|
I know! I know! OK. It is the Democrats plus the RINO’s! |
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
Yeah, which means every Republican in the Senate is now a RINO (all voted for the amendment). All of them as in everyone. Is Frist smoking dope or what?
You have a president out trying to beat back Democrat opposition to the war and then you hand them this?
Just the political ineptness is freakin’ amazing in and of itself. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
The only reason at all I’m even considering any sort of support for the GOP 06 congressional efforts is because I don’t want Bush hamstrung even further by hostile Congress.
But really....Frist has to go. Not a dime until this clown is gone.
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
According to Bithead, re the ANWR thread, the RINOs cannot be disciplined and they set the Republican agenda.
Someone recently quipped (and I don’t know who to credit) that America has a ruling party that is smug and arrogant, and an opposition party that is insane.
In 2006, look for the insane party to take over—
—we’ll never know the difference at this rate.
GOOD GOD.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
The real majority party is composed of the people at home who think staying the course is a recipe for disaster.
You can’t complain about effete liberals who are at odds with the will of the people when talking about judges and then condemn the representatives that vote the will of the people in foreign policy.
You are either a Jefferson or a Hamilton. You can’t flip flop back and forth depending upon whether they agree with you.
|
| |
Written By:
cindy
URL:
http://
|
What’s this all about? A Senate vote today which passed by a 79-19 margin calling on the president to explain his strategy for ending the war in Iraq as well as reporting every 3 months on progress there until all the US troops there are redeployed
You know, I’m changing my thinking on this one.....can these idiots have actually handed Bush a tremendous bully pulpit?
Lets suppose Bush chooses to "report" to congress in a speech, and that speech is just chock full of good news and progress, the kind of stuff that never gets reported here?
My god, they may have given him a great way to get his message out in a high visibility, hard to ignore way. He’ll be able to show that we really are "winning" the war.
Heh........you know what? I’m looking forward to that 1st report after all. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
The real majority party is composed of the people at home who think staying the course is a recipe for disaster
And this is based on....? |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
The drop in W’s support since early July and the defeat of Kilgore (a man W worked hard for) makes the GOP feel that its a rerun of "Read My Lips".
Bush brought a lot of this on himself. From Mar to Oct he was attacking conservatoves and making nice to liberals. He and Rove made some very bad mistakes during that period. Like his father he tried to get liberal support. Like his father he angered conservatives. The new add by the RNC will help but it must be aired everywhere and nightly for many nights. He never had any credibility with liberals and Democrats; after the last 8 months he has almost none with conservatives. All he has left is liberal Republicans and "moderates" which if you recall the 33% Bush I got in 1992 is a very small part of America.He has no more than 8 months to prove he is not the liberal he was from Mar to Oct. It will be hard. If he can not do it expect the Gop folk running for office to at best stay away and at worst attack the President. |
| |
Written By:
Rod Stanton
URL:
http://
|
Cindy, you are wrong in you premises. The fools who persuaded us to leave Vietnam—thereby permitting the slaughter of millions of Cambodians as if brown lives don’t matter and at least ensured the Cold War lasted past Reagan’s second term—the majority of Americans are not such a fool as you.
Shark, I hope you are right, and you could well be.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
You can’t complain about effete liberals who are at odds with the will of the people when talking about judges and then condemn the representatives that vote the will of the people in foreign policy.
Well in order to do that you first have to buy into your assumption that they are indeed voting the will of the people, and that is not at all clear.
In fact, history tells us that this bunch is just as likely to vote against their constituents as for them. How many times must they hear the refrain "cut spending" before they vote the will of the people? Or "break our dependence on foreign oil" before they vote for ANWR? Etc., etc., etc.?
Nope, sorry Cindy, no sale. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Cindy, you are wrong in you premises. The fools who persuaded us to leave Vietnam—thereby permitting the slaughter of millions of Cambodians as if brown lives don’t matter and at least ensured the Cold War lasted past Reagan’s second term—the majority of Americans are not such a fool as you.
Shark, I hope you are right, and you could well be.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
"you premises" /= "your premises"
My kingdom for an edit function. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
Shark, I hope you are right, and you could well be.
You may have a point, Shark ... but then you have to remember the President just recently began fighting back about the "he lied" meme a year and a half after it started up again.
However, if not a defacto timeline, what in the world is it? How can you report on progress without the requirement to put that in some sort of context concerning troop withdrawl? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Well in order to do that you first have to buy into your assumption that they are indeed voting the will of the people, and that is not at all clear. It’s only unclear to the Bush cult crowd. Lets suppose Bush chooses to "report" to congress in a speech, and that speech is just chock full of good news and progress, the kind of stuff that never gets reported here?
