Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on November 27, 2005, 01:39:44 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745_pf.html
Sympathetic Vibrations
By Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin
Sunday, November 27, 2005; A04
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
This poll is one of the few pieces of supportive news the administration has had lately on Iraq. Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.
Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.
-
Is it too late to use the nuclear option? On Washington, that is.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Is it too late to use the nuclear option? On Washington, that is.
I allways liked it in the Tom Clancey book when the Entire legislative branch was killed and Jack Ryan said in reguards to new elections "Give me Farmers, Teachers, Workers, NOT politicians to rebuild our federal govt.
Fire them all I say.
-
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm
-
The next election will definitely be decided in the AH "O' Club"
-
not only is it terrible for the moral of our troops, especially more so when one old crusty marine loses him mind, it emboldens, motivates, and inspires those that are killing our troops, especially our young marines.
But I am afraid its the system of freedom of speech we enjoy so much, it must be allowed and protected. I just wish that freedom wasn't abused so overtly for political one-upmanship. Id rather the arguing be done in closed session, during war -when troops are deployed and engaged in combat. For them it would be worth the modification. Congress should debate this issue in closed session.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm
relevance?
-
Cmon Gun, its Thrawn. Any chance to get a dig on America, he's in.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Cmon Gun, its Thrawn. Any chance to get a dig on America, he's in.
His link is completly irrelevant.
1 the data is two weeks old at best.
2. it doesn't once say the word "Iraq" anywere on the page
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
relevance?
Pretty much the same as thrawn, none.
:D
-
I just think this is really interesting. The Democrats tactics have backfired. The republicans are finally fighting back efficiently and the democrats political game playing seems to be exploding in their faces.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Cmon Gun, its Thrawn. Any chance to get a dig on America, he's in.
I'm in awe LePaul. No really, the mental gymnastics you must have gone through to contrue a link to a non-partisam polling record site (with no commentary by myself), as a dig on American must have been incredible.
Gunslinger,
"His link is completly irrelevant.
1 the data is two weeks old at best.
2. it doesn't once say the word "Iraq" anywere on the page"
1. Only if by two weeks "at best", means 12 days.
2. Your thesis was that the "Democrats are now losing the American Public. I posted a link to the lastest polls on how Americans are planning on voting in the next election. I am amazed that you don't see the relevance.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm in awe LePaul. No really, the mental gymnastics you must have gone through to contrue a link to a non-partisam polling record site (with no commentary by myself), as a dig on American must have been incredible.
Want can I say, Thrawn. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...so when you chime into these threads, its the same old.
Plus, shouldn't you be out admiring that socialist utopia you have up there?
-
Thrawn,
It is simple. To many that post here American = Republican and Republican = American.
Democrat = Traitor that should be shot.
It is that kind open hostility that keeps many away from here.
Brown nose the current administration and anything they do or be considered persona non grata.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm in awe LePaul. No really, the mental gymnastics you must have gone through to contrue a link to a non-partisam polling record site (with no commentary by myself), as a dig on American must have been incredible.
Gunslinger,
"His link is completly irrelevant.
1 the data is two weeks old at best.
2. it doesn't once say the word "Iraq" anywere on the page"
1. Only if by two weeks "at best", means 12 days.
2. Your thesis was that the "Democrats are now losing the American Public. I posted a link to the lastest polls on how Americans are planning on voting in the next election. I am amazed that you don't see the relevance.
No because AGAIN the poll is dated and doesn't not contain the word Iraq anywhere in it.
I honestly could care less about the elections right now, these polls are absolutly meaningless as far as predicting who will win in Nov 2006, that's a little less than a year away.....ALOT can happen between now and then to include campagning.
The democrats stance and recent political games involving the war in Iraq are losing favor with the America. The Elections in 2006 have very little to do with this RIGHT NOW in regaurds to the publics will reguarding Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Thrawn,
It is simple. To many that post here American = Republican and Republican = American.
Democrat = Traitor that should be shot.
It is that kind open hostility that keeps many away from here.
