Just Curious - As heard on Rush

[nkdlunch]

In an overly-simplified sense, if the Democrats offer the withdrawal from Iraq as a policy initiative, they'll get lambasted by the right as being soft on terrorism (though Iraq has next to nothing to do with terrorism) and insensitive to the work that has begun in Iraq. If, on the other hand, they offer a strategy of staying in Iraq, they essentially ratify the position that the Administration has taken and become difficult to differentiate.

and if they pick that middle ground, they are accussed of not having the balls to choose a side Democrats are screwed on the Iraq issue.

It's check for the republicans, but hopefully not check-mate.

[smeagol]

After reasonable security is established in Iraq, focus on Iran.

Why stop there. There's Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Yemen,and North Korea, and Indonesia, and . . .

[gtownspur]

This remains one of the strongest arguments against all this right wing parsitizing the left wing-bull

Now just wait for gtownspur to make long rhetorical remarks that end up saying absolutely nothing.

I dont have to prove anything xcept for the fact that syrian and sudanese suicide bombers are not considered iraqi's nor do they represent them, and that iraqi's do want our presence there. 90 percent of the goddamn country want us there until they are sovereign. THey have voted for the iraq cons ution and the elections already. NO ONE HAS TO PROVE TO AN ASSHOLE WHO ing still doesnt get it.

[Nbadan]

It's check for the republicans, but hopefully not check-mate.

To tell you the truth, I would rather be in the Democrats position than the Republican's leadership position on Iraq. Democrats are torn between political ideologies. Wilson-era liberals have always been interventionist, now they are called NeoCons. The pro-DLC faction, what some people call centrist or Republican-lite, supported the invasion, but do not support the occupation and Progressives have been against the war from the start.

[gtownspur]

To tell you the truth, I would rather be in the Democrats position than the Republican's leadership position on Iraq. Democrats are torn between political ideologies. Wilson-era liberals have always been interventionist, now they are called NeoCons. The pro-DLC faction, what some people call centrist or Republican-lite, supported the invasion, but do not support the occupation and Progressives have been against the war from the start.

See that proves the ing idiotic philosophy of the DLC. How can you support invasion and then be against occupation. HOw the do you do that. I mean GOsh! I can see kerry and hillary just saying " bY golly, lets invade a country and leave just for the sport of it!! MAn we'll be so thought of as hard on defense and all!!"

[gtownspur]

Even when democrats try to be centrist they get it wrong! Good thing that most moderate centrist are McCain types!

[Extra Stout]

I think gtownspur is the boutons of the right.

[Nbadan]

See that proves the ing idiotic philosophy of the DLC. How can you support invasion and then be against occupation. HOw the do you do that. I mean GOsh! I can see kerry and hillary just saying " bY golly, lets invade a country and leave just for the sport of it!! MAn we'll be so thought of as hard on defense and all!!"

I guess the facts that we never found WMD's, an active WMD program, links between Al-Queda-Saddam-Iraq, or links between Iraq-Saddam and International terrorism changed their minds.