Did the president abandon an American soldier?

[rwarn17588]

Sure looks like it.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/abandoning_an_a.html

[Hometown]

There have been several reports in the last couple of weeks about service people openly questioning their mission.  I feel so sorry for our service people in Iraq.

I think it is telling that not one White House official or Bush cabinent member has any immediate family in Iraq.

[Cubs]

Sounds like a story to try to distract people from John Kerry's remarks. CNN and TIME are so biased.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Sounds like a story to try to distract people from John Kerry's remarks. CNN and TIME are so biased.

LOL! Yeah, they're not "fair and balanced" like Fox, are they Cubs? [}:)]

But I agree with you. Abandoning a U.S. soldier isn't NEARLY as important as a politician committing a bushism. (Assuming, of course that the politician isn't Bush himself or any right wing Republican. THEY should not be held accountable for ANYTHING they say.) And human life is nowhere NEAR as important as right wing spin.

And in case you're not sharp enough to figure it out, I AM being sarcastic. People like you that are so eaten up with party politics that you can't see anything except the south end of George Bush's next turd don't have a clue what is and isn't important. The only thing that's important to people like you is controlling every aspect of not only OUR society but societies of the world. If you had your way, we'd all be forced to live by your extreme right wing ideals. Fortunately for all of us, there's room for EVERYONE'S views...even yours.

[rwarn17588]

Cubs, the story developed Tuesday about the same time the Kerry faux pas became public. Also, Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.

Unless, you know, you think the Iraqi prime minister ordered the dismantling of the barricades after getting a phone call on the hotline from ol' buddy John.

If you believe that, then I've got some beachfront property in Oakhurst to sell you.

[}:)]

[Hometown]

There was talk on last Sunday's news shows about how Bush has changed his language on Iraq recently.  He's gone from holding out the ideal of "a democracy" to instead looking forward to a "stable Iraq," signaling another lowering of expectations.  

I think about today's service people and I'm reminded of talk about how my generation was deprived of its heroes because my generation fought in Vietnam and that was finally a discredited war.  Our vets never got to feel the kind of unabashed pride that World War II vets felt for their service in World War II – a more noble war.

I hope this missing service man in Iraq is found alive.

[papaspot]

Bush has pretty much abandoned the whole "stay the course" line too. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with this. You make adjustments and outright changes as conditions change and as you realize your mistakes. But in this situation, it just reveals more hypocrisy than anything else. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Republican spinmeisters managed to label as "flip flopping" in order to win the election. If it was sauce for the goose then its sauce for the gander. But Bush could still pull it out in my view, at least to some extent if he would just step up to the plate once in a while and actually take RESPONSIBILITY for muckin' it all up. Hell, my respect for him would shoot way up even if he watered it down and just said "we've made some serious mistakes and now we're taking steps to try to correct those mistakes". But it'll never happen. It just seems to be beyond the ability of a right winger to accept responsibility for anything.

[sgrizzle]

I enjoy the fact that "stay the course" had the shortest "stay."

The soldier left the area he was supposed to be at and got abducted (or ran off). The checkpoints were up for a week disrupting the city but finding nothing. I would assume that the Iraqi government "showing us who's boss" would go far to fostering internal confidence in their government. The whole  thing could've been staged for their benefit for all we know.

Either way, you can't lock down a city forever just in case one guy who went awol may be in there.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

There was talk on last Sunday's news shows about how Bush has changed his language on Iraq recently.  He's gone from holding out the ideal of "a democracy" to instead looking forward to a "stable Iraq," signaling another lowering of expectations.  

Therein lies the problem of imposing American-style politics and the American way of life on countries who don't understand nor want our way of politics and culture.

It's obvious, looking back at the on-set of the Iraq invasion, that Bush and his advisors thought this would be a six month "milk run".  Had it played out that way Bush would look like a great humanitarian.  

I've become more weary the last six months of the continued conflict.  I've listened to the more rational comments on here against the war and it's changed my viewpoint somewhat.  I don't think there is any American who is happy we are still in Iraq and facing escalating casualties.  I'm ready for our troops to come home, but the idea of leaving the area un-stabilized is chilling.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, we have created the instability in Iraq with our actions and we have a responsibility to help re-stabilize it.

I still find it no small coincidence that we've not had another attack here at home while our troops have been overseas.  

[rwarn17588]

Honest question to Conan:

American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.

So what would the difference be?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Honest question to Conan:

American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.

So what would the difference be?

Two things:

Somewhat controlled anarchy versus complete anarchy.  Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Honest question to Conan:

American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.

So what would the difference be?

Two things:

Somewhat controlled anarchy versus complete anarchy.  Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.

I agree that we can't cut and run, but it's terribly frustrating to hear Bush say recently that Rumsfield and Cheney need to stay.

"Rummy you're doing a fine job" is as laughable as when he said "Brownie your doing a great job".

[rwarn17588]

I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.

Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.

Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.

But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.

Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.

Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.

But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.

At this point, I don't know how you could really define a "win" in Iraq.  

Essentially, we accomplished the objective of removing Hussein from power, and now we are ebroiled in a civil war that has gone on, more-or-less for centuries, and for all intents and purposes will continue for centuries.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.

Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.

Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.

But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.

At this point, I don't know how you could really define a "win" in Iraq.  

Essentially, we accomplished the objective of removing Hussein from power, and now we are ebroiled in a civil war that has gone on, more-or-less for centuries, and for all intents and purposes will continue for centuries.

A win in Iraq would have been finding the WMD's which is why everyone invaded in the first place. To pretend that anyone is in Iraq for any other reason is rewriting the recent past.

The civil war is not centuries old as the country was created in the 20th century and has remained relatively stable internally until the invasion.

I don't know what would be best to stay and try and sort out the mess or go and cut our loses. I do however blame the republican party for getting the US and its allies in a situation where cut and run or stay and die are the only options left. No one can win the war now, but the biggest loser will be the Iraqi people who are living in a much more dangerous and violent country than was previously.