Brown nose the current administration and anything they do or be considered persona non grata.
post something based on fact that has validity and you are welcome here. Flame and troll and call American's Nazis and you will probably get shown the door.
I don't see how that is pandering or brown nosing
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Want can I saw,
Have does that.....shoe?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Thrawn,
It is simple. To many that post here American = Republican and Republican = American.
Democrat = Traitor that should be shot.
It is that kind open hostility that keeps many away from here.
Brown nose the current administration and anything they do or be considered persona non grata.
Well..we don't have to SHOOT them....
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Want can I say, Thrawn.
...
Last edited by LePaul on 11-27-2005 at 08:52 PM
Come on LePaul, one more time. You can do it!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Come on LePaul, one more time. You can do it!
Thrawn you can argue with lepaul all you want but it doesnt change the fact that the thread topic is correct.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thrawn you can argue with lepaul all you want but it doesnt change the fact that the thread topic is correct.
Not necessarily, who knows if the above data points will make a statistically significant number of people turn from the Democrats?
That poll reminds of the ones conducted about gay marriage up here. 60% against. But the follow up question that was never asked was something along the lines of, "How important is this issue to you?".
It turned out that most of that 60% really didn't care about it.
It would have been great if in the poll you posted about their was a similar follow up question. But as there isn't, it's guess work as to whether or not it will have a significant effect.
-
Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.
This is from Gun's article.
hello wall.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is from Gun's article.
hello wall.
But either way that damage was done. The fact remains that democrats are trying to play political games with this war and Americans are starting to see it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But either way that damage was done. The fact remains that democrats are trying to play political games with this war and Americans are starting to see it.
The midterms will tell.
-
(1) You are quoting an opinion piece as fact.
(2) I am unable, even on the RT Strategies homepage, to locate any information to corroborate the conclusions drawn by the opinion piece quoted. I can't find a single question on any sample survey containing the term "morale." Maybe I'm just missing it, but I tried to find it. The latest poll from their site dates from November 22nd. Perhaps they have not yet released the text of the latest poll?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Not a big fan of any politician, but I would have to say that most end up lying in the manuer they spew when its all said and done!
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
(1) You are quoting an opinion piece as fact.
(2) I am unable, even on the RT Strategies homepage, to locate any information to corroborate the conclusions drawn by the opinion piece quoted. I can't find a single question on any sample survey containing the term "morale." Maybe I'm just missing it, but I tried to find it. The latest poll from their site dates from November 22nd. Perhaps they have not yet released the text of the latest poll?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Actually I was quoting the poll as fact and agreeing with the "opinion peice" (however the post clearly lists these as "articles" in the link)
Second do you have a link to the RT strategies hompage?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
(2) I am unable, even on the RT Strategies homepage, to locate any information to corroborate the conclusions drawn by the opinion piece quoted. I can't find a single question on any sample survey containing the term "morale." Maybe I'm just missing it, but I tried to find it. The latest poll from their site dates from November 22nd. Perhaps they have not yet released the text of the latest poll?
-- Todd/Leviathn
I couldn't find it either but apparently the company was just set up.
Here's the only source link I could find for an RT Strategies poll.
http://www.cookpolitical.com/poll/default.php
I worked for a short while for a polling company. I'm guessing that Cook was thier first client. Now the question is who was their second that contracted them to carry out the poll you posted about. And why did the information get out in an editorial piece first? My agenda senses are tingling.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I allways liked it in the Tom Clancey book when the Entire legislative branch was killed and Jack Ryan said in reguards to new elections "Give me Farmers, Teachers, Workers, NOT politicians to rebuild our federal govt.
Fire them all I say.
Got that right.
Problem is neither side seems to particularly care about whats good for the country as much as what they can BS us about to get their side into power.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
The next election will definitely be decided in the AH "O' Club"
Now THAT would scare me LOL
-
This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/RT_Topline_2005-11-20_Final_PtP.pdf) corroborates the poll results. I find the question wording a bit odd in the first couple of questions -- not in any intentionally biased way, mind you. However, if you were to remove the partisan identifier before the word "senators" I suspect that the results would change dramatically. If you were to change it to "Republican" it would probably differ radically as well. That's a question that requires very delicate handling. For the sake of argument, I'll assume they handled it well and tested its validity through pilot surveys.
