My way or no way... Bush is such a manipulator.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
The new Republican tactict on this war is that if you do not support the "surge" the only other option is defeat and so you must be for defeat.

McCain said basically, its our only option for victory so let the president try it. I have heard very simular sentimants on here. I dont know if people are just dumb or if they are trying to be disingenous.

THere are plenty of options that are just as likely to lead to victory and less likely to lead to defeat. Depending on what victory is, and Bush has refused to identify what victory is.

What about the Baker-Hamilton bipartisin report comissioned by the Presidnet? For one! There are plenty of options.

My favorate is to apologise for what we did, in the face of opposition of the world community and admit it was a HUGE mistak. Then ask the world community for help. Get the UN to take over and do like they did in Bosnia. If the UN succeedes GREAT... If they fail at least the blame will be diffused and not all directed at us. Sorta like what the French did with Vietnam!
 
Former Senator Gary Hart (You may remember him from a certain boat while he was running for a certain nomination) said on the radio yesterday, "We are not invested in defeat, because we have already been defeated in Iraq."

He made it clear how he thought of that, and this was while he was reiterating Webb's plan for Iraq....
 
The funniest thing is, on page 50 of the Baker Report that the Ds wanted Bush to follow so bad it hurt, it says with no equivocation that they would support a troops surge to clean Baghdad and to speed up training. In fact that is even the word that they use...

So, when he does what they want they trash him too... ;)
 
McCain was singing that tired old song last weekend, you can't support the troops without supporting the war....
And Yes Bush's current move was somewhat covered in the Baker report. But then how do we know the Baker report recommendations will work either ?
 
uscitizen said:
McCain was singing that tired old song last weekend, you can't support the troops without supporting the war....
And Yes Bush's current move was somewhat covered in the Baker report. But then how do we know the Baker report recommendations will work either ?
Click to expand...
Just last month, before he suggested the surge, the Ds were saying, on this very board too, that he should follow the Baker report. Now they are saying, "How do we know it will work?"

Who is being disingenuous?

He even used the same wording as the report. I remember people asking, again on this board, why use "surge"? It was because it was in that report that the Ds were pounding on him to follow.

Then they seem to think I'm retarded and can't see that taking off the gloves and actually clearing and holding Baghdad isn't a change from the past strategy of giving some people who were leading those who killed our troops a pass due to political reasons....

*sigh*

I know I don't support the war because it wasn't a declared war, but at least I can be honest and say when a change of strategy is taking place rather than pretend that the troop surge is the only thing.

Amazingly, "clear and hold Baghdad" is also in the Baker report... same page.
 
Find one post where I said Bush should follow the baker report!
You are making a big mistake about me when you lump me in with any party.
I try not to lump you with the Bushite Republicans, Am I wrong ?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Find one post where I said Bush should follow the baker report!
You are making a big mistake about me when you lump me in with any party.
I try not to lump you with the Bushite Republicans, Am I wrong ?
Click to expand...
I didn't say you said it, I said that Ds said it.

Oh, wait, it sort of does suggest that you are a member of that party...

It wasn't the point I was making. Lately I have been told by Ds that there is no change just a troop surge, and asked 'What is the new plan?' when I point out clearly the new strategy they hem and haw and pretend I didn't even speak on it. Then say that Surging the troops is a mistake, when they just last month told me that they wanted Bush to follow the Baker Report...

So when he does exactly what they want him to, they disingenuously pretend he isn't. Well, I'll keep pointing out the fallacy, this is going to be fun!
 
Damo, that is why I am for giving the president (really his advisors/generals) the benefit of the doubt here. It was, after all, in the very report they put in your face when this is brough up. Hillary mentioned it just night before last. The main thing in Baker report that is not being done by Bush is talking to the likes of Iran and Syria. Who knows, maybe we should. Amidenijabberbabber is only one person. I do know that the democrats have a vested interest in seeing that any efforts of Bush administration concerning Iraq do not come to fruition as they look to the next election. I don't think they want to get more troops killed, I don't think they want us to lose, but I do think they want it to appear that they were the ones who made the decisions that helped us achieve our objectives over there and not Bush. I am for allowing the efforts Bush has brought forth to go ahead and see if it works.
 
leaningright said:
Damo, that is why I am for giving the president (really his advisors/generals) the benefit of the doubt here. It was, after all, in the very report they put in your face when this is brough up. Hillary mentioned it just night before last. The main thing in Baker report that is not being done by Bush is talking to the likes of Iran and Syria. Who knows, maybe we should. Amidenijabberbabber is only one person. I do know that the democrats have a vested interest in seeing that any efforts of Bush administration concerning Iraq do not come to fruition as they look to the next election. I don't think they want to get more troops killed, I don't think they want us to lose, but I do think they want it to appear that they were the ones who made the decisions that helped us achieve our objectives over there and not Bush. I am for allowing the efforts Bush has brought forth to go ahead and see if it works.
Click to expand...


