Clinton Urges U.S. to Cut and Run in 90 days [Archive]

LoyalFan

2/18/2007, 11:28 AM

Face it, this war is losing support left and right (intentional double entendre) and will eventually end. Peacetime isn't so bad, really.

Rogue,

And exactly WHAT peace will there be? Wasn't there relative "peace" before 9/11? All a pullout will accomplish is to free those who have vowed to destroy us and our way of life to plot, plan, and carry out yet more attacks HERE!
From the moment we leave Iraq to the sorry vermin there will be, in order, the following: A bloodbath of epic proportion, greater influence wielded by Iran, increased efforts to "convert" the few sane and moderate Arab countries to radical Islam, and deadly attacks here in the US.
So, will you let your kids hang out at the mall, knowing that some crazed and determined subhuman, ala the Trolley Mall Shooter, only toting a few pounds of explosive this time, might very well take them to his perverted version of Paradise with him?
Will you book a few flights? Will you ignore that suspicious-looking package lying beside the road or under your subway seat?
The Evil One (AKA Hillary) and her minions are determined to see this great nation go down. At the very least they are so deluded as to believe that appeasement is the answer.
What WOULD appease the radical Muslims anyway? After they weasel their way into local government, ala Hamtramck MI, which is on the verge of a Muslim takeover (all nice and legal) would they demand all liquor stores and bars close? Would they decree that there would be NO sports? (The Taliban in Afghanistan did just that, FYI.) No music...none, especially Christian hymns and Hebrew songs. Of course, you'll still have a form of music, in the form of the caterwauling "Call to prayer" broadcast from loudspeakers several times a day.
Yep, they'll use our own constitution against us, much as the trash from South of the Border is doing, to gain positions of power then enslave us.
Wake up and sniff the Starbucks(TM), my friend.

Kill them THERE! Kill them NOW!

LF

Rogue

2/18/2007, 11:45 AM

JohnnyMack

2/18/2007, 11:46 AM

She's gonna go "Howard Dean" in no time. She just can't help herself.

Harry Beanbag

2/18/2007, 11:53 AM

I doubt she's hoping to see our nation go down, or for appeasement. I am, and have been, all for the Global War On Terror. I just don't think that Iraq is, or ever was, the center of it. Sorta like we got diverted on our way to hunt down and kill the terrorists. And Iraq was far from the worst place to stop genocide and dictatorship. The most bang for our buck in terms of hunting down terrorists is, IMO, in Afghanistan and it's bordering countries. The most bang for our buck in terms of humanitarian intervention is Africa.

The only thing that Hillary truly believes in is becoming President. The end justifies whatever means are necessary to accomplish that goal in her eyes.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2007, 12:04 PM

I doubt she's hoping to see our nation go down, or for appeasement. I am, and have been, all for the Global War On Terror. I just don't think that Iraq is, or ever was, the center of it. Sorta like we got diverted on our way to hunt down and kill the terrorists. And Iraq was far from the worst place to stop genocide and dictatorship. The most bang for our buck in terms of hunting down terrorists is, IMO, in Afghanistan and it's bordering countries. The most bang for our buck in terms of humanitarian intervention is Africa.Yes, this is the Kool-aid leftist position.
You guys "won" the mid-term elections, and now you think congress is Commander in Chief. If the dims had any honesty, they would simply cut funding, as they are allowed to do by law.
Once we cut and run, what would you have Bush do next with the US military?

Rogue

2/18/2007, 12:23 PM

The same thing he and Cheney did when they had the chance to serve, leave it to the experts and stay the hell out of it. :D

Seriously, as I said in the post you quoted, kill the terrorists where they are and where they train. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of the other "stans" and Syria.

Or, since you know what I think already
You guys "won" the mid-term elections, and now you think...blah blah blah maybe you should tell me what else I think.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 12:31 PM

I just don't think that Iraq is, or ever was, the center of it.

It sure is now.

AQ has told us this time and time again, yet no one listens. You should read the letter to Zarqawi from Zawahri sometime. Everyone should actually. Then ask yourself if running away from the people that flew airplanes into our buildings killing thousands is really a smart thing do to.

Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/

LoyalFan

2/18/2007, 12:35 PM

As a sort of footnote to my previous post in this thread...

The punk who killed those folks at the Trolley Mall in Utah's first name was Sulieman (sp) and he was from Bosnia. Just how many non-Muslims name their spawn THAT? Was he on a Jihad? Will his mom get a death benefit check from Hezbollah or Hamas? Just wondering.
Rogue, this is just another taste if what will come if we don't destroy the bastadges THERE, regardless of collateral damage and world opinion.
Oh, it's gonna happen here anyway, and on a much grander scale, but at least there'll be fewer of the sorry anthropoids to dance in the streets, as shown on Al-Jazeera.
Hmmmm...Idea! Pre-target the favored "dance venues" and when they're out there gloating and ululating...WHAM! One cruise missile and the dancing stops.

LF

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 12:35 PM

Seriously, as I said in the post you quoted, kill the terrorists where they are and where they train. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of the other "stans" and Syria.

I really don't want to be in every nation in the middle east. Two is enough for me thankyou very much. Let them come there and get killed. Better there than here, right?

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 12:49 PM

I think all this cut and run BS is evidence that we are finally succeeding in Iraq.

The Democrats are beginning to panic. Everything they are doing now is to ensure defeat in Iraq and the GWOT.

85Sooner

2/18/2007, 01:02 PM

Most of the wimpy a$$ candidates are for quick pull outs.They DO NOT want to have to deal with the issue. They do not want to have to deal with any tough issues. For heavans sake, The first Clinton pretty much swept every tough issue under the rug. I wouldn't expect any more from her.

Okla-homey

2/18/2007, 01:03 PM

IMHO, if the donks want to pull the plug on the GWOT, it is within their power to do so. All they have to do is cut off the funding.

I don't think they will, because they fear a backlash of epic proportions if they did so. IMHO, the very reason the donks are considered soft on national security to this day is the lingering legacy of Vietnam where they did some of this pursestring-pulling.

Folks who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In the meantime, under our system of government, the Prez. calls the shots...and I think that chaps some folks in Congress...nevertheless, Constitutional arguments to the contrary are non-starters per well settled case law.