Interesting to note in the results (based on a summary I read in a press release accompanying the survey) is that Independents overwhelmingly buy the argument that Democratic criticism hurts morale. These are the same Independents who, in other national polls, have dragged down Bush's job approval ratings. That's an interesting dilemma that Republicans and Democrats alike need to solve by 2006.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
"Conducted November 17-20, 2005"
;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
not only is it terrible for the moral of our troops, especially more so when one old crusty marine loses him mind, it emboldens, motivates, and inspires those that are killing our troops, especially our young marines.
What nonsense.
The Bush admin today released a plan to withdraw, the very thing guys like you said they never could do!
The admin said the plan was like Murtha's, they were quite surprised how close it was.
Bwahahahahahahahaha
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
What nonsense.
The Bush admin today released a plan to withdraw, the very thing guys like you said they never could do!
The admin said the plan was like Murtha's, they were quite surprised how close it was.
Bwahahahahahahahaha
Sakai
Is it an imediate withdraw or just a "plan" like the leftist have been asking for. Does it include an actual plan for victory? Do you have a link?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Is it an imediate withdraw or just a "plan" like the leftist have been asking for. Does it include an actual plan for victory? Do you have a link?
You bet bud:
The white house said that their plan looks like Democrat Joe Biden's plan. Biden is not stupid in the foreign policy/military area and mimicking his plan will give the Admin precious support across the aisle. Smart move that.
GOP senators are also calling for a withdrawal and better management and more accountability, having done so the day after Bush called anyone asking for same a traitor which cut Bush off at the knees politically; at some point we need to focus as Murtha did on what is best for the military. This white house lost control of the issue and is now scrambling to find a stake large enough to sit at the table. Too bad, they had a great chance after 9/11 to be really special and gambled it away on a hunch on Iraq.
Here's the White house press release story:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=1505&e=2&u=/afp/20051127/pl_afp/usiraqtroops_051127192003
Story notes:
Even though Bush has never publicly issued his own withdrawal plan and criticized calls for an early exit, the White House said many of the ideas expressed by the senator were its own.
The Biden plan calls for preparatory work to be done in the first six months of next year, ahead of the envisaged pullout. It includes:
- forging a compromise among Iraqi factions, under which the Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq and *****es and Kurds admit them into a power-sharing arrangement;
- building Iraq's governing capacity;
- transferring authority to Iraqi security forces;
- establishing a contact group of the world's major powers to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor.
Now, ask yourself how a White House that said you simply could not enunciate a plan had one drawn up? They're in a flat spin, time to go to Reagan's 2nd term playbook.
Here's a great interview with a trainer of police, 30 year US military vet, fresh off one year in Iraq regarding the feasibility of Murtha's proposal:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5028206
The guy basically says we have to fight these bastards and Murtha's plan makes sense.
Sakai
-
personally I don't recall Bush ever calling anyone a traitor. Referring to some of the criticism he and the war are getting for partison political gain is dangerous (wich it is) and that those playing such games (mostly democrats) need to stop. There werent just talks of the murtha plans many openly criticise the president and the war calling for wthdrawl without any clear victory.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
post something based on fact that has validity and you are welcome here. Flame and troll and call American's Nazis and you will probably get shown the door.
I don't see how that is pandering or brown nosing
Funny coming from someone who spends his entire day searching the internet looking for crap to post about democrats. Really the only posts you ever make are to flame and troll and nothing else.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
personally I don't recall Bush ever calling anyone a traitor. Referring to some of the criticism he and the war are getting for partison political gain is dangerous (wich it is) and that those playing such games (mostly democrats) need to stop. There werent just talks of the murtha plans many openly criticise the president and the war calling for wthdrawl without any clear victory.