Very good synopsis. But personally I am so against Bush making anymore decisions on this War...

I believe we need to go back to square one and figure out why we are there in the first place. Nobody...and I mean nobody in Washington (accept for Webb, Chris Matthews and the idiot Kieth whatever) seems to be raising this question... at least publicly.

I mean I have a gut feeling... it was an attampt to triangulate the region... gain presence .., spread the idea of Neo-Demcoracy and gain a hold on an Oil rich Nation. It was pushed by a group of Oligarchists who had taken a hold on the White House .... it was a failed plan. I admit... I got sucked into the idea of a Democratic Nation smack in the heartland of the middle east... but in the words of Pete Townshend... we wont get fooled again.

Yes.. we need a national Discussion as to why we are there .. and come to terms with the truth...with all its warts and scars.... and then make a rational decision as to how far we go...win or lose. One thing is for sure... we are indebted to Iraq... maybe not with soldiers... but with monetary support..for a long time. The only thing we can look forward to is cheap oil.
 
Last edited:
klaatu said:
Very good synopsis. But personally I am so against Bush making anymore decisions on this War...

I believe we need to go back to square one and figure out why we are there in the first place. Nobody...and I mean nobody in Washington (accept for Webb, Chris Matthews and the idiot Kieth whatever) seems to be raising this question... at least publicly.

I mean I have a gut feeling... it was an attampt to triangulate the region... gain presence .., spread the idea of Neo-Demcoracy and gain a hold on an Oil rich Nation. It was pushed by a group of Oligarchists who had taken a hold on the White House .... it was a failed plan. I admit... I got sucked into the idea of a Democratic Nation smack in the heartland of the middle east... but in the words of Pete Townshend... we wont get fooled again.

Yes.. we need a national Discussion as to why we are there .. and come to terms with the truth...with all its warts and scars.... and then make a rational decision as to how far we go...win or lose. One thing is for sure... we are indebted to Iraq... maybe not with soldiers... but with monetary support..for a long time. The only thing we can look forward to is cheap oil.
Click to expand...
I agree with your reasoning of why we are there as well. Hence the reason I am against all undeclared war... We don't get into this crap when we do this. It isn't perfect, but I do not believe we would be in Iraq if we indeed required declaration as we had in the past.
 
The REPORT says that part of their plan was to send MORE TROOPS IN NOW?

THREE YEARS LATER?

I think NOT.....

they were speaking about 2 YEARS AGO OR 3 YEARS AGO...guys....come onnnnnnnnnnn.....


So, Damo, and Leaningright are you saying that in this Baker report that Democrats in this report of WHAT TO DO NOW IN IRAQ...recommended that we send in more troops?

if you are not saying this, then what are you saying, what is your reasoning?

Care
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I agree with your reasoning of why we are there as well. Hence the reason I am against all undeclared war... We don't get into this crap when we do this. It isn't perfect, but I do not believe we would be in Iraq if we indeed required declaration as we had in the past.
Click to expand...

Totally agree ... and I raised this point on the other board ...giving an example of what might of happened if Reagan were President on 9/12/01 ... ;

"Imagine for a moment if Reagan were President 9/12/01 ... do you believe we would have taken the path that we did?

No ...we would have witnessed a week long onlsaught in Afghanistan and then a hard line stance against any Nation who harbored terrorists... thats it. Eventually Reagan would have brought the ME leaders to the table. "


This administration totally lacks the power of nagotiation... this is why it is one of the worst if not THE worst administraions of my lifetime .....

One bit of light that these past 6 years have taught me... the importance of Leaders having International Experience. Now...whom of the crop that has either declared their cnadidacy or may declare.... carry these type of attributes?
 
Care4all said:
The REPORT says that part of their plan was to send MORE TROOPS IN NOW?

THREE YEARS LATER?

I think NOT.....

they were speaking about 2 YEARS AGO OR 3 YEARS AGO...guys....come onnnnnnnnnnn.....