I'll tell you something else, I agree with whoever posted a while back that these family franchises on the White House historically haven't worked too well...with the possible exception of TR and FDR. I say HRC needs to focus on being a good Senator and leave the WH to someone new.

Rogue

2/18/2007, 01:13 PM

I really don't want to be in every nation in the middle east. Two is enough for me thankyou very much. Let them come there and get killed. Better there than here, right?

Oh, I'm not sayin' massive troops on the ground everywhere.
This isn't that type of war where we are trying to occupy any country or region, but the kind where we are tryin' to strike first, stike hard, no mercy sir! It is regional, and in some ways global, guerilla hunting. Iraq is a logical place for a regional base, which seems to be one of our unstated goals since the Sauds have never wanted a US base there for popularity reasons. I still think that the fight in Afghanistan has been severely under-emphasized because of our emphasis in Iraq. And if some genius tries to tell me that the whole idea was to destabilize Iraq and attract the terrorists - save it for some other sucker.

Tuba, are you taking Zawahri and Zarqawi at their word this time or do you think they might be clever enough to want us to think that they want us to leave Iraq. As long as we are pumping our resources into Iraq they can have training camps everywhere else.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 01:46 PM

It sure is now.

AQ has told us this time and time again, yet no one listens. You should read the letter to Zarqawi from Zawahri sometime. Everyone should actually. Then ask yourself if running away from the people that flew airplanes into our buildings killing thousands is really a smart thing do to.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/

Heh, have you actually read this whole thing, or just the parts you think might help you?

Do you understand the context of your quote, which has little to do with them saying that Iraq is the center of the war on terror, and more to do with the fact that they hope that they will be able to take advantage of the inevitable power vacuum that occurs when we leave?

For example, let's take this gem:

And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners — many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries — in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take countermeasures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?

What, wait, what what? Is Zawahri saying that the actions Iran is taking in Iraq might have little or nothing to do with attacking Americans, but more to do with supporting Shiites against their enemies?

Wait, did he also say that Iran has a hundred Al-Qaeda prisoners, many of whom are leaders?

Clearly, because our enemy says it is so, it must be so, right?

MojoRisen

2/18/2007, 02:20 PM

Heh, have you actually read this whole thing, or just the parts you think might help you?

Do you understand the context of your quote, which has little to do with them saying that Iraq is the center of the war on terror, and more to do with the fact that they hope that they will be able to take advantage of the inevitable power vacuum that occurs when we leave?

For example, let's take this gem:

What, wait, what what? Is Zawahri saying that the actions Iran is taking in Iraq might have little or nothing to do with attacking Americans, but more to do with supporting Shiites against their enemies?

Wait, did he also say that Iran has a hundred Al-Qaeda prisoners, many of whom are leaders?

Clearly, because our enemy says it is so, it must be so, right?

They want to trade for the MEK in IRAQ- If we don't stay expect a regional conflict in the middle east regardless of our involvement- should we not protect our allies from IRAN... they may just take them out swiftly then.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 02:26 PM

They want to trade for the MEK in IRAQ- If we don't stay expect a regional conflict in the middle east regardless of our involvement- should we not protect our allies from IRAN... they may just take them out swiftly then.

1. Am I reading what you're saying correctly, that the MEK is an ally of ours?
2. We seem to have a regional conflict either way, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
3. About the only clear-cut ally that I see that we have against Iran over there is Israel. There are plenty of "the enemy of my enemy" types over there, but let's remember that the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my ally, they're just someone who wants to hurt my enemy. :D Potentially useful, sure, but never confuse them for friends.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 02:36 PM

we got to fight em there so we don't have to fight em here. kill em all!!! to hell with collateral damage! lets grow a pair and kill em all!!!!! who's with me?!!

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 02:37 PM

After they weasel their way into local government, ala Hamtramck MI, which is on the verge of a Muslim takeover (all nice and legal) would they demand all liquor stores and bars close? Would they decree that there would be NO sports? (The Taliban in Afghanistan did just that, FYI.)
LF

no sports!? now they've gone and done it. seriously, these are people elected to office. they didn't exactly "weasel" their way in. and i haven't actually been to this mecca for terrorism, but i doubt these are jihadists in us office. just a guess.

No music...none, especially Christian hymns and Hebrew songs.

Wake up and sniff the Starbucks(TM), my friend.

LF

would that be such a bad thing. i mean, christian music sucks soooo bad. deny that.

and i like the starbucks reference. i'll go ahead and finish the rest of that sentence for you.

"wake up and sniff the starbucks, you ivy leage, east (or west) coast, hollywood, elite, cut and run liberal."

did i miss anything? oh, and this is a little off topic, but i do like the word defeatocrat. people took out demo and put in defeato! ha! now me try...headuptheirownasslican! derr, i did it too!

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 02:43 PM

Tuba, are you taking Zawahri and Zarqawi at their word this time or do you think they might be clever enough to want us to think that they want us to leave Iraq. As long as we are pumping our resources into Iraq they can have training camps everywhere else.

you've posted alot in this thread that has befuddled me, but that above just really left me confused

you do realize that they want to kill americans....at any costs......these arent people who are concerned for their own safety, they arent afraid of us.....they're gutsy enough to kick us right in the teeth if we let them

so we leave iraq..and you think there will be peace? where are all those insurgents going to go? you know, the ones from syria, iran and jordan?

ok, they might take up camp in afghanistan.......how many american lives can you stomach fighting them there? at what number do you lose the intestinal fortitude to keep going?

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 02:51 PM

ok, they might take up camp in afghanistan.......how many american lives can you stomach fighting them there? at what number do you lose the intestinal fortitude to keep going?

Afghanistan at least has the political advantage of being untainted by the whole "are there/aren't there WMD" thing, Abu Ghraib, etc, and has the advantage of being nearer the real center of Al Qaeda's leadership -- west Pakistan.

Without the political issues like WMD/Abu Ghraib/etc, and the clear cut relation to 9/11 in *everyone's* mind, I think we can sustain ourselves in Afghanistan longer from a purely homefront political point of view. There's really not a lot of room for a pandering political party to drive a wedge into, if you know what I mean.

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 03:05 PM

so its ok to fight the same type of insurgent in afghanistan for that reason?