He didn't, but he did release a 5 point plan last year prior to the first election election. I don't see much of a difference in the major details. Bush even mentioned going from 138,000 to a force below 115,000 so if its less than that I would say we are doing even better.
The dem leaders have made it clear their goal is to steal a victory by claiming it has been their idea and bush is following them LOL.
transcript (http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/transcript.htm)
The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.
The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.
America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty.
The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life. Our coalition has already helped Iraqis to rebuild schools and refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system. And now a growing private economy is taking shape. A new currency has been introduced. Iraq's Governing Council approved a new law that opens the country to foreign investment for the first time in decades. Iraq has liberalized its trade policy, and today an Iraqi observer attends meetings of the World Trade Organization. Iraqi oil production has reached more than two million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq. And thanks in part to our efforts -- to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker, many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime.
The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition. At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations -- to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction. Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government. I've directed Secretary Powell to work with fellow members of the Council to endorse the timetable the Iraqis have adopted, to express international support for Iraq's interim government, to reaffirm the world's security commitment to the Iraqi people, and to encourage other U.N. members to join in the effort. Despite past disagreements, most nations have indicated strong support for the success of a free Iraq. And I'm confident they will share in the responsibility of assuring that success.
The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January. A United Nations team, headed by Carina Perelli, is now in Iraq, helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election. In that election, the Iraqi people will choose a transitional national assembly, the first freely-elected, truly representative national governing body in Iraq's history. This assembly will serve as Iraq's legislature, and it will choose a transitional government with executive powers. The transitional national assembly will also draft a new constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for the fall of 2005. Under this new constitution, Iraq will elect a permanent government by the end of next year.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
personally I don't recall Bush ever calling anyone a traitor. Referring to some of the criticism he and the war are getting for partison political gain is dangerous (wich it is) and that those playing such games (mostly democrats) need to stop. There werent just talks of the murtha plans many openly criticise the president and the war calling for wthdrawl without any clear victory.
Well, one might say that saying that you undermine our troops is calling people traitors.
Calling people names like that and then the next week flip flopping and doing what you said could not ever be done no way no how for political gain, as Bush plainly just did, is the lowest form of cowardice.
There is no clear victory possible, none. So pick how we're going to "declare" it a victory, meet those goals and bail out.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Well, one might say that saying that you undermine our troops is calling people traitors.
Sakai
Did you actually read the first post of this thread?
Becauseeeeeeee............
Gunslinger posted:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
well, one might say that 70 percent of the public are calling people traitors.
I don't think thats what the poll is about, but you can read it anyway you want to.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Did you actually read the first post of this thread?
I don't think thats wht the poll is about, but you can read it anyway you want to.
Well, I hate to point out the obvious to you but, if you doubt the polls import and veracity, why are you hanging your hat on it?
I mean, that's as bright as one week saying you simply can't ever float a plan then rushing one out the next week like W just did.
Does the GOP have any credibility left?
No.
The GOP senators calling for reason are out to save themselves by removing their political lives from the failures of W's demagoguery.
Might read up on the wheels coming off inside the white house. Bush will end up making Nixon look like Gandhi.
Hey, there's his legacy!
"I made them forget about Nixon!"
Wooooooootttttt!
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Well, I hate to point out the obvious to you but, if you doubt the polls import and veracity, why are you hanging your hat on it?
I am not hanging my hat on it at all, just pointing out your previous post lack of credibility.
I mean, that's as bright as one week saying you simply can't ever float a plan then rushing one out the next week like W just did.
See there you go again, I posted the plan he detailed a year prior, and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your argument.
-
More on that time table from the former Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times. His points enforce what Bush put on the table a year prior to the current proposal. The fact that some dems are trying to claim it as their own is par for the political course.