So, Damo, and Leaningright are you saying that in this Baker report that Democrats in this report of WHAT TO DO NOW IN IRAQ...recommended that we send in more troops?

if you are not saying this, then what are you saying, what is your reasoning?

Care
Click to expand...
It did. It was one of many recommendations. In fact, it uses the exact wording that President Bush is currently using "troop surge" and "clear and hold Baghdad" are both in there in those exact words. I even posted a link and gave you the page number with the quote.

It is linked with the caveat, If the Commander there believes it will help. However, it is most definitely in their recommendations... and his carefully worded strategy shift is also in there...
 
the conditions in iraq 2 or three years ago, are NOT in any way, the same conditions now.

to imply that there is some hypocrisy involved on the Democrat's part is not fair or even logical imo.

I guess that is what I was trying to say in that post above.
 
klaatu said:
Totally agree ... and I raised this point on the other board ...giving an example of what might of happened if Reagan were President on 9/12/01 ... ;

"Imagine for a moment if Reagan were President 9/12/01 ... do you believe we would have taken the path that we did?

No ...we would have witnessed a week long onlsaught in Afghanistan and then a hard line stance against any Nation who harbored terrorists... thats it. Eventually Reagan would have brought the ME leaders to the table. "


This administration totally lacks the power of nagotiation... this is why it is one of the worst if not THE worst administraions of my lifetime .....

One bit of light that these past 6 years have taught me... the importance of Leaders having International Experience. Now...whom of the crop that has either declared their cnadidacy or may declare.... carry these type of attributes?
Click to expand...
Tom Tancredo. He has worked with South American nations to bring fugitives back to justice. In one case he brokered a deal with the DA in the US to take Death off the table so their Supreme Court would have no objection to the Extradition...

He's one of them.
 
Care4all said:
the conditions in iraq 2 or three years ago, are NOT in any way, the same conditions now.

to imply that there is some hypocrisy involved on the Democrat's part is not fair or even logical imo.

I guess that is what I was trying to say in that post above.
Click to expand...
I am saying, that in the last month it has gone from "Bush should follow the recommendations in the Baker report." posted on this very board, to "This is stupid." even though it is in that very report.

That is hypocrisy. He is now doing what those people suggested, in fact has been for some time promoting the ideas listed in that report. Not every one of them, but many.

I have also heard that there is no change in the strategy, yet it is easy to point out where the change is, that is disingenuous. Each of those arguments are either hypocritical or disingenuous. There are better arguments against what he wants to do, I'd rather hear those.
 
klaatu said:
Totally agree ... and I raised this point on the other board ...giving an example of what might of happened if Reagan were President on 9/12/01 ... ;

"Imagine for a moment if Reagan were President 9/12/01 ... do you believe we would have taken the path that we did?

No ...we would have witnessed a week long onlsaught in Afghanistan and then a hard line stance against any Nation who harbored terrorists... thats it. Eventually Reagan would have brought the ME leaders to the table. "


This administration totally lacks the power of nagotiation... this is why it is one of the worst if not THE worst administraions of my lifetime .....

One bit of light that these past 6 years have taught me... the importance of Leaders having International Experience. Now...whom of the crop that has either declared their cnadidacy or may declare.... carry these type of attributes?
Click to expand...

Richardson maybe?

Clark maybe?

Clinton most likely, especially with husband's like-ability, perhaps?

Biden maybe?

Gore maybe?

(Kerry would have been the BEST in this area imho, he had experience from the 70's and vietnam negotiating with the enemy :o lol...at least according to all of you repubs! ;) )

Care
 
klaatu said:
Totally agree ... and I raised this point on the other board ...giving an example of what might of happened if Reagan were President on 9/12/01 ... ;

"Imagine for a moment if Reagan were President 9/12/01 ... do you believe we would have taken the path that we did?

No ...we would have witnessed a week long onlsaught in Afghanistan and then a hard line stance against any Nation who harbored terrorists... thats it. Eventually Reagan would have brought the ME leaders to the table. "


This administration totally lacks the power of nagotiation... this is why it is one of the worst if not THE worst administraions of my lifetime .....

One bit of light that these past 6 years have taught me... the importance of Leaders having International Experience. Now...whom of the crop that has either declared their cnadidacy or may declare.... carry these type of attributes?
Click to expand...


Alright....Who the he|| are you and what did you do with Klaatu?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top