My god, they may have given him a great way to get his message out in a high visibility, hard to ignore way. He’ll be able to show that we really are "winning" the war.
Heh........you know what? I’m looking forward to that 1st report after all. So, let’s get this straight. Bush is the President - the bully pulpit and all that. And yet he cannot get his "message" accross without the help of Congress. He had to be "given" a great way to get it out.
What a leader. No wonder you guys worship him. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
It’s only unclear to the Bush cult crowd.
Says the moonbat.
Well that settles it, huh?
Look, MK, if you can’t do better than this, please, save the bandwidth, will you? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Look, MK, if you can’t do better than this, please, save the bandwidth, will you? Well, ok then. We should settle this matter once and for all. It’s a point Cindy touched on too.
Are the polls meaningless? Are they inaccurate? Are they accurate in one sense, but not reflective of the will of the people? Or, do they reflect the will of the people but the people are misinformed?
Mind you, I am not asking whether politicians should make decisions based on polls. That is a separate question. I am simply asking an empirical question. Because it seems that your point is that it is not clear what the American people want or what they think. I understand why you want to dismiss the polls, given Bush’s numbers and what the polls say about Iraq. I’m trying to figure out the ground on which you think they should be dismissed.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
I didn’t know that "staying the course" was a comprehensive strategy.
To put it another way, it’s not too much to ask the President to define what the heck the "course" is. "Victory" is not a plan. "Freedom" is not a plan. "Iraqis taking over" is not a plan. |
| |
Written By:
Geek, Esq.
URL:
http://
|
Yes, Cindy, we know what the polls “mean” in the liberal cocoon. They clearly and unequivocally mean that a majority of Americans want [fill in whatever talking point from the liberal agenda is under discussion]. Polls are only done when someone is willing to pay for them. The payors continue to conduct the polls only if the results support the things that the payor wants supported. Some of the questions asked are like asking a 10 year old if he wants another piece of candy. “Should we get out of Iran right now?” is a much different question from “Should we violate and repudiate all of our treaties with the government of Iraq?” Essentially, they are the same question, put a different way. Bottom line is that polls of the MSM-[mis] informed public are worthless in making specific political decisions and that is what is wrong with Cindy’s comment.
Shark may have made his most prescient comment ever. MK apparently thinks that the MSM reports political stories based on their news value. Even if Shark is right, you better believe that the MSM will “balance” any good news with an equal or greater amount of bad news. The glorious news that our troop withdrawal has begun (in the MSM) would be: “Only 10,000 troops coming home – no word on when any more are coming, according to Bush announcement. Democrats say troop return is too little, too late.”
|
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
|
Cindy is right. Being obnoxious in your responses doesn’t change that. |
| |
Written By:
Liu
URL:
http://
|
I didn’t know that "staying the course" was a comprehensive strategy.
It’s not ... but then the strategy has been articulated for quite some time.
I’m still mystified by those who claim there is none. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Are the polls meaningless? Are they inaccurate? Are they accurate in one sense, but not reflective of the will of the people? Or, do they reflect the will of the people but the people are misinformed?
Or are they a product of the Democrat "Big Lie", i.e. the propaganda principle that says if you say it often enough and loud enough a certain percentage of the people will begin to believe it?
I happen to believe that is a huge part of this. Relentlessly, for over a year, Democrats have continued trumpeting this baseless charge, a charge which was disposed of with the Senate Intelligence Committee report, the Butler report and the Robb-Silberman report.
Unfortuntately polls don’t refelect the number of people who are familiar with those findings. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Cindy is right. Being obnoxious in your responses doesn’t change that.
Bald-faced and unsupported assertions doesn’t make it so, either. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
I asked my little eleven year old nephew what our strategy was for getting out of Iraq. He said; "When the Iraquis can protect themselves better, we will start pulling out our troops". Gee, its funny that a kid understands the exit strategy but many Democrats and Media people seem to be too stupid to get it.
BTW, troops will start comeing out by second quarter next year. |
| |
Written By:
Kyle N
URL:
http://
|
It’s not ... but then the strategy has been articulated for quite some time.
Well, that’s Rich Lowry, not the White House. Moreover, an article entitled "How the US began to quell the Iraqi insurgency" seems a bit premature and on the wishful side.
