More Politics Of War

[Conan71]

Very, very clever:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq_21

The Democrats are demanding an end to the war by the fall of 2008.  Let's see, what important event in our political calendar takes place in the fall of 2008?  Anyone care to bet this will be a "minor" campaign issue in every district?

They know it's not feasible, so the ammo is being set in place to say: "The Republicans still haven't gotten us out of this war, so you need to elect Democrats, we will get us out."

Guess what, two years later we will still have troops over there.  If libs are in power, they will be saying it's all Bush's fault even after two years of their rule.

Someone 'splain to me what has happened to all the rhetoric from mid-term's as to why these brilliant Democrats still haven't got a plan to get us out.  And please don't pull the "They don't have 2/3 majority crap, either.

[grahambino]

how would your assumption be any different than the 'but Clintons' blaming his administration for 9/11?

of course it would be the Bush administration's fault if we are still in Iraq.  Its also the Bush administration's fault that the 2006 mid-term elections turned out the way they did.  

The mid-terms were a sound rebuke of Bush and his administration,  period.  so if a bunch of scatterbrained 'libs' without a plan swept the elections, what does that say about the Bush admin and it's policies?  

Do see this administration still having a 'mandate'?
If so is it still...
Social security reform?
Staying the course in Iraq?
Not having diplomatic relations w/ the 'axis of evil'?
A constitutional ban on gay marriage?

[Conan71]

Okay then, in your mind is it Clinton's fault for 9/11 or not?

How about that fine stateswoman, Ms. Clinton who has a 90 day plan to get us out of the war?  

If she was such a great stateswoman instead of a great saleswoman, you'd think she would have already imparted that information A) to the present administration or B) getting her co-majority in the senate to act on it instead of dangling it out there as bait for votes for an election still over 1.5 years away.

[Wilbur]

First off, I'll confess I'm one of those evil conservatives, but here is what will happen....

Before the election, Bush will pull troops out by declaring victory, or because Iraq says they are ready to handle by themselves (same thing), whether either one of those is true or not.

When that happens, the democrats will say Bush pulled out because of their pressure, but will be reluctant to declare defeat.

[Rico]

I wish any of the above could be true..

The truth is that Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war. There are no happy endings to a civil war there is only that which survives.

I think you will begin to see action,shortly,that is not based on political agenda.. rather on the USA's need to regain it's prominence on the world stage.

For example;

The possibility of dealing with Iran in bilateral talks rather than heavy handed threats.

Meetings with the countries such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, etc. all at the same table.

A much more warm and fuzzy "Dubya" than has been witnessed to date.

Dick Cheney falling into the shadows of others and heard from less than has been the case to date.


More later as my crystal ball is clouding up from PTSD from the memories of the last Hawk that landed in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand... and the havoc that followed...  
[}:)]

[guido911]

Rico: "There are no happy endings to a civil war there is only that which survives."

Tell that to the slaves who were emancipated after our civil war...

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Rico: "There are no happy endings to a civil war there is only that which survives."

Tell that to the slaves who were emancipated after our civil war...

I imagine that would be something you would consider an adequate answer...

Liberated from their master's yes....
jubilant...? a job..? a place to go and live...? a Government that immediately had plans for their care...?

In  theory... yes the US Civil War had victors from the North...

What the slaves had and what the victors had was somewhat the same they survived....

[rwarn17588]

You can try, but truly there's not much you can do when the president holds veto power and you don't have two-thirds majority to override.

The only options: 1) wait for a power change (doesn't matter which) in 2009; or 2) hope to persuade enough Republicans to come to your way of thinking and get that two-thirds majority -- a tall order.

But, heck, I'm just glad both houses changed power for the sheer sake of providing oversight and pressure. The GOP running things in Congress when Clinton was in charge did a lot to curb his legislative excesses.

As my main main Bob Brinker says: "Government gridlock is good."

Do you think Bush would have 1) fired the unmistakable failure that was Rumsfeld; 2) tried to do something different in Iraq if a slew of Democrats hadn't been elected?

I don't.

The elections sent a signal that the status quo wasn't acceptable. That was a good thing.

[BASleuth]

Shocked, Shocked I say when I heard a discussion on C-SPAN the other day concerning a letter sent to President Clinton (January 1998) regarding the need for the United States to Attack Iraq this being prior to 911. So shocked, I located the letter at:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

After reading the letter, was even more shocked when I noted who reportedly sent the letter.

