catchescannonballs Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Oh great, look at the emotional knee jerk reaction of the far left lib leadership! I told ya! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_...emocrats_iraq_4 WASHINGTON - Emboldened by their congressional election triumph and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, Democrats say they will use their new clout to force a change in Iraq policy and demand that President Bush start bringing troops home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Oh great, look at the emotional knee jerk reaction of the far left lib leadership! I told ya! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_...emocrats_iraq_4 WASHINGTON - Emboldened by their congressional election triumph and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, Democrats say they will use their new clout to force a change in Iraq policy and demand that President Bush start bringing troops home. 830776[/snapback] And instead of ignoring Congress like he has been, the administration will...ignore Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 And instead of ignoring Congress like he has been, the administration will...ignore Congress. 830780[/snapback] He may ignore Congress, but he won't ignore his "new" consultants (old guys like Baker and Skowron), who also seem to belive that we need to end GW's little !@#$ up in Iraq asap! It is going to be fun seeing Bush trying to appoint his replacement for Rumsfeld, with a Democratic majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 It is going to be fun seeing Bush trying to appoint his replacement for Rumsfeld, with a Democratic majority. 830809[/snapback] He should be confirmed by the lame duck congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 He may ignore Congress, but he won't ignore his "new" consultants (old guys like Baker and Skowron), who also seem to belive that we need to end GW's little !@#$ up in Iraq asap! It is going to be fun seeing Bush trying to appoint his replacement for Rumsfeld, with a Democratic majority. 830809[/snapback] My initial reaction to Gates was the same...another one of Poppy's guys sent in to help out the shrub. But WaPo (via MSNBC link) has a decent write-up on him. He's the polar opposite of Rumsfeld, was part of the Baker-Hamilton report, has stated in the recent past that we should leave as soon as possible, and wants to start a dialog with Iran. He seems like a good candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Oh great, look at the emotional knee jerk reaction of the far left lib leadership! I told ya! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_...emocrats_iraq_4 WASHINGTON - Emboldened by their congressional election triumph and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, Democrats say they will use their new clout to force a change in Iraq policy and demand that President Bush start bringing troops home. 830776[/snapback] Explain how is it stabbing the troops in the back? They were ordered to go there, now they may be ordered to leave? It should mean nothing to the average soldier... They got a job to do, go, stay, or leave... They are there to follow orders, not analyze why they are there or why they are leaving... That is not their job... Why take it so personal? It is not a sign that the troops failed... It is the sign of a poor plan... "Finishing" a project that can't reasonably be "finished" isn't a sign that the soldiers personally failed... Get over yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 As in the past, when GWB gets in trouble he calls upon daddy's friends to bail him out. It happened with the National Guard, then in Texas when he failed at wildcatting and was given a sweet deal to buy into a baseball team and sell it at a profit. Now he once again is calling on GHWB's friends to come up with a solution to get him out of Iraq while not admitting it was a mistake. He said Rumsfeld would be there to the end, then dumps him a week later. Why would anyone believe anything he says? When the Baker group comes out with a plan for a phased withdrawl, he'll jump all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What do you think will happen to Iraq if we just pull the troops out? If it becomes a terrorist safe haven, we'll have to go back to finish the job. It's cool, let's just pass that problem onto our kids to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What do you think will happen to Iraq if we just pull the troops out? If it becomes a terrorist safe haven, we'll have to go back to finish the job. It's cool, let's just pass that problem onto our kids to worry about. 830845[/snapback] Which makes perfect sense, to a Democratic party that's inherited the mantle of Clinton "foreign policy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What do you think will happen to Iraq if we just pull the troops out? If it becomes a terrorist safe haven, we'll have to go back to finish the job. It's cool, let's just pass that problem onto our kids to worry about. 830845[/snapback] The article seems to suggest a draw-down not a pull-out. To pull out would leave that place a bloody mess. You know a policy has failed when you have no good options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The article seems to suggest a draw-down not a pull-out. To pull out would leave that place a bloody mess. You know a policy has failed when you have no good options. 830875[/snapback] Yes, let's draw down and leave our troops even more exposed as there are less for self security, and they have to rely on the Iraqi troops to protect them in the Greenzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, let's draw down and leave our troops even more exposed as there are less for self security, and they have to rely on the Iraqi troops to protect them in the Greenzone. 830879[/snapback] The whole idea for every Iraq plan that I've seen, even Bush's, is to slowly remove troops and give it over to iraqi security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, let's draw down and leave our troops even more exposed as there are less for self security, and they have to rely on the Iraqi troops to protect them in the Greenzone. 830879[/snapback] Are you certain that is what it would mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Are you certain that is what it would mean? 830915[/snapback] Why else draw down troops? If you draw done, you either have to hand over somethings to Iraqi's or why even have them there? You either draw down to consolidate and withdraw completely from a central site, or you draw down and hand functions over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 To pull out would leave that place a bloody mess. 830875[/snapback] ugh. 25 year old male mind thats constantly in the gutter + the above sentence = one bad mental image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 ugh. 25 year old male mind thats constantly in the gutter + the above sentence = one bad mental image 830937[/snapback] Pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Why else draw down troops? If you draw done, you either have to hand over somethings to Iraqi's or why even have them there? You either draw down to consolidate and withdraw completely from a central site, or you draw down and hand functions over. 830929[/snapback] My question was whether or not a draw down necessarily equaled more exposure, initially it would seem counter-intuitive that less people would by necessity make you more exposed. It could be argued that our presence there is only slowing an inevitable Darwinian process. (although I am not about to argue that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Why else draw down troops? If you draw done, you either have to hand over somethings to Iraqi's or why even have them there? You either draw down to consolidate and withdraw completely from a central site, or you draw down and hand functions over. 830929[/snapback] Direct from Nancy Pelosi's website Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role. http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf So what, exactly, is wrong with this? The fact that there aren't as many American troops as there were before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchescannonballs Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Direct from Nancy Pelosi's websitehttp://www.democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf So what, exactly, is wrong with this? The fact that there aren't as many American troops as there were before? 830949[/snapback] What's wrong with it is that its a pipe dream. Can't you see through her little game. Everyone knows the iraqis can't run that place, not for a long time. We need to stay there for a long time and let them evolve into a democracy. This will outlast the Bush presidency just like he said it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Direct from Nancy Pelosi's websitehttp://www.democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf So what, exactly, is wrong with this? The fact that there aren't as many American troops as there were before? 830949[/snapback] This says nothing. What compromises do we want the Iraqis to make that will help unite the country? All three factions want the power and the one causes 99% of the issues is the smallest group who has always controlled others with an iron fist. Nothing less will be acceptable to that group. They have most of the money and will continue to import people to there cause for very little money. On the second point see above, the insurgency is a lot of paid labor from the old ruling party. Unlimited money supply and unlimited idiots who go to a "cause". Regional diplomacy? With who, other than Iran and Syria we have wide open negotiations. The main issue seems to be the utter destruction of Israel and a homeland for the terrorists from Palestinians. What allies aren't there or in Afghanistan supporting the effort? France? France hasn't been our ally for years? England there, Australia there, Canada there, plenty of others. Other nations in a construction role. Why, who's going to pay for it? Right now the US is picking up most of the cost. Why should we pay other contries to help rebuild when they didn't help eliminate Sadaam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts