|
Post by traveler on May 3, 2007 8:29:29 GMT -5
LS, great post and right on target.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 7:50:21 GMT -5
I apologize for the length and lack of link but this was emailed to me.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 9:51:23 GMT -5
The president is not a quitter which might just be his flaw. He told us from the start of this that it was going to takt time and cost alot of money. He is not driven by the polls and keeps his word which just might be another flaw. However, the above does make a good point.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 4, 2007 10:43:25 GMT -5
You don't run wars by polls. Was Nixon a 'quitter' for abandoning a spineless Saigon regime?
Yes, if they were given a choice Americans would like us out of Iraq. *I* would like us out. I don’t want us out if it means Iraq ends up imploding or getting absorbed by some other country.
Thus fund the war.
Or cowboy up and actively defund it.
Hideous options.
The war WILL be funded. We will simply have to stay until Iraq asks us to leave. Shiites and Sunni's will still be bombing each other in all probability, but we can decamp to close-by precincts to thwart an invading neighbor.
Will this adventure have been worth it? Sure, you could argue Iraq will not be an al Qaeda haven. But the big-play jihadists will hardly be cowering and on the run -- which is where they might be today had we been less prone to attack the first asshole waving a sword around and defying UN sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 10:50:36 GMT -5
LT, I could not agree more. Hideous options but those are the only options available.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 11:00:19 GMT -5
I think even if Iraq asked us to leave we will still have to leave a force there. The night before last John Kerry even said this. CNN the other night had a fine point why we can not leave but it is clear that we should not do this alone.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 4, 2007 11:48:41 GMT -5
Why does nobody seem to care that by means of his veto, Bush is keeping the funding our troops need from them?
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 11:59:21 GMT -5
Because the dems knew the bill would be vetoed before it was even drafted yet they insisted on politicizing the issue rather than working with the Commander in Chief and field Generals in the prosecution of the war.
As Harry Reid was caught saying recently, they are more concerned about winning Senate seats than they are about the winning the war. It is really just that simple.
What purpose did it serve for the dems to waste valuable time passing a bill which they knew would get vetoed? The President did not equivocate. He said in no uncertain terms at the outset, as is his right and duty, that a bill with timelines would be vetoed.
The dem leadership are showing their true colors. They are invested in our defeat as Harry Reid has already proven by his "The War is Lost" comment which appeared on the front page of AlJazeera. This is the message our troops and our enemies are hearing from the leadership of the United States Senate....and it is unconscionable what it is doing to the war effort.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 4, 2007 12:03:42 GMT -5
Neither side will stop the funding when the day is done. The Dems may go for a series of two-month extensions with no attached deadlines, just to keep the debate in play. About a third of the 60% now favoring a pullout are the usual hard-core pacifists, another third believe we shouldn't be baby-sitting Iraq's family feud and the rest are pissed as hell Saddam was revealed a paper tiger who acted belligerently to keep appearances.
That 40% should - and perhaps does - recognize that just because Iraq was not "The Central Front In The War On Terror" when we invaded, doesn't mean we haven't it made it so.
A lot of people who disapprove of both the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of it do not necessarily want Hillary or a Democrat as president. That is particularly true of independents who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for Congress in the '06 election, but they split fairly evenly when the choice is Rudy or Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 4, 2007 12:10:52 GMT -5
I do not like the demoncrats any more than I like the repugnicans, but this is not a one sided issue. The dems are no more holding up the funding by presenting a bill the preznit didn't like then the prez is by not signing it.
The fastest way for the funding to stop is for them to keep butting heads.
Keep it up boyos - watching the fight will be amusing
As I've said before, the more time they spend in partisan bickering the less they do and therefore the less they screw up.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on May 4, 2007 12:17:33 GMT -5
A bit further back, Traveler posted a piece he received in email. I read the whole thing, which as polemic is pretty well done.
One statement caught my eye, however:
Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist.
That is not even polemical, it is simply venomous nonsense. To follow this reasoning, every person who voted against George W. Bush in 2004, particularly, is a traitor.
There are serious and reasoned arguments for remaining in Iraq, and there are arguments equally compelling against our staying there-indefinitely, at any rate, GWB has co-opted immediate withdrawal by committing our troops and credibility.
The referenced "Letter from George W. Bush" is something quite else, worthy of Ann Coulter and other shockopinion pimps.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 12:19:55 GMT -5
The dems should stop politicizing the issue and either 1) defund the war effort and live with the political consequences or 2) allow the Commander in Chief and Field Generals to do the job of winning the war.
