Incompetent (in·com·pe·tent Pronunciation: (")in-'käm-p&-t&nt)
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French incompétent, from in- + compétent competent
1 : not legally qualified
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly
_________________
Bush plans to put more troops in Iraq
WASHINGTON -
President Bush, working to recraft his strategy in Iraq, said Tuesday that he plans to increase the size of the U.S. military so it can fight a long-term war against terrorism.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the already stretched Army and Marines Corps even thinner once the surge ended.
They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress.
December 19, 2006
Incompetent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Wouldn't it be much better just to helicopter drop the money we'd be spending over there?
"Free money from George W Bush!".
put a few "sorry about the mess" flyers in there. The Iraqis would still be very pissed off, but not quite as pissed off as More Occupation For You!
After that, they can do the same for Detroit and New Orleans, but that would take some compassion.
Pull troops out of germany and other places no longer needed.
BREAKING NEWS!
Worst of housing slump is over
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Tue Dec 19, 3:06 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The worst of the housing slump is over, although some pain is likely to linger, an adviser to President Bush suggested Tuesday.
This year's housing slowdown — which came off five straight years of booming activity — was a key force behind the overall economy's loss of momentum in the late summer.
Why does George W. Bush and Alfred E. Newmen think alike and look alike? Or is it just me.
Track housing like stocks. Pretty cool...
http://housing-watch.com/home.aspx?d=180
'Bush adviser says worst of housing slump may be over'
You know this is BS.
I have been skeptical about this war from the beginning. DC has one of the highest crime rates of any capitol in the world, so Bush thought he should go try to establish law ans order in Iraq. Needless to say, Iraq was more capable of law and order before the US invaded, shot up the place killing many, and then proceeded with the Halliburton no-bid contracts, and Halliburton does not want to quit.
I felt the need to comment on Bush's mastery of the English language.
"proceed forward" is redundant, since "proceed" already means "to move forward". So Bush basically says to move forward forward.
The Repuglican inner circle is just trying to hold off the end until Bush II is out of office.
Any of these stupid democrats that actually wan the white house for the next 4 years is a complete FOOL!
Don't fall into the trap. Give it to McCain! By 2012, the GOP will no longer exist.
I hope that he sends more illegal Mexicans into the duck gallery.
Iraqis will be totatly confused with illegal Mexicans setting up Taco stands in Bagdad.
Iraqi snipers will not know who they are killing - America sitting ducks or Mexicans driving around in Jeeps.
re anon 12:21
Yeah.. I like the idea of helidropping money over there. How much ? Well, for last year, per Bloomberg:
"The Defense Department submitted a request to the White House earlier this month for $99.7 billion more in emergency funding to pay for the war effort in the current fiscal year. That would come on top of the $70 billion that Congress already has approved"
That's 170 billion. There are 26 million people in Iraq. So that's $6000 just for FY2007 per person, or say 24,000 per houshold. Hell, in 2003(prewar), their median household income was $255 ( http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/income.htm )
So, we could give them not the total amount of our FY2007 expenditure, but just a TENTH of it, which would be 2400 and STILL sextuple their living standard.
Only one caveat IMO. The helidrop should be of dollars overprinted with "REDEEMABLE ONLY FOR PRODUCTS STAMPED 'Made in USA'"
-K
Well ill go out on a limb here
bush, yes is a bumbling fool, AKA Chimpy Mcflysuit, but he did not cause our existing problems alone, we had 2 houses full of imcompetents.
And further more
Why was our congress not notified about the india Nuclear deal?? What through a signing statement,When Clinton used signing statements, it was usually in a clarification manner.
When Frat-Boy uses signing statements, it's REWRITING LAW!
We have a Unitary Executive, folks.
IMPEACH THE FUCKING LOT!
Oh I see so if Kerry had won in '04 the bubble wouldn't be burstig now....RIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTT
I'm glad the people who lived in this country in 1941 had some balls. Can you imagine what would happen if we had to fight WWII today? "FDR lied, thousands died" or "Pearl Habor was our fault, we should have sold that oil to the Japanese."
Yes, Bush & Co. did some dumb-ass things, they happen in every war, so that's reason to give up? Do any of you geniuses really think the world will get better if we just leave Iraq and let the sh_t fly?
