I thought Repugs said giving timelines helped the emeny?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
"The US military commander in Iraq, General George Casey, has said the country's own armed forces should be able to take over security responsibility within the next 12 to 18 months.
"I believe in 12 to 18 months Iraqi security will be completely capable of taking over their own security," Casey told a press conference in Baghdad Tuesday. "

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/24/061024121803.uuwexpy1.html

I guess its okay to give a timeline when it might help to keep a Republican majority in the house and senate!
 
It's a new day dawning, Bush is no longer "staying the course" so now all bets are off and timelines are now usable for incentives to demonstrate to the Iraqi government just how serious Bush is getting about losing this election and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate that such a loss that he still maintains steadfastly that he knows he is going to win. Meanwhile our own O'Reilly clone is steadfastly maintaining that Bush never meant "stay the course" when he said "stay the course."

I guess Bush who doesn't "watch" or "pay any attention to polls" must be looking at something. But who knows what it is since the Republicans are going to maintain their majorities in both houses of Congress.
 
Uhhh, when I said uhhh um uh.. "Stay the course" I did not mean umm uhh arrr uh, that we should continue in the same direction....!
 
Not the same thing is it? No one said goals were not set, but saying we have a dealine for withdraw of armed forces is not a good thing to do. Not the same thing!
 
There have always been goals, its just that the administration has always lied about meeting them in order to put a more favorable picture in the public consciousness about Iraq. Unfortunately the situation in Iraq has deteriorated to such an extent now that such a rosey scenario of accomplishments such as how many Iraqis have been trained and how they are taking over the bulk of the fighting and other administrations lies are no longer possible to sustain. In fact, in book after book on the situation in Iraq the administration is depicted as out of touch with reality and in denial about the seriousness of the problems that it faces as a result of its war of choice and its occupation based on a year of administration lies and exaggerations. In short the cakewalk has turned into a slog through a swamp. And this isn't what the American people signed on for. Unfortunately the administration still thinks they can say we never said that and they will be let off the hook, not so, not anymore. The administration is now hanging on their own words, and this is as it should be.
 
In addition one needs to remember all the fake timelines that were generated when the political stuff was being run through in order for Bush to be able to claim that something was being accomplished in the run-up to the election in 2004 as the rest of the military objectives were heading into the dumper Bush kept talking about the great strides that were being made politically. If you recall all of those things including the appointment of an interim Iraqi government and the three democratic votes and the writing and the approval of the Constitution were all timeline activities. So when it serves their purpose the Bush administration has had no problem with timelines. The main problem is that the administration hasn't really learned how to tell the American people that we are going to be in Iraq for at least 50-60 years or until the oil runs out.

We have been building the biggest CIA infested and run American Embassy in the world and we have several "permanent" bases that are nearing completion as well. This isn't all being done out of some kind of experiment to see how things will turn out or to scare the Iraqis into generating their own government. We are an occupying Army that is going to be there for the long haul and anyone who doubts that hasn't been paying attention.
 
Prakosh said:
In addition one needs to remember all the fake timelines that were generated when the political stuff was being run through in order for Bush to be able to claim that something was being accomplished in the run-up to the election in 2004 as the rest of the military objectives were heading into the dumper Bush kept talking about the great strides that were being made politically. If you recall all of those things including the appointment of an interim Iraqi government and the three democratic votes and the writing and the approval of the Constitution were all timeline activities. So when it serves their purpose the Bush administration has had no problem with timelines. The main problem is that the administration hasn't really learned how to tell the American people that we are going to be in Iraq for at least 50-60 years or until the oil runs out.

We have been building the biggest CIA infested and run American Embassy in the world and we have several "permanent" bases that are nearing completion as well. This isn't all being done out of some kind of experiment to see how things will turn out or to scare the Iraqis into generating their own government. We are an occupying Army that is going to be there for the long haul and anyone who doubts that hasn't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

With all of this in mind, it makes one wonder, would a Democratic president get us out? Or is this going to be yet another case of foreign policy spanning both parties, and decades?

Hillary won't get us out. Who would? Someone who was anti-war from the start? Let's take Gore as an example. The question would then be, could he get us out?

I'm wondering if it's even possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top