[cannon_fodder]

One small difference on the "But Clinton" line:

Bush was somehow expected to stop something from happening and the democrats will be expected to do something.

That's a huge difference.  It is much easier to do something, like say "screw it" and bring troops home ASAP then it is to go back in time and have the Sudan hand over Bin Laden, or find out who bombed the cole, or retaliate for the embassy bombings, or go for the balls after the first attack on the WTC, or figure out who blew up the marine barracks or grew some balls in Somalia or... wow, there was a crap ton of terrorism under Clinton and nothing done about it now that I think about it.

I wonder what the world would have thought if Bush would have just sent a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan and said "all is now well" and waited for the next attack.  


In any event, the Republicans will likely announce a plan within the year to withdraw large numbers of troops.  The democrats have nothing else to go on and would be out of the next election.  If they do nothing, the democrats will keep the focus on the war and win.  When in power, nothing will really change.  Most democrats understand that we are stuck not and dont want to be responsible for a failed state.

oh yeah, and per Hillary, Nixon did the exact same thing with getting troops out of Vietnam.  He had a 'secret plan' that he would implement if elected.  What a crock of sh!t.

[grahambino]

im pretty sure everytime Clinton did try to combat terrorism he was accused of 'diversionary tactics' by the republican caucus to deflect attention from the Lewinsky debacle, but im sure no one wants to  remember that.

   

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

im pretty sure everytime Clinton did try to combat terrorism he was accused of 'diversionary tactics' by the republican caucus to deflect attention from the Lewinsky debacle, but im sure no one wants to  remember that.

Like the bombing in Sudan.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I wish any of the above could be true..

The truth is that Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war. There are no happy endings to a civil war there is only that which survives.

I think you will begin to see action,shortly,that is not based on political agenda.. rather on the USA's need to regain it's prominence on the world stage.

For example;

The possibility of dealing with Iran in bilateral talks rather than heavy handed threats.

Meetings with the countries such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, etc. all at the same table.

A much more warm and fuzzy "Dubya" than has been witnessed to date.

Dick Cheney falling into the shadows of others and heard from less than has been the case to date.


More later as my crystal ball is clouding up from PTSD from the memories of the last Hawk that landed in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand... and the havoc that followed...  
[}:)]

Rico, I applaud you on your comments, I will modify one thing you said though-

Iraq was in a civil war and has been for many years.  They just had a very brutal baby sitter supervising and directing it and who kept some semblance of order.  We took out the leader and created near-anarchy (or some would say total anarchy).

Don't know that I necessarily agree with your conclusion about no happy endings, I'll let you and Guido duke it out on that one.  That's just philisophical banter.

One policy I do disagree with when it comes to the current admin is that "We don't negotiate with terrorists".  Apparently, our Middle East and rogue Asian nation foreign policy (and this isn't just Bush or Clinton, this goes back a long ways) has failed us, witness the progressive attacks toward America in the 1980's and 1990's culminating with 9/11.  

Maybe I don't get what would constitute "negotiations with terrorists" but sitting at the same table and talking about what it is that would end the tensions in a rational way, other than allowing Iran to blow Israel off the map would be a good way to start.  Then perhaps our opponents have no rational solution.  I'm not in the state department, all I get is the same filtered information all of you get as well.

We do need to take political agendas out of the mix.

Keeping in mind there were quite a few Democrats who voted for the war in the first place, I don't think if the Democrats were already in control of the Senate and House in 2002, that they would be so belicose in their comments about the war now.  I truly believe that public pressure, had there been a Democrat control of both houses, would have had the same result in us going to war.  IOW- they did use the war as an opportunity to gain power, by using the claim "we were misled".  All they are trying to do with comments like that is to take back a serious responsibility to save face with anti-war voters.

Here's a very interesting article on Bob Woodward.  I feel he is likely one of few old-school honorable journalists left.  He's called B.S. on both sides on this war in a conversation with Chris Matthews.  I can't stand Matthews so I missed this when Woodward was on a few weeks ago.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10902

[guido911]

Rico, I am sorry, I suppose you would prefer teh U.S. civil war not happened and the slaves not be free.

[Conan71]

Here's hope:

"The United States this week sent its clearest signal yet it is open to bilateral talks with Iran and Syria by saying it will not rebuff them if they wish to discuss stabilizing Iraq."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/wl_nm/iraq_meeting_dc_2