Here’s one question: When is the administration going to tell the Iraqi people that it has no intentions of keeping permanent military bases there? Seems to me that if you want to convince people that you’re not an imperialist occupying power, that you’d tell them that there will come a day when there are no US troops in their country. |
| |
Written By:
Geek, Esq.
URL:
http://
|
I grow weary of this partisan bickering.
READ CAREFULLY.
The majority of the American people are losing support for this war.
The Democrats are using these developments as a political football.
The Republicans are losing the confidence of the people to be able to handle it.
What the president needs to do is convince the people that this war is worth seeing through. He cannot do this just by attacking his critics, no matter if his attacks are justified or not. It’s simply not going to work.
What the president needs to do is speak to the public. Simply addressing various groups, including congress, won’t do it. He can’t do it. It seems that every time he does this, the same tired old rhetoric just seems to pour out onto deaf ears. The American people are tired of the same old, “stay the course”, “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”, and my personal favorite, “winning the war on…er,…struggle against global extrem…, no wait,…yeah,…war on terror”. The president needs to have a REAL, not a stacked, town hall meeting so that he can address what everyday people want to know.
I realize that this would be risky for the president, for he is not the best orator (to be polite) and he doesn’t do all that well off script. But these times demand leadership. And if the president can’t do it, then he needs to hand over the reins to someone else.
Unfortuntately polls don’t refelect the number of people who are familiar with those findings.
Irrelevant, McQ. It doesn’t matter how the American people came to believe this. Even if you take the ground that the American people are too stupid to come to a reasoned opinion on their own, and you believe that it is the constant drumbeat of a few Democrats or a few pundits in the media. It doesn’t matter, it’s up to the Commander in Chief to lead us. He needs to do this and let the American people decide if it’s worth “staying the course”. I don’t think blaming MSM is going to win the opinion of the people, but I guess you can keep trying.
Even if Shark is right, you better believe that the MSM will “balance” any good news with an equal or greater amount of bad news.
What pisses me off, is that there is an equal or greater amount of bad news. |
| |
Written By:
PogueMahone
URL:
http://
|
Well, that’s Rich Lowry, not the White House. Moreover, an article entitled "How the US began to quell the Iraqi insurgency" seems a bit premature and on the wishful side.
Geek, you’re being obtuse now. The "conditions based exit strategy" has been articulated for a year now. Lowrey quotes it in his article which you wave off:As we move down that path, the number of U.S. troops will gradually diminish. There are no hard deadlines. An administration official calls it “a conditions-based strategy.” “The longer we carry the burden,” he says, “the more dependent the Iraqis will be. There is a judgment that the time to take the hand off the bicycle seat is now, after the elections.” Slowly, there will be “a one-to-one replacement of American units with Iraqi units.”
It is already happening. Iraqis are increasingly in the lead in the nine peaceful provinces in the south. The Kurds are providing security in the three provinces of Iraqi Kurdistan. “In 12 of 18 provinces of Iraq, by and large, Iraqi security forces are shouldering the work,” says an officer in Iraq. The transfer has begun even in the more troublesome parts of Iraq. The 40th Brigade of the Iraqi Army now patrols the dangerous Haifa Street neighborhood in Baghdad. This is not the precipitous “exit strategy” demanded by the war’s critics, but a way of achieving the war’s ultimate goal — a legitimate, representative Iraqi government that can defend itself.
“We don’t have an exit strategy,” says deputy undersecretary of defense William Luti. “We have a strategy for victory. We’re going to win.” This isn’t something new, and it isn’t something numerous officials in the administration haven’t articulated many times.
And, whether you like it or not, it is an exit strategy.
So why not be truthful about it ... you don’t like it and want us to pull out now. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
I tried to find the silver lining in this like many of you have
- opportunity for Bush to trumpet his successes
- heads off an even worse Democrat proposal with a timeline
- sending a signal to the Iraqis to get it in gear
But ultimately its not enough to offset how this will be Spun & Used.
Zarqawi will interpret this as the US loosing its resolve. Or at least he will spin it that way to his followers and sponsers. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is renewed energy in the insurgency within the next month.
Zarqawi will use the plan to customize and focus his attacks. Any plan (even without a timetable) is going result in a checklist of goals. If one of those is ’less than 3 car bombings a week’, Zarqawi ensure there are atleast always 4 bombings even if he has to focus all his resources to do it. Or if one of the goals is to have 150,000 Iraqi troops functioning independantly, Zarqawi will focus his attacks on getting the body count up on Iraqi soldiers and intimidating anyone from joining by threatening them or there family.
