Quote: Captain Sammitch said: So where the FUCK are your bags of empty tin cans?
i'm not the one going on about how much i support the troops. why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy some armor that the government doesn't give them?
I'm running out of room for it. The piles are starting to get a bit deep.
so troops don't have the armor they need and you make a joke about it? way to support the troops.
Aside from the Durbin quote which he apolgized for, your quotes from the Dem leaders are aimed at a President who deserves them. They support the troops but not failed leadership.
At this point in time it's not I who needs to convince you. You have till '08. Maybe even less since it appears the GOP is getting twitchy since the last election.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Richard Gephardt:"Miserable failure..." I don't see Bush specified in that recurrent phrase he used for months.
Howard Dean: "There's no way we can win in Iraq..." Again, I don't see Bush specified in those remarks. As I pointed out previously, Dean is saying there's no way we can win, no matter who's doing the fighting, no matter who's in command.
Richard Durbin:"...comparable to Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime..." Again, no mention of Bush, clearly he's talking about troops on the ground, not leadership in Washington.
Harry Reid: "We've lost the war... Again, way beyond criticism of Bush, there's no suggestion that alternative leadership could win the war in any circumstance, again undermining not just Bush, but clearly undermining the efforts of our soldiers on the ground, no matter who is in command.
from the PBS news report I posted above, a liberal anti-war protestor:"We want our troops home now, General Petraeus is betraying us..." Clearly attacking our military in Iraq, not just President Bush.
I see a lot of evasive rationalization in your argument, M E M, attempting to circumnavigate what has clearly been said, not just about Bush, but undermining fighting the war in any circumstance, regardless of Bush.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Your point is, quite frankly, unamerican. We have the right to criticize our leaders and their policies. Soldiers are really just tools in war, they don't make choices on policy or strategy. So to insult the war or the failures is to insult the people making those choices. The only way they'd be insulting the troops is if they insulted them personally (eg. "fuck the troops, who cares how many have to die."). In fact to mismanage a war where soldiers' lives are on the line is literally not "supporting" the troops.
I'll grant that Bush and Rumsfeld have badly mismanaged the war. And further, that up through Dec 2006, I resisted possible impeachment of Bush by a Democrat-led Congress and Senate. I now think his derilection of duty has been so severe (in both the Iraq war, and on enforcement of immigration law and protecting our borders from massive invasion) that I would now support impeachment of Bush. Bush's derilection has been that bad.
However, I disagree that my point is "un-American". You seem oblivious to the point that Democrats and Republicans should be held to the same level of scrutiny. And that's what my comments have done: revealed the self-destructive and defeatist ideology of Democrat leadership from the very top.
Bush has been negligent, yes.
But so have the Democrats.
We need public criticism that will truly champion the best interests of the nation and its people. Not give partisan smear, favoring one corrupt side or the other.
The problem becomes what is in the best interest and it's people? I'm no fan of Bush, especially now but I don't think impeaching him would be in the best interest for any of us.
And while we have the resources to stay in Iraq indefinitley, is it really in our best interest to do so? The Dems have been saying no but I think before '08 it will be both parties generally sharing the same conclusion.
Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified about U.S. progress in Iraq. . . .
Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane. . . .
Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that "cafés, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people."
When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation--things are going so well--those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem.' "
So, she left the room to avoid hearing someone disagree with her, and then ridiculed the person she refused to listen to. CLASSy.
And what's all this about how Boyda wants to censor information about success in Iraq, because such information would "divide the country?"
I guess she thinks it "better" that the country be united in surrender.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . . .
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . . .What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?
R. Emmett Tyrrell, who coined the term Kultursmog to describe the cloud of "liberal misconceptions and bugaboos" that "pollutes the liberals' minds and renders them oblivious of any evidence contrary to their gloomy views," expands on the point in a column today in the New York Sun:
So far as I can tell almost all the Democratic presidential candidates think the war is lost. Congress abounds with solons who are calling for retreat.
The political culture is almost totally befogged by liberal misconceptions and bugaboos. It pollutes the liberals' minds and renders them oblivious of any evidence contrary to their gloomy views.
Thus they will continue to say we are losing. They may pipe down somewhat, but they are not likely to admit to being wrong. How would they know?
If their calls for retreat gain no support from the electorate, perhaps they will change the subject to another of their favorite misconceptions, to wit, the economy is going to hell.