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 03:15 PM

so its ok to fight the same type of insurgent in afghanistan for that reason?

I'm not even looking at it that way. I'm just looking at it from a "do you want to win or not" point of view.

One of the lessons of the Vietnam War -- and one here, too, if you separate yourself from the immediate emotions -- is that job #1 of the President in a conflict needs to be to ensure public support for our continued involvement in the conflict. If the President fails to do so, we lose, end of story. It happened in Vietnam, and it's happening in Iraq.

Every time something like "are there/aren't there WMD", Abu Ghraib, museum looting, President seems detached from the whole thing, etc, happens, a portion of the public loses trust and faith in the President and in the mission. We've had a lot of those things happen in Iraq, and the result was entirely predictable -- opposition take over of Congress, pandering by that Congress, and the predicament we're in right now.

What I'm saying with respect to Afghanistan is that:
1. I think that Al Qaeda will be just as happy to fight us in Afghanistan as in Iraq. -- Which is important if you subscribe to the "fight em there, not here" theory.
2. I think it's more politically sustainable because it has clear, unquestionable links to 9/11, and it's still relatively "taint" free (WMD, Abu Ghraib, etc). The taint free thing could change depending on what we do, but I think the 9/11 links will not.
3. Afghanistan is closer to the heart of Al Qaeda than Iraq is.

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 03:16 PM

Bush's biggest failure is his ability (or inability) to communicate a message to the masses.....his PR machine frankly sucks

there are TONS of good stories coming out of iraq all the time, yet we never hear them

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 03:24 PM

That may be. I see good stuff, I see bad stuff. I mean, maybe this surge will work, but based on the stuff I've been seeing, and my lack of trust in Bush, I really am not expecting much. I hope it works out, but I'm not confident it will.

And even if Bush turned his PR machine around right now, I don't think we have enough time left in Iraq to turn around public support enough to change public opinion enough to extend our time in Iraq. I think we have a rapidly expiring amount of time left there, and whatever we're gonna do, we better do it now.

Afghanistan, however... like I said, it's untainted, it's got clear links, it's closer to the heart of Al Qaeda, and I think that the jihadists will follow us there too. Irrespective of what happens in Iraq, I think that's where we need to move next, if only to reunite the public behind our anti-terrorism efforts.

Harry Beanbag

2/18/2007, 03:38 PM

The media is what controls public opinion, not the President.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 03:39 PM

The media is what controls public opinion, not the President.

The President is quite capable of being a member of the media if he wants to be. See FDR and his "Fireside Chats."

IIRC, Reagan did a pretty good job of it too.

Harry Beanbag

2/18/2007, 03:48 PM

The President is quite capable of being a member of the media if he wants to be. See FDR and his "Fireside Chats."

IIRC, Reagan did a pretty good job of it too.

Yeah, doesn't Bush already do a weekly radio broadcast? Does anybody ever listen to it? FDR was able to reach a huge chunk of the population back then.

And Reagan was arguably the greatest speaker and communicator that has ever held that office, that's kind of a tough comparison.

I'm not saying Bush couldn't have done better, obviously he could have, but the average Joe out there soaks up the evening news while eating dinner and form their opinions based on what they are spoon fed along with their mac & cheese in front of the TV.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2007, 03:50 PM

The media always has been against almost everything Bush does, and the bastages control nearly everything except talk radio and the Fox News Channel. It's surprising Bush was able to get re-elected, given the reality of constant media hostility.
Reagan did a wonderful job of bypassing the media members, by talking directly to the American people. Reagan knew the ferocity of the left, and was successful in the War At home. Unfortunately for Bush, and America, he doesn't seem to completely grasp their hatred for all things Republican, and continues efforts to appease them and "make nice" with them.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 03:52 PM

Yeah, he does do a weekly broadcast, and yeah, nobody wants to listen to it. :D

People wanted to listen to FDR though. And Reagan.

I'm not saying that the media doesn't have influence, what I'm saying is that the President has lots of outlets available to him. Whether he uses them, or even uses them effectively, is on him.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 04:02 PM

Incidentally, this whole messaging thing is a big part of why I think Hillary would make a poor president.

Irrespective of her qualifications and abilities, a large enough portion of the country will knee-jerk disregard what she says that she'll be unable to accomplish much. I just don't see her bringing enough people into her fold in the long term.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 04:18 PM

Yeah, doesn't Bush already do a weekly radio broadcast? Does anybody ever listen to it? FDR was able to reach a huge chunk of the population back then.

And Reagan was arguably the greatest speaker and communicator that has ever held that office, that's kind of a tough comparison.

I'm not saying Bush couldn't have done better, obviously he could have, but the average Joe out there soaks up the evening news while eating dinner and form their opinions based on what they are spoon fed along with their mac & cheese in front of the TV.

The other thing is, it's not just about being able to speak and talk. It's about appropriate action. Take for example Alberto Gonzales' memo thing where he suggested that terrorists/insurgents/Taliban fighters/etc are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and thus are eligible for certain... treatments.

Now ask yourself -- what do you think the reaction on the home front is going to be? Do you think that everyone is going "Oh yeah, torture's good!" Of course not. The vast majority of Americans are at a minimum uncomfortable with the notion, and a sizable portion are vehemently opposed under very nearly any circumstances.

Knowing that, is it a smart thing to officially endorse the policy, even if you agree with it? Or is it smarter to publically refute the policy, even if you go ahead with it out of sight?

I accept that under certain circumstances such harsh methods are necessary. But I reject the notion that:
1. It's smart for our government to have it as official policy.
2. It's even acceptable to have our military involved in it. (This sort of **** is why we have the CIA!)
3. It's smart for our government to fail to maintain at least plausible deniability.

It's not all about saying the right things, it's about doing the right things, or at least doing the wrong things in the right way.

JohnnyMack

2/18/2007, 05:07 PM

After all these years we've learned nothing.

At least we haven't learned to ask the right questions.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 05:14 PM

It's surprising Bush was able to get re-elected, given the reality of constant media hostility.

no it's not, because everyone knew what was at stake. gays getting married. gross. nothing frightens evangelicals more.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 05:20 PM

Do you understand the context of your quote, which has little to do with them saying that Iraq is the center of the war on terror, and more to do with the fact that they hope that they will be able to take advantage of the inevitable power vacuum that occurs when we leave??