You all fret over the price of houses while the ragheads plan your death. That goes way beyond incompetence - it's nihilism on a national scale.
don't forget Truman...imagine the NY Times healines after Hiroshima if the same liberal anti-americans ran things then
"THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT JAPANESE DEAD DUE TO TRUMAN'S BLOODTHRST"
We would have had the
Japan Study Group and the Germany Study Group with recommendations on discussing war options.
The only options in a war are win or lose.
"When Clinton used signing statements, it was usually in a clarification manner."
The ones he signed on the last day of his presidency sure cleared up a lot of things - just ask Marc Rich or Dan Rostenkowski.
I have a new word to describe the wackos that inhabit this blog: Nodongs
>>The only options in a war are >>win or lose.
Yup, and like Vietnam, this one is a lose. Which is poetic justice too - after all, Iraq didn't attack us, we attacked them first, Iraq didn't have the means to attack us( no WMDs), Iraq wasn't funding or training or planning to fund or train the people who DID attack us or WANT to attack us, Iraq was actually bottled up with the no-fly zones and the totally liberated Kurdish areas so that they couldn't even attack people in the locality.
So, they WIN. deal with it - learn from it and don't vote for bozos ever again or fall for grand geopolitical visions about sweeps of history and our part in them. While historical processes exist, they aren't called historical without reason - you can only discern the patterns AFTERWARDS - don't try riding them - riding them or even creating them yourself is a delusion of power and foresight that is fatally flawed and the ruin of many nations.
-K
"or fall for grand geopolitical visions about sweeps of history and our part in them."
OK Dr. Kissinger, so what about those ragheads that want you dead because you're not facing Mecca five times a day? Do we wait until they have the nukes, or should we just surrender now? Does Amazon have Christmas discounts on Qurans with supersaver shipping?
It's eventually going to go past win/lose and we'll have live or die time. Tell us how to "deal with it".
George Bush said: "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines,"... "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
Clearly, Bush is in over his head. And there is no way that he in charge -- someone else is running the show.
"Increase our troops", he says. If the Bush Administration decides to "proceed forward" with this disastrous plan, reinstatement of the draft will be a virtual certainty.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we." -- George Bush
'Bush adviser says worst of housing slump may be over'
Mission Accomplished!
bush is an idiot.
the entire war was a waste of life and treasure.
stupid on top of stupid wrapped in stupid.
declare victory, and bring the troops home immediately.
there, i feel better.
>>OK Dr. Kissinger, so what about ?>>those ragheads that want you >>dead because you're not facing >>Mecca five times a day?
I'd definitely start by respecting the enemy. Name calling stuff like gooks, ragheads doesn't help and actually hinders identification of the enemy.
I'll exclude the 57 varieties of enemies in Iraq since I'm stating that we get out of there and many of the enemies that are fighting us THERE, will like going to Vegas, stay THERE and not follow us home.
So, the enemy that is armed and capable with stated intentions of direct harm to us here is Al Qaida. But I would NOT overstate their capabilities. Stick with Al Qaida IMO. Can we come to an accomodation with the Taliban in Afghanistan ? e.g. don't give the Al Qaida bases or else we'll chase you out like we did last time, otherwise its your Pashtun v XXYYZZ fight and we don't have a dog in this fight ( probably a good idea to avoid dog and pig metaphors when discussing stuff with religious Muslims )
Will they take over Saudi Arabia ? Quite possibly. But its THEIR country, their fight, NOT OURS. We should be working really hard to get off the oil kick, make nice with Russia and get ready for a transition to a reduced oil economy. Then we won't care what happens in Saudi.
Thats the sort of angle, a general policy of non-interventionism that I'd advocate. Here's an article by Ron Paul Republican Congressman that discusses this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul356.html
Of course, because of the mess we are already in, the entanglements and economic dependencies that already exist means that the getting off the imperialist policies and onto noninterventionist path won't be straight forward and err, ahem, certain compromises with principles will be required for tactical reasons, to buy us breathing room, so we may need to fight extra hard and even invading, even as we retreat so that they recognise the costs we can inflict on them and so they don't go overboard with their win.
Its also an excellent idea to read up Mao's warfare theory - try and split the enemy as much as possible - convert those who can be converted to OUR side, ensure neutrality of as many that can't be converted as you can - in essence make the footprint of the enemy as small as possible. Both Bush the Elder in the First Iraq War and Lincoln in the War of the States/Civil War followed that well. Heck, in WWII, we made a deal with Stalin.
This sort of generic WAR ON TERROR, WAR AGAINST THE EXTREMISTS, WAR AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM is insane, meaningless, defies all the principles of winning wars and as in theory so in practice. We are losing. Time to return to good warfare and foreign policy principles.
-K
Ron Paul for prez!!
In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex
Jones, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently discussed President Bush's support for the
Military Commissions Act. During the interview, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities." Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus." Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"
Perfect definition of a Liberal!
Vietnam, just like Iraq, was started on trumped-up baloney, and both ended up getting the US into an unwinnable land war in Asia by trying to occupy an irredemiably hostile local population.
Liberals were right about Vietnam then. They're right about Iraq now.
Conflating the war in Iraq aka "ragheads who plan our death" vs WW2 is idiotic "Incompetence", like the title in the thread.
Suppose the USA, after bombed by the Japanese, declared war on hmm, China and Russia---after pulling out their vital ships and aircraft from Britain, allowing the Wehrmacht to win. How well would that have worked? That's about the equivalent now.
Saddam Hussein was an ENEMY of Islamic radicals (i.e. the 'islamo"fascists"'.) Whatever connection Saddam had with them was to infiltrate them and then execute or imprison them.
He was a dark bastard, but one who knew how the world worked over there. The US sure doesn't. We could have paid him bounties for the scalps of al-Qaida types. What's the difference between Saddam Hussein and the despots of Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan in the end? Make Saddam a deal he couldn't refuse.
Notice that the primary antidote to Islamic radicalism is having the people actually have to live under such a thing.
The Afghan people dislike the Taliban and likewise the Iranians dislike their government.
The Iranians are less radical than their government---in the Arab world it's the other way around.
The idea that the US blundering around stupidly is going to make the Islamic states LESS likely to get a nuclear weapon is utterly farcial.
But that is the typical argument of the right wingnuts. It's stupid Bluto thinking, if we don't beat up on Them Ragheads (which ones, exactly?) They're Gonna Nuke Us.
With that """reasoning""" apparently any aggressive action against any generic group "out there", no matter how idiotic or ineffective gets justified and opposition, no matter how thoughtful or sensible or realistic gets turned into accusations of surrender.
That was precisely the nature of political discourse inside the Third Reich. That is why they lost: they were delusional and made everybody their enemy.
This time there will be no Marshall Plan to save the USA.
The whole point is that true Islamic radicalism is dangerous, and that's why we can't afford to be STUPID AND INEFFECTIVE.
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 was like attacking China after Pear Harbor (instead of Japan) because they are all "oriental". . .Have we found Osama yet, NO. I do feel that internal security is somewhat better here in USA, as we have thwarted a number of bomb attacks, etc. Agree with others - give the White House back to Republicans - they will be left holding the bag.
Ahh, Dr. Kissinger (aka SK) has given us the formula for happiness and world peace:
1) Respect our enemies, but not slavishly, they're not an existential threat - yet.
2) Don't be stupid or ineffective, learn from Mao's tactics. After all, he did manage to kill about 75 million people.
3) It's OK if Al Qaeda controls one fourth of the world's oil reserves. Give chaos a chance, we might grow to like it.
4) Convert people in the Middle East to "our" side - Baptist?, Catholic?, Hindu?, Wicca?
5) No more interventions. Genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, Barbarism in Haiti, Al Qaeda in Somalia? Too bad, so sad, we're a superpower and it's just not polite for us to actually DO anything. We'll sell colored iPods to raise money for the victims.
Yes Dr. K, those policies would certainly lead to a different world...
I do feel that internal security is somewhat better here in USA, as we have thwarted a number of bomb attacks, etc
Exactly how many US troops did that take?
Re Anon
Your heavy sarcasm has the consistency of the gunk in a used condom.
Your knowledge base is obsolete. We are no longer a superpower - not financially, not in manufacturing, nor in innovation. Our military cannot handle asymetric warfare at present. No amount of wishing it wasn't so can change that. Its a shame but our period of world supremacy in a unipolar world lasted barely a decade. The Romans did a lot better.
Its interesting that in your terminology the oil in Saudi Arabia is world oil - I'd call it what it is - Saudi Oil - the days when we could get it on OUR terms are over.
You don't even want to respect the enemy. In the age of asymetric warfare you really had better start to respect them.
But I can see why we have a disagreement - we differ on the nature of the very world we live in - of the power balance that exists at this time - So we'll just have to see who's right. And while these disagreements continue at home we are in for serious domestic strife too I suppose.
