Reply With Quote
A troop reduction can only mean we've won the war.
Let's celebrate. I recall the Pres. has set aside 25 million for this occasion. Time to break out those fancy dresses, ladies.
Unfortunately it will feature him digging the hole even deeper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/wa...gewanted=print
A troop reduction can only mean we've won the war.
Let's celebrate. I recall the Pres. has set aside 25 million for this occasion. Time to break out those fancy dresses, ladies.
The troop count isn't the most important, per se. As long as the decision is to remain it's bad policy. The Demos seem to be trying to act anti-war while not really accomplishing much.
dems are weak in the face of veto man
I think the rest of the GOP is starting to realize that they might want to throw this administration under the bus.
Just thinking out loud...a president sends this nation to war because he believed that the regime in power in the nation to be attacked presented a clear and immediate danger to the United States. When it has been revealed that was not the case, would not the honorable thing as an American president be to admit the mistake and withdraw? Otherwise now this nation is not fighting for 'freedom from fear' but rather freedom from ridicule due to manning up and admitting the truth. That's not surrendering; it's not making a mistake worse.
As for what happens after a withdrawal, who cares? Let's let our national defense actually defend this nation and not play offense halfway around the world.
It's possible the brakes are out on this war train. Bush has got, what?, 15 months to escalate? They're already forming their reasons for expanding and using it to tenderize american meat heads. Throw in some phony expressions of faith, and let it roll.
Seriously, we are spending $60 billion a month and losing however many servicemen because George W Bush cannot admit a mistake. This is stupid. Should we attack Iran then it's insanity.
Bush doesn't want to admit the mistake. He wants the next administration to do that.
Like it or not, Americans forgive presidents who admit what they have done wrong. Once Clinton admitted to having an affair rather than hem and haw most forgave and forgot the main issue (perjury and obstruction of justice). Nixon resigned. LBJ did not run for re-election.
I forget offhand what Reagan did in light of Iran-Contra.
If Bush committed this nation to war earnestly based on what he legitimately thought at the time was evidence of a clear threat, one would think that an earnest admission of the error would be forthcoming and ultimately accepted by the people. Yet he continues to drag this out.
Throw a nation into complete disarray under false pretenses, stir up the pot, strart a civil war....and then say, "oops, my bad", as you run away leaving the people who never asked you to come in the first place to clean up YOUR mess? Yeah, damned honorable.
"he believed that the regime in power in the nation to be attacked presented a clear and immediate danger to the United States."
He didn't think that. That was the lie he and his co-criminals used to scare/bully their way into Iraq. Neo- s wanted a regime change to put in a US oilco-friendly regime. dubya knew US security was NEVER the real reason for invading Iraq.
Thanks to dubya, Iraq is NOW and will be for years a serious threat to the US and M/E.
The best defense is the best defense.
Elective offensives in VN and Irag have been horrible disasters that regressed US interests.
...if he didn't know the pretenses were false is the point.
All I'm saying is that one would expect the behavior of the chief executive to be different now under the scenario.
This time it's different. This kid grew up with grown men kissing his ass just to get closer to daddy.
Most of the hijackers were Saudi Sunnis. REAL possiblity that the Saudi Royals could go down in flames in the forseeable future for cozying up with the U.S. A Big, ole, Shia Iraq creates a problem for Saudi - a common enemy for the population to rally against WITH their leaders, keeping the family in power, and keeping the oil flowing here.
If Saudi had become an unfriendly, while Iraq was in Saddam's grasp, Iran and Syria being Iran and Syria, along with Hugo Chavez and his reserves, Russia being flaky, China quickly sucking up whatever crude they can....where the were we going to get our oil fix from? Potentially could have devestated the U.S.
Maybe it was about oil. Maybe it had to be.
Why else is our government so cozy with the House of Saud?
oil = $$$$
Does there need to be another reason?
Not really. Otherwise the ME =Africa as far as the US is concerned and we'd be content to not to be involved in the conflicts in the region.
If you believe that, then Saddam had every right to invade Kuwait.
Every sovereign nation in history has the right, or doesn't have the right to invade another nation, depending on your perspective, right?
Other sovereign nations, when it is in there interest, have the "right" to kick the other the back out.
There is no international governing authority with independent power to police. Might, frankly, makes "right".
"the behavior of the chief executive to be different"
dubya admitting a monstrous geo-political "mistake" in Iraq now would win him no sympathy, because most US citizens think he lied into Iraq, he has no credibility now, so saying "oops, sorry" wouldn't be believed, either.
dubya and head's strategy is extremely clear, knowing they can't win in Iraq, that they totally blew it in Iraq, so "play" for time until out of office, walk away from their , and then blame next administration, exclusively, for "losing Iraq", and of course continue to blame on Bill Clinton for 9/11, dubya's other huge up.
Interesting perspective. I see you've been "tenderized". It doesn't even sound like you need excuses. You may be a new breed.
Excuses are pretty easy to come by, don't you think? Depending on the method of ascension of the leadership in a given nation, the more legitimate an excuse must appear to justify invading another nation. In Saddam's case, not so much needed to be done back home to justify invading Kuwait.
The bar was higher for G.W. and company when they wanted to go into Iraq, but they got there, didn't they?
What I mean is you seem to imply that invading a country for oil is a reasonable and completely acceptable conclusion. With that ideaology it would be perfectly understandable for Russia, China, you name it, to follow suit, including a country already being occupied.
While might may ultimately make right in international law, we should have a different standard domestically.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