They hope???

AQ clearly outlines a plan to establish their long sought after celephate in Iraq, because they couldn't do it in Afganistan.

Clearly you did not read this.

85Sooner

2/18/2007, 05:21 PM

I'm not even looking at it that way. I'm just looking at it from a "do you want to win or not" point of view.

One of the lessons of the Vietnam War -- and one here, too, if you separate yourself from the immediate emotions -- is that job #1 of the President in a conflict needs to be to ensure public support for our continued involvement in the conflict. If the President fails to do so, we lose, end of story. It happened in Vietnam, and it's happening in Iraq.

Every time something like "are there/aren't there WMD", Abu Ghraib, museum looting, President seems detached from the whole thing, etc, happens, a portion of the public loses trust and faith in the President and in the mission. We've had a lot of those things happen in Iraq, and the result was entirely predictable -- opposition take over of Congress, pandering by that Congress, and the predicament we're in right now.

What I'm saying with respect to Afghanistan is that:
1. I think that Al Qaeda will be just as happy to fight us in Afghanistan as in Iraq. -- Which is important if you subscribe to the "fight em there, not here" theory.
2. I think it's more politically sustainable because it has clear, unquestionable links to 9/11, and it's still relatively "taint" free (WMD, Abu Ghraib, etc). The taint free thing could change depending on what we do, but I think the 9/11 links will not.
3. Afghanistan is closer to the heart of Al Qaeda than Iraq is.

The media is so communist that a president would have to spend all of his time combating the sumbags (and still probably not be able to overcome their bias)

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 05:23 PM

The President is quite capable of being a member of the media if he wants to be. See FDR and his "Fireside Chats."

IIRC, Reagan did a pretty good job of it too.

FDR?

FDR controlled the media. He told them what news to print and what not to print coming out of the white house. Hell, he had them cover up that fact he was in a WHEEL CHAIR, was screwing some chick in Georgia on the side, and was basically unfit to be President for the last few months of his life.

And Reagan???

The media attacked him all day long. Fortunatly, Reagan was just to good of a President to let himself be destroyed by the left-wing media.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 05:23 PM

The media is so communist that a president would have to spend all of his time combating the sumbags (and still probably not be able to overcome their bias)

shrug, maybe so.

Keeping the public supporting the war is still necessary, and the President is the only guy in a position to do it. If he can't keep support high, then he better at least win quick. If he can't do either, well, you know the end result.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 05:29 PM

Its hard to keep the public support for a war high when so many people work to undermine it, for political gain no less.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 05:35 PM

Its hard to keep the public support for a war high when so many people work to undermine it, for political gain no less.

Cry me a river. **** like "are there/aren't there WMD", Gonzales' memo, Abu Ghraib, etc, were all avoidable, and were like mana from the heavens for our enemies.

You want to blame the media? That's pointless, it's their ****ing nature and charter to tear down the powers that be. Why else guarantee the freedom of the press if that's not the point?

If you give em ammo, don't be suprised when they shoot you with it.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 05:43 PM

it's really hard to keep public support high for the war when you've managed to screw just about everything up that could be. and this war never started off very well in the beginning with all the blunders of intel. you can say, "well, we're there now", but that's not enough to sway public opinion. everything the politicians said was b.s. and the dems and media didn't have the spine to raise any questions. either no spine or just didn't care. take your pick. man, i hate our two parties.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 05:48 PM

Cry me a river. **** like "are there/aren't there WMD", Gonzales' memo, Abu Ghraib, etc, were all avoidable, and were like mana from the heavens for our enemies.
You do realize everyone thought they had WMD, right?

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

And tell me, how many people died cause of abu graib?

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 05:54 PM

You do realize everyone thought they had WMD, right?

Christ, how many times do you want to go over this ground? You keep using that as an excuse -- and that's all it is, a weak, flimsy excuse -- and I keep telling you the same thing over and over again.

It doesn't matter who thought what. It's not Congress' job to ensure that the intelligence is right, it's the President's. And it doesn't matter if Clinton thought it was right, because Clinton wasn't in office and ain't ****ing in office.

When the President leads the nation to war, he better be ****ing right, because if he's not, there are serious consequences.

And tell me, how many people died cause of abu graib?

Who knows? How many people turned against the war, in part due to Abu Ghraib? Do you really think it's zero?

Rogue

2/18/2007, 05:59 PM

I agree with "def lazer fc" that 2 parties is the succ.

This thread illustrates why, no matter how many times I agree with Hillary, I hope she doesn't get the dem nomination. She is too polarizing a figure. The current administration is very polarizing too and I'm ready for a good moderate in office in order to emphasize the common ground that exists between the left and right. And I hope that we start electing veterans again too.

Rogue

2/18/2007, 06:01 PM

To clarify, we need MORE than 2 viable parties.

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 06:02 PM

the one single thing that the two parties share in common is the ability to bash the hell out of anything resembling a viable/electable third party

Octavian

2/18/2007, 06:13 PM

The American public didn't turn against this war because the media is fabricating false stories about Iraq and making it appear worse than it is....they know a sh1tstorm when they see one.

Political leaders from both sides of the isle and many high profile administration officials and military commanders have reached that same conclusion.

But clearly, the blames lies with the Decomrats and the media?

Lay the tinfoil hats back down.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 06:32 PM

But clearly, the blames lies with the Decomrats and the media?

and hollywood. don't forget hollywood. and i think the gays probably did something bad in there too.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2007, 07:08 PM

The American public didn't turn against this war because the media is fabricating false stories about Iraq and making it appear worse than it is....they know a sh1tstorm when they see one.

Political leaders from both sides of the isle and many high profile administration officials and military commanders have reached that same conclusion.

That's some pretty wrong stuff,there. But, deep down you know it, or at least should.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/18/2007, 07:11 PM

When the President leads the nation to war, he better be ****ing democrat, because if he's not, there are serious consequences.

Who knows? How many people turned against the war, in part due to the media's overplaying Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Do you really think it's zero?Fixed

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 07:13 PM

...
fixed

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 07:35 PM

Fixed

Back during the run-up, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. I defended him against other people who were ranting on and on about how he's just making **** up and how this is going to turn out like Vietnam.

I told people that we owe the President the benefit of the doubt; so far he'd done a pretty good job with foreign policy. And even if it might look like it might become Vietnam, surely we've learned our lessons and know how to take care of business. Surely they won't let the same PR disasters that turned the public against Vietnam happen again.

So, yeah, based on performance, why would I give him the benefit of the doubt again?

Who knows? How many people turned against the war, in part due to the media's overplaying Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Do you really think it's zero?

Better yet: Don't have an Abu Ghraib or a Gitmo, or if you do, at least make sure nobody knows about it, and you don't have that problem, do you?

If something like that happens, the media is going to play it. Over and over again. Expecting anything else is the act of an idiot. So being suprised or angry when it does happen is stupid; do something on the front end to prevent it from being a problem. Don't let it happen, or do a better job covering it up.

FaninAma

2/18/2007, 07:37 PM

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 07:44 PM

Day after day of negative media coverage has shaped the public perception of Iraq.

non stop coverage? i have to channel surf constantly to find ANYTHING about the war. since anna nicole smith died and american idol started back up, you'd think nothing else occurs in this world. so without all that war news, those approval ratings should be skyrocketing in no time.

soonerhubs

2/18/2007, 07:47 PM

http://media.bestprices.com/content/music/50/815150.jpg

Rogue

2/18/2007, 08:08 PM

Day after day of negative media coverage has shaped the public perception of Iraq.

It is hard to fight an enemy that has so little reagrd for human life, including that of innocent people as well as their own. They know that that is their big advantage and it all starts with their understanding of how squemish the liberals are in this country about the loss of life....unless it's an unborn child.

It's not really a "child" until it's born. Just sayin'. ;)

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 08:10 PM

non stop coverage? i have to channel surf constantly to find ANYTHING about the war. since anna nicole smith died and american idol started back up, you'd think nothing else occurs in this world. so without all that war news, those approval ratings should be skyrocketing in no time.

may i suggest that you branch out on your news coverage....you wont find this kind of news on the E channel....

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 08:20 PM

may i suggest that you branch out on your news coverage....you wont find this kind of news on the E channel....

i've never watched the e channel jackass. turn on msnbc, cnn, or even fox, and see what you get. i leave my tv at work on the news all day, and anna nicole smith and american idol are plastered all over it. and so may i suggest that you not jump to conclusions about what i watch.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 08:22 PM

It's not really a "child" until it's born. Just sayin'. ;)

you really wanna open that pandora's box? don't say i didn't warn ya.

JohnnyMack

2/18/2007, 08:29 PM

Some people still can't understand why 09/11 happened.

Rogue

2/18/2007, 08:32 PM

i've never watched the e channel jackass. .

And you're warning me!

:pop:

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 08:35 PM

Some people still can't understand why 09/11 happened.

duh, it's cuz they hate our freedom. they being the evildoers here.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 08:36 PM

And you're warning me!

:pop:

hey, i know two things in this world. the e channel sucks since they replaced the guy with the skunk spot on talk soup (like 8 years ago?), and never...ever...bring up abortion.

Rogue

2/18/2007, 08:39 PM

I was merely responding....nevermind.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 08:42 PM

I was merely responding....nevermind.

oh...derr...nevermind. im a slow reader :)

SoonerGirl06

2/18/2007, 08:46 PM

i've never watched the e channel jackass.

Your name calling is totally uncalled for. If you want people to take you seriously... raise your standards.

SoonerGirl06

2/18/2007, 08:55 PM

The American public didn't turn against this war because the media is fabricating false stories about Iraq and making it appear worse than it is....they know a sh1tstorm when they see one.

The media isn't fabricating false stories about Iraq... actually the mainstream media is swaying the public opinion by not reporting the positives about the war. If all you hear are one sided opinions and viewpoints, you're eventually going to believe its true.

The mainstream media is basically liberal in their ideology and will do anything to point out the failures of the war.

And before ya'll start jumping my ***... I agree that Iraq has basically been a clusterf^ck the past 3 years... but I think we've done some good there as well.

I also believe that the worst thing we could do is set a timeline as to when we should leave. IMO it sends the wrong message to the enemies.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 09:08 PM

I also believe that the worst thing we could do is set a timeline as to when we should leave. IMO it sends the wrong message to the enemies.
besides the "gotta fight em there, so we don't fight em here" rhetoric, this has got to be my next hated argument. it basically leaves no other option but to continue indefinitely with no end in sight. besides, since when have we been concerned with sending the "right" message to the enemy? and i'm sorry for saying the word jackass, but...i thought the guy was a democrat so i was addressing him properly. i swear.

Rogue

2/18/2007, 09:14 PM

JK a democrat? First rule of what to do when you find yourself in a hole...quit digging.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 09:21 PM

A flippin and a floppin...

...it was on the initiative of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, both of whom delivered extremely tough speeches warning of another round of confrontation with Saddam Hussein, that the Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act that year, making it U.S. policy to remove the Baathists from power. It was the Clinton administration that bombed Sudan, claiming that a factory outside Khartoum represented a chemical-weapons link between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. And, as Sen. Clinton reminded us in the very same speech, it was "President Clinton, with the British and others, [who] ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets" in Iraq. On its own, this is enough to make childish nonsense of her insinuation that an "obsession" with Saddam took root only after the Bush-Cheney victory in 2000.

http://www.slate.com/id/2159572/pagenum/all/

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 09:23 PM

It doesn't matter who thought what. It's not Congress' job to ensure that the intelligence is right, it's the President's. And it doesn't matter if Clinton thought it was right, because Clinton wasn't in office and ain't ****ing in office.
Well, considering it was The Congress AND The President in 1998 that passed the Iraq Liberation Act and it was Clinton that Voted FOR the war, then yes, it does matter.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 09:32 PM

JK a democrat? First rule of what to do when you find yourself in a hole...quit digging.

or dig to china

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 09:32 PM

Well, considering it was The Congress AND The President in 1998 that passed the Iraq Liberation Act and it was Clinton that Voted FOR the war, then yes, it does matter.

From your point of view, sure. You've got a dog in the race, and you clutch at anything that backs up your boy.