Actually the economy is chugging along in a healthy and protracted period of growth. For the past five years per capita gross domestic product has grown at 11%. We are living through a vast global economic boom, and the Democrats seem completely unaware.
In 2008 their presidential candidate will be moaning that we have lost a war and are economically in a hell of a mess. The Republican will only have to point to a healthy economy and the success of Mr. Petraeus's splendid army to win. Then the Democrats will whine that the Republicans stole the election from them. That is my prediction
I think it's wiser to wait till September anyway when we get a better idea of how well the surge worked & go from there.
I'm glad to see you parting ways with many in your party who are demanding immediate surrender. However, why the change of heart? Correct me if I am wrong, but when the GOP was in charge you wanted out over a year ago? Now why do you want to stay in?
I'm glad to see you parting ways with many in your party who are demanding immediate surrender. However, why the change of heart? Correct me if I am wrong, but when the GOP was in charge you wanted out over a year ago? Now why do you want to stay in?
Because now things are going well in Iraq, and all of a sudden it's not politically safe to attack the war.
Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.
The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war.
Overall, 11 percent of Americans think the world would be "better off" if the U.S. lost the war, and 73 percent disagree.
So Democrats are at least twice as likely as others to WANT us to lose in Iraq.
Now, see, this is where I part company with Democrats.
I can see attacking Bush for mismanaging the war, and pressing for an altenative, more effective and winning strategy in Iraq. That I can side with.
But the problem with the Democrat postition is that they now continue to attack U.S. military presence in Iraq, even after a more effective policy, with visible and significant results, is being pursued.
The problem is that Democrats don't see the larger threat of Al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq. That Iraq is a hub of terrorism that, left unchecked, would spread to neighboring countries in the Middle East, to nations in Europe, and then spread to the United States. Just as Al Qaeda terrorism started with minor attacks in the Middle East, then spread to U.S. barracks in Khobar Towers, Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack on the U.S.S. Cole at port in Yemen (among other attacks), and then culminated in 9/11.
So the proof is already there, that withdrawing our troops won't make Al Qaeda or Iraq insurgents call "mission accomplished" and go home. It would just embolden them to slaughter tens of thousands of their own people if we leave, before spreading their islamic violence to other pro-western Arab nations, Europe and the U.S. This radical Islamic goal is as clearly stated by Al Qaeda, as were Hitler's ambitions of lebensraum and slavic/Jewish extermination in eastern Europe.
But Democrats (with a few exceptions like Joseph Biden and Joseph Lieberman, who are largely held in contempt and marginalized within their own party) are in absolute denial of these facts, in their unrealistic anti-war rhetoric.
And that is where Democrats earn every ounce of condemnation they receive. The goal should be to pursue a winning policy in Iraq. But Democrats, far from just criticizing the way the war is being fought in Iraq, question the morality of our being there at all. In which case, they are more allied with the enemy and the enemy's talking points, than with our own military, and our own national interests.
Well the Biden plan, the one calling for a partitioning of the country actually makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
I'm glad to hear you agree with it. Especially in light of the fact that FOX News has been somewhat against the plan based on their distorted reporting on it.
What the plan sounds like to me in essence is a "United States of Iraq".
And you're correct, I myself couldn't really stand Joe Biden but not on account of policy. To me he just comes off as completely insincere and smarmy. Like the ultimate politician, bleached phony smile and all. And I think that was on account of his desire for higher office.
Lately though and I think on account of that fiasco with the miner widow at the AFL/CIO debates, his aspirations have been so completely evaporated that he's actually starting to become something of a straight shooter which I really appreciate.
During the debate, he committed a fatal faux pas when he dismissed one of the Sago mine widows and moved on to an unrelated subject. He's done. And he looked beaten and defeated on Countdown on MSNBC the following day. Right there and then he finally got interesting. This man knows he'll never be President now. And now as a man who has NOTHING left to lose, he finally got REAL. This clip is unrelated to Iraq but it showed a depth of honesty that frankly was completely absent from this man in interviews before that day. Listen.
Finally back to Iraq.
Originally Posted By: Biden Plan
...it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.
Now while the timeline has obviously moved forward since this was printed, I think the goal should be the same. A phased redeployment. It's just unfortunate that most of the rhetoric regarding this seems to be along the lines of "surrender" and "victory" or "defeat", "Win" or "lose". It makes for great sound bites and talking points but I don't think anyone, right or left, Republican Party or Democratic Party expects "winning" anymore in the sense that Iraq becomes some western democracy that tilts the region likewise. Not realistically and honestly anyways. It's just still a staple of the rhetoric but not supported by any intelligence assessments.