The President's promise to veto the bill long before it came to him had nothing to do with politics. It has to do with supporting our troops and winning a war. Again, he made it abundantly clear what he required, as Commander in Chief, to prosecute the war withouth strings attached. He has the Constitutional authority to prosecute a war. Congress does not.
The dems are more worried about public opinion and winning Senate seats than they are about winning the war.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 12:21:04 GMT -5
however, to get this bill through congress the Democrats had to add 25 million dollars in pork which could be seen by some of bribery. without this extra money it may not have pasted and we would not be having this talk today. congress wants to control this war from DC by telling the military people how to fight same. this is how we lost the last war we fought and lost. today ms .Clinton has called to defund the war but all that needs to be done is go back and read her comments concerning her vote and you will see that is just stump jumping.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 12:24:14 GMT -5
There is a definite shock value but there are also very good points that were made, as offensive as it may be.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 12:26:12 GMT -5
often it takes shock to make a point
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 4, 2007 15:54:24 GMT -5
Without this pork there is no way the bill would have passed. The new ruling party in Congress is off to a great start. So much for the fiscal responsiblity they promised just a few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 16:01:36 GMT -5
and they haven't gotten that ethics bill through as promised.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 4, 2007 16:20:54 GMT -5
So, did the bill have any specific numbers on troop withdrawal? If not, why not just recall one soldier come October first and call the withdrawal begun...
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 4, 2007 17:52:20 GMT -5
So I guess Republicans aren't concerned about souring public opinion and holding seats? They are locked into being the party of the war in Iraq -- right, wrong or indifferent. The only salvation for them is that it works.
Their hierarchy is not above dialing up the fear factor to warn - as Giuliani did - that terrorists win if Republicans lose.
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on May 4, 2007 19:08:41 GMT -5
The dems should stop politicizing the issue and either 1) defund the war effort and live with the political consequences or 2) allow the Commander in Chief and Field Generals to do the job of winning the war. The President's promise to veto the bill long before it came to him had nothing to do with politics. It has to do with supporting our troops and winning a war. Again, he made it abundantly clear what he required, as Commander in Chief, to prosecute the war withouth strings attached. He has the Constitutional authority to prosecute a war. Congress does not. The dems are more worried about public opinion and winning Senate seats than they are about winning the war. First, I don't understand how leaving the troops in Iraq supports the troops...I am still waiting for that explanation. Second, wouldn't we support the troops more if we made sure they had the hospitals and staff to take care of those with injuries and PSD? I would rather support the troops at home but, if Republicans keep using the banter that Democrats don't support the troops than they are fighting a losing battle. I do agree with what you said traveller about the pork that was just stupid and hypocritical on their part. After watching the Rebulican debate though...I don't think the democratic candidates have anything to worry about in '08. The best thing Thompson could have done was be thankful he didn't share the stage with those clowns.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 4, 2007 19:53:20 GMT -5
i also think that we need to take a hard look at the moderator. i believe that both parties own this war and the only salvation for this country is if somehow we can come togther as a country to take on this enemy. if we continue to follow the policy of the Democrats they will own defeat.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Jim’s Summary and Wrap-Up First thought: Who the hell thought Chris Matthews would make a good moderator? I thought he interrupted the candidates too much, got into this bizarre tussle with Huckabee over a comment he gave to George Stephanopolous, basically brought his whole hyper, over-caffeinated Hardball persona, and it just wasn’t the right tone for the debate that introduces so many of the candidates to the public for the first time. The questions from the Politico were a joke, including asking Thompson to name the exact number of casualties in Iraq. Absolute sandbagging; if the Democrats won’t go on Fox, the GOP should tell MSNBC and the Politico to go to hell.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 6, 2007 9:38:29 GMT -5
Leaving the troops in Iraq supports nobody but the president. Bringing them home so they could live their lives would be "supporting the troops".
The enemy seems either to be the tactic of terrorism, which has increased in response to our occupations, or it is the guys who blew up two of our buildings that we have failed to get rid of after destroyiing two countries. Whomever the enemy is our current path of action is not getting rid of them.
Aaah - our government has restored my faith in anarchy ;D
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on May 6, 2007 13:55:31 GMT -5
I do agree Chris Matthews is one of the worst types to be a moderator. I personally found he gave the hardball questions (if there were any)to the candidates least likely to get the nomination and the softball question and ass kissing to McCain and Gulliani. Maybe he was hoping to get an exclusive interview out of them later or something.
|
|