If an officer issues a disastrous order that gets everyone in his unit killed, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?" If a CEO drives his company into the ground, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?" Hell no.

Bush is the Commander In Chief. He issues the orders. He was at the helm when all this went down. Ultimately, anything that happens on his watch is his responsibility, and he owns it to his glory or to his shame. That's what being a leader is.

Or that's what it's supposed to be anyway.

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 09:39 PM

If an officer issues a disastrous order that gets everyone in his unit killed, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?" If a CEO drives his company into the ground, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?"

Again, since you don't seem to get it, one person didn't make this decision. It was a road we began on years before Bush was even elected.

And, it was Congress that authorized it, including the flip flopper Mrs. Clinton.

Yet it's much easier just to ignore all the facts and blame Bush for everything, isn't it???

OklahomaTuba

2/18/2007, 09:41 PM

Bush is the Commander In Chief. He issues the orders. He was at the helm when all this went down. Ultimately, anything that happens on his watch is his responsibility, and he owns it to his glory or to his shame. That's what being a leader is.

Or that's what it's supposed to be anyway.

So I guess all those that advocated this war for years, even before Bush was elected, some how escape responsibility?????

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 09:50 PM

if some people had their way, bush and his cronies wouldn't get any blame either. oh right, they don't. they get medals.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 09:53 PM

Again, since you don't seem to get it, one person didn't make this decision. It was a road we began on years before Bush was even elected.

And, it was Congress that authorized it, including the flip flopper Mrs. Clinton.

Yet it's much easier just to ignore all the facts and blame Bush for everything, isn't it???

I'm not ignoring any facts. I've seen them, many times, as you kindly point them out ad nauseum -- the same ones over and over, as if seeing the same thing over and over and over again is going to change anyone's mind.

The fact is, this is just the way I was brought up. It doesn't matter what other people think. You make your own decisions, and you own them, whether to your glory or your shame. That other people agreed with you, or made the same mistake does not absolve you. This is especially true when you're the leader of men, whether in a military, business or political role.

Hiding behind group consensus is the adult equivalent of hiding behind your mother's skirts. It's the defense of a guilty child who submitted to peer pressure. It's utterly contemptable.

SoonerGirl06

2/18/2007, 09:54 PM

besides the "gotta fight em there, so we don't fight em here" rhetoric, this has got to be my next hated argument. it basically leaves no other option but to continue indefinitely with no end in sight.
besides, since when have we been concerned with sending the "right" message to the enemy? and i'm sorry for saying the word jackass, but...i thought the guy was a democrat so i was addressing him properly. i swear.

As long as Iran keeps misbehaving the last thing we need to do is leave the region. It would be disastrous if we did so.

Sending the "right" message is a lot different than telling them what our "gameplan" is. You don't give the enemy that kind of information so that they can use it against you.

I think you need to apologize to JK instead of me... he's the one who has a son deployed over there. Anyone who has family fighting or who themselves are fighting for our liberties and our freedoms deserves our respect... no matter what their political affiliation is. JMHO.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 09:55 PM

I'm not ignoring any facts. I've seen them, many times, as you kindly point them out ad nauseum -- the same ones over and over, as if seeing the same thing over and over and over again is going to change anyone's mind.

The fact is, this is just the way I was brought up. It doesn't matter what other people think. You make your own decisions, and you own them, whether to your glory or your shame. That other people agreed with you, or made the same mistake does not absolve you. This is especially true when you're the leader of men, whether in a military, business or political role.

Hiding behind group consensus is the adult equivalent of hiding behind your mother's skirts. It's the defense of a guilty child who submitted to peer pressure. It's utterly contemptable.

word.

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 09:56 PM

So I guess all those that advocated this war for years, even before Bush was elected, some how escape responsibility?????

Did I say that? No.

I am merely objecting to your repeated reference to the group consensus as absolution for Bush's role in presiding over the cluster **** that has ensued.

Didn't your mother ever ask you as a kid, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?"

Same damned thing.

SoonerGirl06

2/18/2007, 09:57 PM

From your point of view, sure. You've got a dog in the race, and you clutch at anything that backs up your boy.

If an officer issues a disastrous order that gets everyone in his unit killed, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?" If a CEO drives his company into the ground, does he get to say, "Well, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time...?" Hell no.

Bush is the Commander In Chief. He issues the orders. He was at the helm when all this went down. Ultimately, anything that happens on his watch is his responsibility, and he owns it to his glory or to his shame. That's what being a leader is.

Or that's what it's supposed to be anyway.

I think Bush has accepted responsibility for what has happened on his watch. I also see him trying to correct it... IMO.

If the Democrats would offer a solution other than just their same ol' rhetoric, I think I could respect them a little bit better. But to just offer the idea that we need to "cut and run" in my opinion doesn't resolve any of the issues that we're now facing over there.

jk the sooner fan

2/18/2007, 09:58 PM

JK a democrat? lol......hardly

Vaevictis

2/18/2007, 10:08 PM

I think Bush has accepted responsibility for what has happened on his watch. I also see him trying to correct it... IMO.

I'm really not saying anything to the contrary. My objection is to Tuba's repeated comments where he essentially says, "Well so-and-so agreed, so that means what Bush did was okay."

If the Democrats would offer a solution other than just their same ol' rhetoric, I think I could respect them a little bit better. But to just offer the idea that we need to "cut and run" in my opinion doesn't resolve any of the issues that we're now facing over there.

I don't think anyone has a solution that enough people will buy into. Which leads to withdrawal by default.

That's not something I'm particularly pleased with, but I think that's the reality of the situation.

def_lazer_fc

2/18/2007, 10:09 PM

I think you need to apologize to JK instead of me... he's the one who has a son deployed over there. Anyone who has family fighting or who themselves are fighting for our liberties and our freedoms deserves our respect... no matter what their political affiliation is. JMHO.
me calling him a jackass in no way had any, ANY, context to ANYTHING political whatsoever. i made a comment about the news. just news. he assumes i get my news from celebrity gossip channels. i call him a jackass. period. why does the fact that he has family in iraq (which i say is a great duty and kudos to you sir for the commitment) have any bearing on whether or not i can call him a jackass in this situation. my guess is he doesn't even care, as he's probably been called a lot worse over the years. (we all have) so save the uber sensitivity for another time. but if it will appease you soonergirl....JK, i am sorry for referring to you as a jackass. you made a snide comment to me, and i replied in kind. in no way was the word "jackass" meant to offend anyone.
seriously though, i say jackass a lot, so the mean-spiritedness of the word has been diluted a lot over the years. just an fyi for future reference. jackass. see? that wasn't that bad was it?