So it goes.
-K
It's eerie how those urging more of the same insane course of action in Iraq sound just like the people who say "Housing bubble? What bubble? Buy now, they aren't making any more land, and home prices have nowhere to go but up."
I for one am for reinstituting the draft. It's high time we rounded up the baggy-pants, cap-on-backwards, 18 yr old nigger/wigger crowd and send them off to war.
Oh I see so if Kerry had won in '04 the bubble wouldn't be burstig now....RIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT
I have a new word to describe the wackos that inhabit this blog: Nodongs
---------------
Asshole vist blogs too welcome asshole..no one said anything about Kerry so your point is what?? I voted for bush because i did not want kerry...but now!! i should have wnet for the lessor of the 2 evils.
Kerry would have been a terrible president too
But at least he was smarter
"Its interesting that in your terminology the oil in Saudi Arabia is world oil - I'd call it what it is - Saudi Oil - the days when we could get it on OUR terms are over."
LOL!
But Dr. K, aren't you forgetting one of Mao's basic tenets "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"? STTNG and the Federation of Planets were fictional elements on a TV show, the real world has different rules and norms.
The oil in Saudi Arabia belongs to the dominant military powers. But I'm sure the U.S./Chinese/Japanese/Europeans will change their plans for its disposition after they hear your rendition of Kum Bay Ya.
Read the comments at the end of the article
http://tinyurl.com/yyez2x
Some Brits don't care much for their guy either
I for one am for reinstituting the draft. It's high time we rounded up the baggy-pants, cap-on-backwards, 18 yr old nigger/wigger crowd and send them off to war.
maybe not such a great idea.
They'll come back with a really bad attitude against people like you, and then they'll have good marksmanship as well as PTSD-fueled robo-kill mentality.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Sadr and al-Qaeda-in-Iraq have taken that to heart.
They're winning.
BTW, where's Osama?
Since Operation Iraqi hellhole is on fire, what does team dumbya want now?
Why he wants to pour gas on that fire and really destabilize the region once and for all.
It is becoming clear that perhaps hugo chavez was right afterall in his United Nations speech in N.Y. As I have come to the conclusion long ago, I expect nothing but more war from the likes of 'team devil dumbya'.
RE: Anon @ 4:32
Enough. I'm going to take my own advice, viz. "Never try and teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time annoys the pig"
I can't seem to paste in the cartoon that illustrates the above but this and other examples of office humor were cataloged and printed by Alan Dundes, onetime prof at Bezerkely wayyy back, before Dilbert, hmmm before email for the masses. It was all photocopied and faxed around between people.
Link: http://wsupress.wayne.edu/literature/humor/dundesnttps.htm
-K
I for one am for reinstituting the draft. It's high time we rounded up the baggy-pants, cap-on-backwards, 18 yr old nigger/wigger crowd and send them off to war.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:49:46 PM
This is a great idea! We need to eleminate these african worshippers from the white gene pool. Clearly, if white Americans are gonna have to die for the jews in israel, these are the ones that need to go!
The last posting sponsered by the N.A.A.C.P
Bush team would have done well to level Afghanistan with no apologies to anyone, then rebuild after the enemy's will to fight was broken, no matter how many deaths it took and how many bombs had to be dropped. Make an example of the country, the government that hosted our true enemy, the poppy growers and anyone who got in the way of accomplishing that clear cut mission. To use a quote from someone else "not one fu*king brick left on top of another" and make no apology for doing so - definitely do not put on trial your own people who have set out to achieve that goal. Then, while leaving Saddam in place in Iraq, use him for your own purposes as a counterweight against Iran to keep some level of stability. I don't think Saddam would have been a big threat with a large US military presence in such close proximity. There was no love lost between the Sunnis Iraqis and the Shia Iranians. We could have even brokered an independent state for the Kurds who we abandoned years ago. I would suggest that the only route that Iraq now has is a republic made of three states, one Kurd, one Sunni, one Shia but that's a decision for them to make not us. Afghanistan would have been the key - neighbors Iran, neighbors Pakistan and India is to the east of Pakistan. In time, Saddam might have been overthrown by an internal revolution (those are the only revolutions that actually should happen - not ones that are developed and carried out by a foreigner).
Kerry didn't fit the flight suit. Bush is top gun!
Post a Comment