghanistan are going great, thanks. I trust a socialist civilian to asses military matters as much as I’d trust Clinton around a group of interns.
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 5:39 am ¶
tom wrote:
at least clinton liked em of legal age……..
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 8:13 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Never underestimate the power of drunk-with-who-knows-what conservatives to set the record straight. Here’s Ben Stein:
Long live intellectual honesty!
(BTW, Lewinsky was 21 at the time, I think.)
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 8:34 am ¶
Bob wrote:
Way to stay on topic.
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 9:24 am ¶
matt wrote:
what topic were we on, you fucking moron?
pick one.
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 9:31 am ¶
Bob wrote:
The topic YOU started. What, are you suffering from ADD or something? I’m fairly sure neither Clintons cigar tricks nor Foleys sex-chat service have anything to do with the war. My mention of Clinton was a simple comparison, I could just as easily have said something like “as much as I’d trust Michael Moore around an all you can eat buffet” or “as much as I’d trust sarahbeth to write an impartial article”. Unfortiunately you silly twits are so easily distracted than any sentence which doesn’t tow your party line will automaticaly send you into a sputtering rage totaly unrelated to the original topic of discussion. Your utter lack of self control must be a constant source of problems, no?
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 9:59 am ¶
matt wrote:
don’t want me to comment on something you said? don’t fucking say it.
as for the original point of the post, you didn’t even come close to offering coherent criticism of it, so my point stands.
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 10:38 am ¶
john wrote:
I think his point was, *covering his ears, closing his eyes* “LA LA LA, EVERYTHING’S GOING GREAT, LA LA LA STOP READING THE NEWS, LA LA LA.”
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 12:10 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
What are we supposed to have been playing at, Bobe? Group water-skiing?
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 12:32 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:
…and another victory for the 1115.org Crew!!
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 4:58 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Competitive group water-skiing?
Posted 04 Oct 2006 at 5:23 pm ¶
Bob wrote:
“don’t want me to comment on something you said? don’t fucking say it.”
I guess I just figgured you’d be mature enough to focus on the pertinent part of the dialogue. You remind me of a joke:
Q: How many ADD kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Two, one to hold it, and….hey, wanna go ride bikes?
“as for the original point of the post, you didn’t even come close to offering coherent criticism of it, so my point stands.”
Well, let’s see:
I called you a pessimist.
I stated that things in Afghanistan are going according to plan.
And I then told you that you lack the competence, training, or intelligence to judge the situation properly.
I expected you to be able to read between the lines, and I guess that wasn’t really fair of me. Trust me though, you probably have at least a few readers with IQ’s over 90 and they should be able to confirm that, in fact, all three of the above points were contained within my initial comment. Just not in those exact words.
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 7:03 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you are a joke.
damn right. except that plan is that of the taliban and bin laden.
what situation? the one where heroin is flowing in record amounts to europe and the us and the taliban controls parts of the country even after the administration told us they ceased to exist? or the one where the situation in iraq just keeps degrading?
you’re spectacularly wrong on the facts, your dig at clinton was especially ill-timed, and your shock at being called out is absurd. you’re a fucking cartoon character.
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 7:18 pm ¶
Bob wrote:
This is rather like being made fun of for a typo by a dyslexic two year old. It’d be insulting….if it were either relevant or accurate. It’s neither. In addition to that, your units for measurement of success are also flawed. Your measurement of success in Afghanistan based on drug flow, or you measurement of success in Iraq based on “drinking water” is akin to trying to measure distance in kilograms. If you’re truly interested in learning about the current progress of our overall effort, try talking to military analysts, or even some of the men on the ground. Even that won’t help though until you get rid of the pessimistic attitude. Until then you’ll keep seeing the glass as half empty, no matter how many times we refill it.
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 9:35 pm ¶
matt wrote:
unless you can provide some metrics that show any kind of success, step the fuck off and shut the fuck up.
who’s we? you sound like general fluffer. and your IP looks quite similar, from canada. interesting.
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 9:45 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
Alex said: (in effect) I’m sneaky and got caught. Sorry everyone for wasting your time with my delusional codpiece fantasies.
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 10:10 pm ¶
matt wrote:
I FUCKING KNEW IT! Bye General Fluffer!
Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 10:25 pm ¶