That would have been the time to voice the objections. They have Tony Snow out there (well Dana for now) talking to the press everyday. You don't wait until they are en route before making this such a bad thing you begin talking to the press. They didn't even mention this as a "bad thing" to the republican in the group. this is a lot of fuss about exactly nothing.
Now, THAT I can agree with. In fact, I believe that I called it a "Tempest in a Tea-Pot" a while ago.
True I was messing with your words, but the fact is on many things the dems had exactly no power to do anything about it. They were not allowed to bring a bill to a vote let alone have enough votes to pass anything. Voting for the Iraq was was a huge mistake that they are reversing their stance on.
That has no bearing on their original vote. They supported the war effort until it became possible to make political gain from it.
It is in no way opinion. Bush said we would not stand down until we have achieved victory. You do listen to what he has to say instead of getting your marching orders directly from Wolfowitz, right?
What crisis? The pentagon on Thursday released documents that once again says the administration cherry picked information and AT THE TIME, there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and was a secular state. How could they hate us more? Well, for one thing we are bonding a fractious area together. When our "allies" in Saudi Arabia are publicly denouncing us as occupiers, and Iraq has become no longer secular. As for 9/11, how exactly has our presence in Iraq helped prevent another one? The "we'll fight em over there so we don't fight em over here" rhetoric is tired and wrong. Of the 100,000 insurgents currently in Iraq, 2,000 are al quaeda, the rest are Iraqis created by our occupation there.
Our presence is actively creating terrorists every day.
Facts please, especially about the 100,000 and the total number of foreign insurgents. Read my statement without attempting to spin it. I had said nothing about a current crisis, only that Hussein would have presented us with another crisis by now, had he been left in power. Uhhh, I don't remember anything about any rhetoric about where we'll fight, could that have been yet another sad attempt at "messing with my words"?
No, your post was clearly attacking one side, implying that Bush was doing a great job with what has landed in his lap. Fact is, he hasn't. He has been wrong every step of the way in regard to length of the war, cost of the war, response on the ground to the war, need for the war, and how to end the war. This doesn't absolve the Dem for helping vote us into it.
IF you took the time to acquaint yourself with posts 35, 39, 43, 48, 57, and 64, you'd note the fact that I blamed BOTH parties for the issues. The last post, in which I pointed out that the Dems aren't exactly friends of ours, was in response to your continual bashing of the current administration. Should you be able to show us, at any point, where you have actually apportioned any of the blame to another party, now would be a good time to do so. Failing that, at least read what I write, not what you think I should write.
Meaning that a solution to dependence on oil will have to come from science, not politics. The tongue in cheek icon is as broken as your sense of humor.
Not even worthy of a reply.
No the aspirin plant in this case were the mobile labs "clearly seen in this picture" and that "we know where the WMDs are"
Ah, no doubt a simple-minded attempt at humor? That one, as devised by the Democrats, surely gained the United States a HUGE following in the Arab World. Pelosi should tour the Sudan, pointing out that this was our handiwork, and basking in the adulation resulting from it.
Your lame neville dig notwithstanding, you once again seem to forget that Iraq had exactly nothing to do with 9/11. We also seem to forget that went into Afghanistan [sic] as a response. We have failed in talks with Musharraf so we can't track bin laden into Pakistan.
We have overcommitted and overextended our troops in Iraq. That is the most unhealthy part of this war. The current Dem leadership is proposing action, with specifics on an exit strategy that ALSO maintains a presence that trains, rebuilds, and helps police. You are a lemming for not realizing that.
You seem, once again, to ignore the simple fact that a state of hostilities existed between Iraq and the Coalition under International Law. ALL, as in both parties, have failed in dealing with Musharraf, who really wants the United States to provide advanced military equipment to him, upsetting the regional balance of power. If the world were as simple as you, maybe it would work, but it isn't.
We are overextended in our military due as much to peacekeeping missions and other treaty assignments as we are due to Iraq. That the eight years previous to this administration caused a stand-down of ready units due to budget constraints has, of course, no effect on current military ops, right? The destruction of ready stores of weapons?
Exit strategies worked quite well in Vietnam, for the NVA. A presence that trains, rebuilds, and helps police, yet is able to defend itself is how large? The democratic response is, so far, largely a "we'll get to the specifics later" response.
As for being a lemming, that's an opinion that I'll choose to regard with the same level of intensity that I reserve for faith in the MSM, thank you.
Please show me any documents showing that terrorism has gone done [sic] (number of bombings, number of people killed, etc) at all since 2003. Your point is absolutely devoid of any contact with reality.
I'm not sure what that represents. However, how many aircraft have been crashed into buildings here since 2001? How many bombs have been delivered into America, and blown up? The death toll amongst Americans in Iraq is still, after four years, less than that in cities like Detroit, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Should the democrats also have an exit strategy for those cities, as well?