I wouldn't say I endorse that as my first choice (dividing Iraq into 3 states, Kurd, Shi'a and Sunni). But it's a viable backup plan, as opposed to those who just complain about Bush's current plan and offer no alternative strategy.
I also found General Odom's 9 points an interesting alternative strategy, where he argued that all the reasons we argued to stay in Iraq are actually reasons to leave.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Lately though and I think on account of that fiasco with the miner widow at the AFL/CIO debates, his aspirations have been so completely evaporated that he's actually starting to become something of a straight shooter which I really appreciate.
It's the McCain syndrome. Where McCain was a straight shooter who said what he really beleived, until he tried to widen his political base by taking positions that were inconsistent with who he really is. And that having failed, has gone back to being himself.
Originally Posted By: Biden Plan
...it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Now while the timeline has obviously moved forward since this was printed, I think the goal should be the same. A phased redeployment. It's just unfortunate that most of the rhetoric regarding this seems to be along the lines of "surrender" and "victory" or "defeat", "Win" or "lose". It makes for great sound bites and talking points but I don't think anyone, right or left, Republican Party or Democratic Party expects "winning" anymore in the sense that Iraq becomes some western democracy that tilts the region likewise. Not realistically and honestly anyways. It's just still a staple of the rhetoric but not supported by any intelligence assessments.
I think with both the Left and the Right, neither consistently says publicly what they envision for Iraq. Privately, I think many Democrats see the reality that we just can't pack up and leave Iraq. But they have to posture tough for their base. And the Republicans (particularly Sen Lugar and Sen Hagel) see that we can't stay indefinitely in Iraq at or even near our current troop levels. But other Republicans in congress likewise can't look to their base like they're faltering and taking an apparent weaker position than "till the job is done".
I think both realize that the correct path is phased withdrawal, with a continued lower U.S. presence in a supportive and training capacity for the Iraqi government.
And that if all the partisan one-upmanship could be set aside, more moderate heads in congress could propose legislation that 80% of both Republicans and Democrats could agree on.
If nothing else, we now know what it takes to make a Democrat go nuts. One word: "appeasement."
Notwithstanding that President Bush named no names in his speech to Israel's Knesset on Thursday, Barack Obama instantly called it a "false political attack." On him, of course.
something has hit a nerve.
Forget the complaint that Mr. Bush used a Hitler analogy. It's the here and now that has the Democrats upset. The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.
If Barack Obama has an Achilles' heel, this is it. He first exposed it last July in a Democratic debate when he replied, "I would," to a question of whether he'd meet as President with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition." Even Mrs. Clinton took a shot at that one, calling the Senator's comment "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Speaker Pelosi's own April 2007 sojourn to Syria is remembered mainly for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert feeling obliged to correct Ms. Pelosi's announcement that Mr. Olmert had told her he was ready to start peace talks with Syria. Untrue.
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi announced in Damascus: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." There must be a word for this somewhere. Just last month, former President Jimmy Carter met with leaders of Hamas to promote, among other things, "human rights."
But Barack Obama is the party's presumptive standard-bearer for 2008. Thus, let's try to bring this dispute into sharper focus.
Mr. Obama asserted again yesterday that he will not meet with terrorists. He is, however, willing to meet with Iran or Syria. Virtually no serious person disputes that Iran has shipped weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and that Syria has provided safe haven to these terrorists and let them cross from Syria into Iraq. In turn, these jihadists have killed U.S. soldiers. At a minimum, one might expect that ceasing this lethal activity would be a "precondition" before committing the office of the presidency to meet with either.
Leaving no argument unturned, Democrats have reached back to Richard Nixon's trip to China and Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Soviet Union as evidence that Republican Presidents "talk to the enemy." Put it this way: The day Iran brings forth a Chou Enlai and Syria a Mikhail Gorbachev, sure, give them a call.
At bottom this dispute is about understanding the nature of the enemy in Iran, Syria and other sponsors and practitioners of Islamic terror. If the tempest over his indelicate words causes the Democratic presidential nominee to think twice about the political cost of trafficking with Tehran or Damascus, uttering "appeasement" will have been worth it.
