According to the Washington Post Bush wants to leave Iraq but the Dems won't let him

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-washington-post-is-on_b_57254.html

In an editorial in Saturday's paper called "The Phony Debate," the Washington Post claims it is Harry Reid who is keeping the US government from agreeing on a sensible withdrawal plan from Iraq. Who wrote this editorial, Mitch McConnell, Bill Kristol, President Bush?

What kind of crack do you have to be smoking to claim that it's Senator Reid and not President Bush who is keeping us in Iraq? That is such an outrageous proposition that it makes you question the Washington Post's credibility, or their sanity.

Look at this absolute crap they printed:



A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that "it's a position I'd like to see us in."

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm so angry I can hardly type. If President Bush really wants this option, you know what he has to do? Order it! It will be done tomorrow. You have to be either retarded or completely biased to pretend that President Bush wants to leave Iraq but the Democrats won't let him. That is turning reality completely on its head.

[PDJane]

1. This is beyond delusional.

It's now into the realm of propaganda.

[MatrixEscape]

6. Now?

Could you enlighten as to where all of "this" mess we are in left the real of propaganda?

Keep in mind that everything in mind is not only representational, symbolic, and metaphorical, but is totally subject to those who understand that fact and are expertly capable of exploiting it to a practical advantage.

How many people do you know that could read that paragraph and totally understand and agree to the fact that the mechanics behind the mass manipulation is totally based on it?

To see manipulation, propaganda, and agitprop for what it truly is, is to admit one's own calculated ignorance in its wake while still being able to stand above the underlying and calculated pitfalls of being the fall guy who fell for it. When you can put your personality and expected investement in pride aside in a con-game, you have the best chance of winning, even when the deck is totally stacked!

[ashling]

7. This is Bushy's only plan for bringing the troops home

[Kurovski]

2. They just couldn't be more desperate.

Do they really think this horseshit will sprout wings and fly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Well we have jellyfish that will not challenge them

so same dif

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Well how many folks

know waht C-SPAN is?

But this does not shock me...

The department of truth is fully at work now

[billyoc]

5. Take it easy, they're just showing off for the new boss, Murdoch. n/t

[blogslut]

8. That would be the Wall Street Journal

Murdoch does not yet own the WaPo. However, Leonard "Len" Downie, Jr is the editor of the Post. And from the looks of this editorial it appears that Dick Cheney took over his job for the day while Downie had doctors search his rectum for a brain.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. The premise sounds Roviavellian to me.

Evil, evil, evil.

[Hamlette]

10. I'm old enough to remember when the WaPo was patriotic

Since they are no diff from the Wash. Times, it would be nice if someone started a real newspaper in the nations capitol.

[Hamlette]

11. Matthew Yglesias' heading for his post on this oped was "No, Fuck You." lol

he went on to say:

Yes, yes . . . providing political cover to moderate Republicans who want to distance themselves from Bush while minimizing the practical impact of their actions would solve our problems in Iraq. (VERY sarcastically)

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/no_fuck_you.php

[DeSwiss]

12. I read this article earlier today....

And the gutless wonder who wrote it, didn't have the courage to sign it. Coward. How come s/he didn't print the names of the "large majority" of senators who are ready to cut a deal for withdrawal so they can go on record -- and we can get the hell out of Iraq?

Come on, give us the names!!! You lying assholes....


WASHINGTON POST = BIRD CAGE LINER

[VP505]

29. I haven't read the

article YET but IF there are a large number Senators that want to cover their ass with some kind of withdrawal they likely also support the notion that we have a permanent presence in Iraq. Domenici of NM is one of those smoke and mirror types who is trying to do that.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Fred Hiatt is too absurd even for FoxNews

When the publishers of Washington Post finally remembers that it is a once-great newspaper and gives him the ax, he'll have to go to work for the Weekly Standard.

[orleans]

14. i smell executive privilege n/t

[aquart]

15. Here's my email response:

Is Karl Rove writing your editorials now? Or simply dictating them? What propagandistic drivel. To think, the Washington Post used to be a newspaper.

[Disturbed]

16. The Wash Post forgot to add their little disclamimer.

At the bottom of the article they were spozed to print. "This is just a spoof."

[Hubert H. Hubert]

20. Someone must've hijacked their DNS to redirect to theonion.com

:wtf:

[cassiepriam]

17. Sociopaths blame the victims, ie Dems and Iraqis caused the invasion.

Time will tell if the gullible American public buys this
version of reality.

[chknltl]

18. As a Democrat I agree...lets not let bush leave Iraq...

Nice guy that I am, I would leave him there with his entire administration just so he doesn't feel too lonely!
:evilgrin:

[bigtree]

19. the Levin amendment is the only one of the proposals which is binding

It's the only one which would become the law of the land for Bush to exit.

Does the Post really think Bush will be moved by another non-binding resolution? When the republicans come up with something more than a timid request for an end to the occupation, something binding and containing a firm exit date, they'll get more than enough support from our side.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. History will remember how the Dems got us into Iraq and kept us there.

Wing-nut history that is.

[B Calm]

22. Cons rewriting history.. What else is new? Up is down, down is up..

[CGowen]

23. Isn't he the decider? n/t

[sellitman]

24. You sure this wasn't from The Onion?

Fess up now...

[rodeodance]

25. "favor a shift "----Ha, this is meaningless till I see an AYE vote.

[Hideboh]

26. Repukes are now more desperate than ever

and will be

[madokie]

27. in the little pea brained repukes mind all it takes is a seed planted, as this is now,

I'm not sure but this has the potential to spread like wildfires do

[tblue37]

28. Baghdad Bob, is that you? (eom)

[kenny blankenship]

30. How many times does Bush have to say we'll never withdraw from Iraq while he's Pres.

before the "journalists" at the Washington Post note it down in their little journals to remember?