If you lay out a detailed plan, you tell Zarqawi exactly how to make us fail it. There will always be enough checkboxes that he can influence that the plan will never be finished. Opportunist Democrats will take that and run with it to no end. Zarcoward will run with it to his people too.
The biggest irony in this is that the Republicans have totally misread the public. Despite being upset with the progress and even with some believing the lie about the lie, they aren’t onboard with the anti-war group. The majority of the public don’t want an early withdrawl.
But thanks to Congress they just handed Zarqawi a roadmap to making Iraq a true quagmire. I won’t vote Democrat, but I don’t think I’ll be voting for Congress at all this next couple of elections. |
| |
Written By:
John
URL:
http://
|
|
Does this strategy require the pacification of Iraq before exit or will American troops be exiting "under fire" from Al Qaeda and the insurgents? |
| |
Written By:
Unaha-closp
URL:
http://
|
It’s very depressing. I used to be a firm believer that the public was not easily fooled and had some sort of collective wisdom. I never wanted to believe like some on the left that "sheeple" existed. Now I debate that.
I can understand that the people wanted a quick war and when it gets tougher, they get nervous.
But then something like the WP story comes along. It’s now frontpage Yahoo. And that story is sheer malarkey, mixing in ignorance of WP, ignorance of history, and obviously a shallow ploy by somebody to hurt the war effort.
The funny thing is we are probably winning now in Iraq. Mosul is pacified and we are opening permanent based in the small towns in Anbar. The Iraqi forces are coming on-line.
I guess it’s race to see who gets results first, the US forces or the liars in the media. I use the word liars after this WP story. Sorry, I just cannot understand how it was fine and dandy to use it as a weapon in WW II but not in Fallujah. |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
When you run for office as a conservative and after the election govern as a liberal it tends to upset people. There is a reason the polls went south in July and continue south in Oct.; the liberal President has become an albatross anound the neck of the GOP. He deserted the party and the party is punishing him.
But like his father the Democrats are giving him no support either.His sharp left turn last Spring has made him a man without a country; so to speak. |
| |
Written By:
JommacDougal
URL:
http://
|
When you run for office as a conservative and after the election govern as a liberal it tends to upset people. There is a reason the polls went south in July and continue south in Oct.; the liberal President has become an albatross anound the neck of the GOP. He deserted the party and the party is punishing him.
But like his father the Democrats are giving him no support either.His sharp left turn last Spring has made him a man without a country; so to speak
Most of the Federally elected Republicans are guilty of the same thing. He’s right where the GOP wanted to be. Taking the Conservatives for granted and playing for Liberal votes. That’s what today’s vote was about. |
| |
Written By:
John
URL:
http://
|
|
We have a significant military presence in a number of contries; Germany, Japan and South Korea immediately come to mind. That’s hardly an inclusive list, and our folks aren’t, generally speaking, dying there, but we’re still spending Billions annually maintaining that presence. Anyway, just gotta wonder—anyone seen or heard of a plan to leave those spots? |
| |
Written By:
GhotiFood
URL:
http://
|
|
We have a significant military presence in a number of contries; Germany, Japan and South Korea immediately come to mind. That’s hardly an inclusive list, and our folks aren’t, generally speaking, dying there, but we’re still spending Billions annually maintaining that presence. Anyway, just gotta wonder—anyone seen or heard of a plan to leave those spots? |
| |
Written By:
GhotiFood
URL:
http://
|
I posted a list of the 14 Senators, 1 Democrat and 13 Republicans, who voted against undermining the War on Islamic Terrorism on my post on this topicBunning (R-KY,
Burr (R-NC),
Chambliss (R-GA),
Coburn (R-OK),
Conrad (D-ND),
DeMint (R-SC),
Graham (R-SC),
Inhofe (R-OK),
Isakson (R-GA),
Kyl (R-AZ),
McCain (R-AZ),
Sessions (R-AL),
Thune (R-SD),
Vitter (R-LA) The criteria was a no vote to both (the Frist RINO version that passed and Carl Lenin’s version that was defeated) versions of this legislation. |
| |
Written By:
Kevin
URL:
http://louisianalibertarian.blogspot.com
|
I know! I know! OK. It is the Democrats plus the RINO’s! True.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
According to Bithead, re the ANWR thread, the RINOs cannot be disciplined and they set the Republican agenda. No, Tom, I said they BLOCK the Republican agenda.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
No, Tom, I said they BLOCK the Republican agenda.
