Watch for the big announcement

A bet on the exact timing of the announcement? No thanks. It'll come soon.
So are we going to actually discuss the subject here, or just poke at imagined holes that are totally irrelavant because we have no real argument?
 
"Today Dubya is going to announce his plan to cut and run from Iraq"

You're the one who started this by saying "Today." Did you mean Tomorrow?

4:07 p.m. Eastern. Last chance to back it up. :cool:

John
 
Forgot to address something.

"...we have no real argument"

You didn't ask for a debate. You didn't even state your opinion.
You stated "Today Dubya is going to announce his plan to cut and run"

You have no facts. It's 4:13 p.m. Eastern and no word from the President on your prediction.

John
 
Nice to know that Goslash among his other super powers obtained by being a up holder of the Demo/socialist state can read minds...:) In advance no less...
 
See, the trouble is that he had his crystal ball tuned to channel 3 instead of channel 2. Everyone knows that channel 3 is always wrong.
 
Apparently I underestimate my own powers of prognostication. The speech is tomorrow at 4:00 EST in Annapolis, MD
Channel 3 must be pretty powerful :p
 
GoSlash Wrote:

Apparently I underestimate my own powers of prognostication.
Click to expand...

Apparently you need to take a queue from the french and give up. He has already stated he will not 'cut & run' as you predicted. By the way....how DOES crow taste? ;)
 
"The speech is tomorrow at 4:00"

Sure, the President is going to the Naval Academy to announce his plan to surrender.

Have I stumbled into the twilight zone?

John
 
Hahaha did you really think we were going to back out of this after losing thousands of men? This war is going very well for us tactically speaking, we lost 2 thousand and killed 50,000 insurgents. Lieberman just said that backing out would be an error.

All we need to do now is ally with Iran or destroy it.

Look at how well this is going for us. We are allies with Kuwait, we own Iraq and Afghanistan, we are allies with Saudi Arabia. We have practical control of what, like 30 percent of the worlds oil supply? The only thing that could go wrong is if we invade Iran, China might put the screws on us seeing as how they get like 20 percent of their oil and natural gas from them. I think the last deal they signed was like 100 billion dollars for oil alone. And India depends heavily on Iranian oil and gas as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3572172.stm
http://www.energybulletin.net/901.html
 
THE PLAN

"is set to change, by making fewer patrols and convoys, moving out of Iraqi cities and focusing more on specialized operations aimed at high-value terrorist targets.

"As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists"

translation: ummmm........

real world: US Troops move out of cities, Terrorists move in.
 
US Troops move out of cities, Terrorists move in.
Click to expand...

LOL: They LIVE in the cities, what do you think they do, commute from the hills and suicide bomb?

IF we start withdrawing troops on a large scale, and thats a big if despite what Bush says, all that means is that the Iraqi government will be taking the casualties while fighting a war of attrition against the insurgents. And thats a good thing for public relations.

I also predict the use of US light infantry using special forces like suprise and ambush tactics. As opposed to house to house fighting which will be impossible if we really do withdraw our troops to remote megabases. Currently they are in 4 megabases as opposed to the dozens previously, but its easier to defend 4 against attacks.
 
Now the point of all this:
Bush, despite the rhetoric, is doing what the left has been calling for. When they suggest it they are traitors. When he suggests it either sounds like a good plan or he really didn't mean it.
So back to the original question: Why are they treated differently after saying the same thing?
 
Why are they treated differently after saying the same thing?
Click to expand...
Because they're not saying the same thing. The left wants to cut and run. Bush, as according to his original plan, want to gradually shift the burden onto the Iraqi security forces. Not the same thing at all.

The left are treated the exact way they should be - with scorn. Cutting and running, throwing away victory, giving that victory to the terrorist as well as a base for further terrrorists acts, is insanity. And all just to make Bush look bad. Treason is the word that best fits.
 
Now the point of all this:
Bush, despite the rhetoric, is doing what the left has been calling for.
Click to expand...

Not so true...The left wants them out, NOW, or better yet, a published timetable..."Hey, Mr. Al Quead moron, we'll be leaving on this date..."

Not a good idea


When they suggest it they are traitors.
Click to expand...

No, when they call for a Clinton-esque cut-n-run, yes, that would be a slap in the face to all the dead and wounded, and their familes.

When he suggests it either sounds like a good plan or he really didn't mean it.
Click to expand...

His plan, is for OBJECTIVES being met, before any large re-deployments...

I heard beautiful music on NPR this morning...It was hearing him tell a reporter: "When the COMMANDERS over there tell advise me..."

So back to the original question: Why are they treated differently after saying the same thing?
Click to expand...


See above


.
 
Not so true...The left wants them out, NOW, or better yet, a published timetable..."Hey, Mr. Al Quead moron, we'll be leaving on this date..."
Click to expand...

But even if the administration doesn't publish a timetable to the public, isn't the whole point of our "checks and balances" system to make sure that neither he nor congress does stuff without approval? Shouldn't he at least tell Congress what his plans are? Or is he allowed to make all military decisions on his own, regardless of consequence, because he's the CiC?

It was hearing him tell a reporter: "When the COMMANDERS over there tell advise me..."
Click to expand...

You find that beautiful, I find that disgusting. It begins to imply "Oh hey, I don't have anything to do with the decision. When my COMMANDERS tell me we're done, we're done. It's not my fault, I'm just the guy in charge."

I understand that the military commanders are the people that know the situation best but I think the bottom line is that regardless of what the political parties want, the American people seem to want this thing over and done with. Correct me if I'm wrong but the US government is supposed to serve us. When only 35% of the population agrees with what our government is doing, are we really practicing this wonderful "democracy" that we're supposedly trying to spread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top