MojoRisen

2/19/2007, 06:47 PM

1. Am I reading what you're saying correctly, that the MEK is an ally of ours?
2. We seem to have a regional conflict either way, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
3. About the only clear-cut ally that I see that we have against Iran over there is Israel. There are plenty of "the enemy of my enemy" types over there, but let's remember that the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my ally, they're just someone who wants to hurt my enemy. :D Potentially useful, sure, but never confuse them for friends.

1. I am not an expert but it is my understanding we have common interest in IRAQ with this group- Iran considers them Terriost and wants to trade Al queda for these MEK folks- but it is complicated... We have other Allies than Isreal in the mid east-

I do believe that Isreal will not allow IRan to have Nuclear weapons at almost any cost.

Vaevictis

2/19/2007, 07:25 PM

1. I am not an expert but it is my understanding we have common interest in IRAQ with this group- Iran considers them Terriost and wants to trade Al queda for these MEK folks- but it is complicated...

MEK's on the US terrorist watchlist.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/sponsor.html#Iraq

Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Common cause? Maybe. Ally? Doubtful.

We have other Allies than Isreal in the mid east-

I think maybe our definition of "ally" disagrees. Israel is the only one I trust to have our backs to any degree when the chips are down. That's what I call an "ally." The rest have common cause, but are "allies" only to the extent that we just happen to be the most profitable "ally" to maintain at the moment. If the wind changes direction, so will they. IMO.

Turkey may be the one exception -- being that they're in NATO now -- but I consider the jury to be out on them.

I do believe that Isreal will not allow IRan to have Nuclear weapons at almost any cost.

Israel would be fools to allow it, assuming it's within their power to prevent it.

Harry Beanbag

2/19/2007, 08:48 PM

I think maybe our definition of "ally" disagrees. Israel is the only one I trust to have our backs to any degree when the chips are down. That's what I call an "ally." The rest have common cause, but are "allies" only to the extent that we just happen to be the most profitable "ally" to maintain at the moment. If the wind changes direction, so will they. IMO.

Turkey may be the one exception -- being that they're in NATO now -- but I consider the jury to be out on them.

No matter what your definition of ally is, this kind of thing has always happened. The Soviets were our ally in WWII, but they weren't exactly our friends either.

Vaevictis

2/19/2007, 09:02 PM

No matter what your definition of ally is, this kind of thing has always happened. The Soviets were our ally in WWII, but they weren't exactly our friends either.

So, are the MEK our ally then? What I'm saying is, don't confuse an "ally" (common cause) with an ally (friend).

Mojo originally suggested that we should protect our allies. If we're talking ally (friend), then sure, I agree. If we're talking "ally" (common cause), then only in so far as it advances our interests.

(EDIT: And yeah, you're right about the USSR being our allies during WWII, but the use of the word ally before the Cold War didn't have the same implications (friendship being one of them) as it often has today. Which is why I'm being particular about usage.)

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 12:11 AM

We still consider France an ally as well.

Not really sure why, but we do nonetheless.

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2007, 12:12 AM

We still consider France an ally as well.

Not really sure why, but we do nonetheless.

Well, that all depends on if you're talking about an ally or an ally.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 12:14 AM

I am merely objecting to your repeated reference to the group consensus as absolution for Bush's role in presiding over the cluster **** that has ensued.

Not really sure what there is to object. Facts are facts, and I can post them again and again.

While the final call was Bush's, the fact is we were on track to liberate Iraq long before Bush was ever elected. The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 proves that, as does the numerous bombings Clinton ordered and threats he issued about using force to stop his WMD programs.

And, as we both know, 9/11 made it much more important to deal with the threat, given the intel we had at the time on his support of terrorism, and the fact that he was within months having a nuke if he wanted too.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 12:16 AM

Well, that all depends on if you're talking about an ally or an ally.

I was never good at talking liberal.

I am still trying to figure out the meaning of "is".

MojoRisen

2/20/2007, 10:09 AM

So, are the MEK our ally then? What I'm saying is, don't confuse an "ally" (common cause) with an ally (friend).

Mojo originally suggested that we should protect our allies. If we're talking ally (friend), then sure, I agree. If we're talking "ally" (common cause), then only in so far as it advances our interests.

(EDIT: And yeah, you're right about the USSR being our allies during WWII, but the use of the word ally before the Cold War didn't have the same implications (friendship being one of them) as it often has today. Which is why I'm being particular about usage.)

Vaevictis- Yes Allies as in countries not Polital groups like MEK- more along the lines of Saudi, Egypt , Turkey , Pakistan- some stronger than others

MEK- not ally but critical in our Intel on IRAN and weapons- although not too be used as fact- they have a lot of Intel-

Certainly when it comes to Iran Saudis are stepping up the heat as well- so back too your common cause thing- but Sadis would likely have too be considered an ally.

jdsooner

2/20/2007, 10:47 AM

I agree with the theme of this thread. "Cut one and run!" If that doesn't work, blame it on the dog.

stoopified

2/20/2007, 11:11 AM

Rogue,

And exactly WHAT peace will there be? Wasn't there relative "peace" before 9/11? All a pullout will accomplish is to free those who have vowed to destroy us and our way of life to plot, plan, and carry out yet more attacks HERE!
From the moment we leave Iraq to the sorry vermin there will be, in order, the following: A bloodbath of epic proportion, greater influence wielded by Iran, increased efforts to "convert" the few sane and moderate Arab countries to radical Islam, and deadly attacks here in the US.
So, will you let your kids hang out at the mall, knowing that some crazed and determined subhuman, ala the Trolley Mall Shooter, only toting a few pounds of explosive this time, might very well take them to his perverted version of Paradise with him?
Will you book a few flights? Will you ignore that suspicious-looking package lying beside the road or under your subway seat?
The Evil One (AKA Hillary) and her minions are determined to see this great nation go down. At the very least they are so deluded as to believe that appeasement is the answer.
What WOULD appease the radical Muslims anyway? After they weasel their way into local government, ala Hamtramck MI, which is on the verge of a Muslim takeover (all nice and legal) would they demand all liquor stores and bars close? Would they decree that there would be NO sports? (The Taliban in Afghanistan did just that, FYI.) No music...none, especially Christian hymns and Hebrew songs. Of course, you'll still have a form of music, in the form of the caterwauling "Call to prayer" broadcast from loudspeakers several times a day.
Yep, they'll use our own constitution against us, much as the trash from South of the Border is doing, to gain positions of power then enslave us.
Wake up and sniff the Starbucks(TM), my friend.