Heh ... kind of depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
|
Shark may be on to something. If you look at the 19 nays, you will find John Kerry and Ted Kennedy on that list. When was the last time these two were on your side in a lopsided defeat? It just doesn’t smell right. |
| |
Written By:
Wilky
URL:
http://
|
This couldn’t come at a worse time.
Zarqawi out of frustration has started to turn closer and closer on his own. The Jordanian attack has backfired. It could have harolded the end of AQ.
Now we hand him this victory. |
| |
Written By:
John
URL:
http://
|
Disgusting. Here is the text of the amendment, scroll down to Amdt. 2518: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109NteWhr:e38679:
Here is the vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00323
Interesting: McConnell, Hutchison, Frist vote yea; McCain votes Nay
The President has outlined the freaking plan til he is blue in the face. If Congress wants to know how it’s going, they can get off their asses and talk to the chief of staff; it doesn’t take an Act of Congress!!! Jeez this BS drives me nuts.
|
| |
Written By:
Ron C
URL:
http://
|
I can understand that the people wanted a quick war and when it gets tougher, they get nervous
And there is the rub. Not to ever diminish for 1 minute the sacrifice of our soldiers or the enormity of the task in Iraq- however, by historic standards, this isn’t a "tough" war. In previous conflicts the loss of life in a week or day would come close to or exceed the total loss in Iraq.
Grenada, Panama, Gulf War- public expects a 45 minute war now. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Food for thought: The United States has never won a war that lasted over four and a half years. (There was no United States during the revolutionary war).
Tom Perkins: In Vietnam we failed to understand that we were fighting nationalists rather than international communists. The nationalists had been fighting for decades before us. We could have kept fighting for decades and never won. This country is no worse of for having quit. Vietnam was never a threat to our security. Had we quit sooner we would have been better off still.
This begs the question, "Have we made a similar mistake in Iraq?" Every day that the war goes on by makes it look more like a mistake has been made. If you use number of casualties as a proxy for strength, they are getting stronger.
|
| |
Written By:
cindy
URL:
http://
|
Food for thought: The United States has never won a war that lasted over four and a half years. (There was no United States during the revolutionary war).
So it’s the amount of time involved that’s key ... who knew?
Good grief.
We could have kept fighting for decades and never won.
Well except for the inconvenient fact that they’ve admitted they were on the verge of quitting when we unilaterally stopped the bombing of the North to bring them to the negotiation table.
"Have we made a similar mistake in Iraq?"
What’s that, lost our resolve? Ask the Senate. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
You know, for about a half a day, I thought I’d let Cindy’s innanities go by, but what the heck:Food for thought: The United States has never won a war that lasted over four and a half years. (There was no United States during the revolutionary war). A) It was the same country as of the adoption of the declaration of independence. I won’t credit the fact the British were still disagreeing with us ;^)
B) Do you mean to say you think we’d have lost WWII to the Japanese if we’d had to undertake Operation Olympic. Please.Tom Perkins: In Vietnam we failed to understand that we were fighting nationalists rather than international communists. The nationalists had been fighting for decades before us. We could have kept fighting for decades and never won. This country is no worse of for having quit. Vietnam was never a threat to our security. Had we quit sooner we would have been better off still. No, the differentiating factor is that we were fighting communists. What, you think after we cut and ran they opened a stock exchange in Hanoi? The South Vietnamese were also nationalists, and if we’d so much as hung around to give them air support, and tolerated the few hundred or so casualties a year we’d’ve incurred, South Vietnam would still be free territory and the Republic of Vienam might have absorbed the North, the Cold War might have ended in ’86 or ’87, and the Killing Fields would never have happened.
We screwed up royally by leaving Vietnam. I repeat, in leaving Vietnam, we screwed up.
This begs the question, "Have we made a similar mistake in Iraq?" Every day that the war goes on by makes it look more like a mistake has been made. If you use number of casualties as a proxy for strength, they are getting stronger.
In the very long strategic run, what mistakes have been made in Iraq don’t amount to a hill of beans. If like mistakes and poor management mean we should have never gone back into Iraq, then by that ridiculously high standard Lincoln should’ve surrendered Fort Sumter and had the Confederate Ambassador in for tea.
Cindy I write this with all the sympathy I have in me, you are dumb. Your powers of perception are infinitesimal.
Very Sincerely Yoours, Tom Perkins,
ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
Once again, editing posted posts would be great.
Yeah, yeah, we oughta check better.
Yours, TDP, ml,msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