I suggest the entire article be read to gain so perspective the yahoo news source omitted
Withdrawal from Iraq ? Here Is the Timetable
Amir Taheri (http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=2818)
25/11/2005
Those Democrat politicians in Washington, who had backed the war with as much enthusiasm as George W Bush, are now using the issue of withdrawal as a means of distancing themselves from their initial positions. The Arab reactionaries who shuddered at the thought of a despot being toppled by foreign intervention are now clinging to the withdrawal slogan in the hope of sabotaging the process of democratisation in Iraq. In Europe, professional anti-Americans of all ilks are trying to cover their political nakedness with the “ withdrawal” fig leaf.
The truth, however, is that a timetable has been in place from the first day of the war that ended the Ba’athist tyranny in 2003. In that timetable the coalition’s military presence in Iraq is, as it should be, linked to the programme for the nation’s political reconstruction.
Any checklist would clearly show that the Iraq project has been more successful than Saddam nostalgics with to portray. The first objective, to bring down Saddam Hussein, was achieved in three weeks.
The next objective was to break the apparatus of oppression created by the Ba’ath. Despite some residual problems that objective, too, has been achieved. Another objective was to break Saddam’s war machine that had been used against Iraq’s neighbours as well as the Kurds and the Shi’ites. After just three years nothing is left of that infernal machine.
One could continue the checklist with the formation of the Governing Council representing the first step towards the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty.
Next on the checklist we have the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis that was accomplished in June 2004.
That was followed by the formation of an interim government, a series of municipal elections, a general election leading to the formation of Iraq’s first pluralist government, the writing of a new constitution and a referendum to get it approved. The next item on the checklist is the general election scheduled for 15 December.
The checklist clearly shows that every objective included in the political programme has been achieved within the exact timeframe fixed by the new Iraqi leadership and its coalition allies.
A key element in all this has been the explicit understanding by both the Iraqi leaders and the coalition that no foreign troops will remain on Iraqi soil without the express agreement of the nation’s elected representatives. In other words the timetable for withdrawal already exists and the mechanism for starting it could be triggered by the parliament and the government that will merge from next month’s general election.
In fact the first item on the agenda of the next elected government, to be formed by next February at the latest, consists of a decision on the presence of coalition troops in Iraq. It was with that understanding that the United Nations agreed to end its largely negative stance on Iraq and play a role in helping the country in efforts to build a new political system.
The idea of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been built into the entire project from day one.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Sakai some things never change.
You can count on Sakai to fall back on the same things.
ignore or change the subject, insult ones intelligence or refer to their opinions as childish, immature or lacking credibility. Type a bwaaahhaaa or lol (or something you can do on bigweek but not here), curse like a tough guy. I see the closest thing you have is a butt reference.
You sir need to get new act this one is predictable but rather tedious.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Originally posted by Sakai
Calling people names like that and then the next week flip flopping and doing what you said could not ever be done no way no how for political gain, as Bush plainly just did, is the lowest form of cowardice.
Sakai
Incredible irony...but, looks like the MP's are on ya...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incredible irony...but, looks like the MP's are on ya...
man those MP's are fast !
-
Originally posted by Krusher
man those MP's are fast !
Yup,
It's pretty sad that it still seems to be all about Bush. I don't see what the bid deal with the guy is. Dems want an exit strategy....some even calling for a withdrawl, he says no. Then produces and exit plan, wich I havn't actually read as of yet, and then somone calls foul?
I've been steadfast in that any exit plan/stratagy for Iraq must be geared towards actually coming out on top of the conflict, IE a stable Democratic country. The seeds of democracy can do alot to a region and this, I think, is the perfect long term goal. Leaving before that goal is accomplished would be to admit complete failure. Iraq is NOT un-winnable. Progress is made every day there. People in the region can flurish under democracy, all you have to do is look to the north at the Kurds. These people are doing well now that Sadam has left and have actually done a great job of policing themselves.
-
Originally posted by parker00
Funny coming from someone who spends his entire day searching the internet looking for crap to post about democrats. Really the only posts you ever make are to flame and troll and nothing else.
1. I work for a living so I don't post the "entire day"
2. It is inflamatory to say the "only" posts I make are about democrats.
3. I never flame or troll, most of what I post I add my own opinion and invite others to offer theirs.