Kill them THERE! Kill them NOW!

LFCoudln't agree with you more.It is as if you read my mind word-for-word.BTW quit that dammit! :)

)Seriously ignoring a Sadam controlled Iraq would have been like ignoring Hitler controlled Germany in say 1937,OH wait that is what happened then.Didn't turn out so well for millions of people did it?Some people have never understood that and can't imagine that Iraq itself and terrorists they sponsored could be a danger to us.These are the same people who never dreamed the Taliban nad some guy named Bin Laden could be a threat.Then came 9/11.

The only way some people (H. Clinton and many others) will find this out is if Hilary is eleted to athird term in the Oval Office(you didn't really think Bill was the Prez, did you?) and pulls out the troops and leaves the Al Qaeda and others free to plot another 9/11.

It is of course pure chance that there have been no sucessful terroist attacks on the U.S.A. since the war on terrorism bgan.:D

MojoRisen

2/20/2007, 11:14 AM

Looks like Putin stoped the Uranium enrichment project for the Iranians- after his big words last week.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, has said he will not suspend his uranium enrichment programme as a precondition of talks on his country's nuclear plans, as demanded by a UN security Council resolution. He said Iran was willing to take part in negotiations, but not under what he called unjust conditions.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei has until the end of the week to report on whether Iran has met the deadline, set almost by the UN security Council, to stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel.

He's already said he expects the West to step up sanctions if Iran fails to comply. As the deadline to stop enrichment grows nearer, Russia has suspended a planned delivery of nuclear fuel to a plant it built for the Iranians in Bushehr. Russia says Tehran is behind with it payments. But officials in the Iranian capital say they've stuck strictly to the terms of the contract with Moscow.

mdklatt

2/20/2007, 11:28 AM

I think Bush has accepted responsibility for what has happened on his watch. I also see him trying to correct it... IMO.

Belatedly. The biggest problem the Bush administration has is the inability to admit when things aren't working out. If you're driving towards a brick wall at 80 MPH, turning the steering wheel or hitting the brake pedal isn't "cutting and running" or "flip flopping", it's common ****ing sense.

If the party not in power would offer a solution other than just their same ol' rhetoric, I think I could respect them a little bit better.

You get the same **** from either party.

mdklatt

2/20/2007, 11:30 AM

While the final call was Bush's, the fact is we were on track to liberate Iraq long before Bush was ever elected.

The buck stops...everywhere but this administration, apparently.

Vaevictis

2/20/2007, 12:32 PM

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3064/passthebuckws4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Truman understood, which is why Truman was a great President.

Vaevictis

2/20/2007, 12:59 PM

Not really sure what there is to object. Facts are facts, and I can post them again and again.

Simple: You post the facts as if group consensus absolves any or all of the members of the group of responsibility. The concept is not hard to understand.

I object to the notion that a kid who submits to peer pressure can disclaim responsibility because the group thought it was a good idea. I object to the notion that an individual that shipped Jews off to Auschwitz is not responsible because it was the prevailing wind in Germany at the time. I object to the notion that any member of this government can disclaim responsibility for what's going on in Iraq on the basis that so many people were wrong.

I especially object to the notion when it's the leader of the pack of kids applying the peer pressure, when it's an officer in the SS, or when it's the President of the United States. Nobody is more singularly responsible for the actions of the group than its leader.

You state your facts in an attempt to absolve Bush of his responsibility as the President and the Commander in Chief by saying, "Well, EVERYONE agreed, so Bush's responsibility is lesser." This is what I object to.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:29 PM

The buck stops...everywhere but this administration, apparently.
Never said that, but please, misquote me as you like. Never seems to bother you the other times you do it.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:40 PM

You state your facts in an attempt to absolve Bush of his responsibility as the President and the Commander in Chief by saying, "Well, EVERYONE agreed, so Bush's responsibility is lesser." This is what I object to.

It's really amusing how simplistic and black and white your world is Vae.

You some how really believe that Bush just rolled out of the Whitehouse bed one morning and thought invading Iraq was just a good idear?

I state facts to do just that, state facts.

I know history and facts aren't kind to liberals, and thus you all like to ignore them, but in this case, Its a little hard to ignore the those bad ol facts.

The facts easily show that weak in the knee liberals with no spine can somehow get away with helping send this nation to war, then as soon as the going gets tough, they want to cut and run, and even worse, cut and run for purely political gain.

John F. Kerry sure comes to mind. Of course, so does the person called for a full retreat, Mrs. Clinton.

Oh, but they bear no responsibility whatsoever now. Nice. Glad to know a Senator has so responsibility for what things they vote on now, do they??

If Hillary Clinton thinks that this war she voted for AND supported was a mistake, Maybe she should just resign??

If she really thinks her actions in Congress were so bad, why should we believe that she can be trusted with the White House???

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:45 PM

I object to the notion that a kid who submits to peer pressure can disclaim responsibility because the group thought it was a good idea.

Excuse me, but my I ask when Bush or anyone ever disclaimed responsiblity???

You seem to think he has, yet facts just don't back your argument up, yet again.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:47 PM

I object to the notion that any member of this government can disclaim responsibility for what's going on in Iraq on the basis that so many people were wrong.

Oh, OK.

So Hillary, Kerry, et al cannot disclaim responsibility then.

Gotcha.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:58 PM

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 01:59 PM

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375

mdklatt

2/20/2007, 01:59 PM

Never said that, but please, misquote me as you like.

Where did I misquote you?

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 02:00 PM

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 02:01 PM

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2007, 02:02 PM

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103