Clockwork Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Why can't we just have Republicrats and work as a unit? Seriously. Or how about a 3rd party that isn't filled with partisan crooks pushing their own agenda? How about I run for president and do it on a platform of cohesion of our country? This bickering all seems like it is "to make a point" and not get anything solved. More governmental garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 From what I have read, it is both. Both are true. He formed his opinion and his stance independently. There is a clear timeline to it. He was in favor of the war but had reservations. He even thought Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq. He was a close friend of George the Elder who consulted with him weekly during the first Iraq war, but they both held strong convictions about not getting bogged down in Iraq. He started to get disllusioned quite some time ago but even went out of his way to say we shouldn't withdraw the troops. In the last several months he has soured even more. He went two months ago to Iraq and his plane had to be escorted by two Black Hawks and two more helicopters. He said the Generals he spoke to on the ground would say what the White House wants them to say in public but in private they told him things aren't improving on the ground with the insurgents. He's spoke out about "guerilla war" quite a few times since being a Vietnam Vet, one of his keen interests. He decided recently that this wasn't going to work and we cannot win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi public because of numerous reasons. He finally changed his mind recently when he decided that we're looked on by the majority as the enemy, and it isn't going to change. When speaking to his colleagues and the Dem power brokers, they were looking for a guy just like him. Pelosi was the one that went to him in the cabal scenario you described, very recently. She wanted a second front to attack the White House on the war and they were going to use his resolution to start that second front. He knowingly went along and knew before he said it that it would cause quite a stir. But he believes he's right and this is the best thing for us. That part wasn't politically motivated, and again, he doesn't seem the kind of guy that is always or even often doing things against the strategic interests of the military and country, or for personal gain or power trips. So again, I think both things are true. He really believes this is right and is fighting for it. And simultaneously, the Dems are using him for their overall strategy against the White House and he's a willing participant. 507512[/snapback] Makes sense. I just didn't like the feel some seem to have that he is this lone crusader with impecable credentials and motives. If leaving Iraq tomorrow would leave us with an ally between Syria and Iran, I'd buy the first three rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter. Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter.I was waiting for her to give herself whiplash with the incessant head nodding she was doing... How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber? 507372[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 OK, this is obviously a polarized issue. I'm in the camp that thinks until we have conditions favorable to the United States within Iraq, we should stay. A lot of folks mention "adequate troop levels". Once again, I just don't understand how puliing out brigade by brigade is going to make that situation any better for those still on fthe ground...but whatever. Maybe someone can explain it to me. What about the idea of maybe trying to do certain things differently, and visibly? What about putting MORE people into Iraq, rather than using less? We're stretched thin, but it could be done. What about a targeted information-PR campaign within the country to help the guy on the street understand that some mistakes were made, but we are working hard to make things better for all. Don't put all of this on the administration. Our military forces can't be re-trained or re-structured overnight tailored to whatever war they may have to fight. They have certain means of getting certain things done, and they use them - as they should. I don't think many people gave the ramifications of house to house bang down doors midnight searches much thought until just about everyone was pissed off. I don't even want to get too deep into the WMD search...more than one field commander knew he had sensitive sites along his advance, and was supposed to at least search if not secure them - but blew it off in the dash for Baghdad. There's literally dozens that we'll never know what was contained or worked on there, because everything had been looted before they were exploited. I'm not "blindly following the administration" on this, the core idea of getting rid of Sadaam and effecting regime change is a good one, in terms of our interests. You need do little more than look at a map. All of this, right or wrong could have been avoided if Hussein played nice and did what he was supposed to do after Gulf 1. He didn't. 507449[/snapback] I agree completely about the troop levels. My position is and has been that we should now either put enough troops to finish the job or work on plan to leave immediately. If I'm not mistaken, responsible people have put this forward on both sides of the aisle. We all know how that was received: shrugs of indignation from DR, spin from the White House and cat calls questioning the patriotism of those who raised their voices. However, I disagree completely with you on the administration. It was the Vulcans/Chicken Hawks who decided to turn our military into the largest police force ever assembled. Why did this happen? Because, after having virtually the entire civilized world behind us in the wake of 9/11, GB and the Chicken Hawks squandered every bit of capital we'd built up over the last 50 years, leaving us with Great Britain, Micronesia and the almighty Mongolians (sp?) with the rest of the Coalition of the Willing to keep the peace, instead of NATO (my choice) or, at the very least, the UN. Even then, they had an opportunity to use the lower ranks of the Iraqi army as a base for a new army (albeiit under close supervision). Instead, we disbanded them and turned some of them into insurgents. For Christ Sakes, our military deserves nothing less than a well-thought out plan. This administration failed them miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Makes sense. I just didn't like the feel some seem to have that he is this lone crusader with impecable credentials and motives. If leaving Iraq tomorrow would leave us with an ally between Syria and Iran, I'd buy the first three rounds. 507535[/snapback] The irony is that by removing Saddam, Iraq is likely to become a very close ally of Iran rather than the US. Not only is a Shia-dominated Iraq a natural ally for Shia Iran but also many of the members of the current Iraqi government, including the prime-minister, spent years in exile in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts