Bush hits Dem war tactics

[chance1]

guys the thread is about the dems using iraq as political leverage

please stick to that ?

plenty of bush sucks to go around dontcha think?

 

[naked gent]

so the Dems are not using the war as political leverage?

anyone?

I don't think so

I don't think their use of the war is any worse than the republican use of it.

Both sides have used it to pick up votes and win elections....what did you expect?

 

[chance1]

I don't think their use of the war is any worse than the republican use of it.

Both sides have used it to pick up votes and win elections....what did you expect?

I think u are saying yes

I respect your honesty

 

[iman]

Are you saying that the Democrats are carrying out the will of the voters? How very democratic of them.

 

[chance1]

Are you saying that the Democrats are carrying out the will of the voters? How very democratic of them.

I think the voters would prefer they tell us where they stand - REALLY

I know this voter would

Instead they want to have it both ways

 

[beekman001]

The sad fact of the matter is that just about everyone is doing what they think is going to get them re-elected, or preserve their legacy, or position them for promotion, or simply save face. No one has come out and proposed solutions to the problem because there aren't any good ones. The war has simply been mis-managed from the word 'go' and that has left the country with jack and shit as options.

We can basically do one of three things:
1) Double Down, establish goals, and actually put enough troops into Iraq to achieve the mission. This will be risky, expensive and unpopular. Risky because any goal is inherently dependent on the Iraqis getting their fucking act together and behaving like a nation instead of squabbling 5 year olds with guns. Expensive in terms of the cost of properly supporting the Iraqis and US troops through a long term deployment. And Unpopular because good men and women will die.

2) Withdrawl troops and leave the Iraqis to blow themselves up till they're blue in the face. This too will be risky, expensive and unpopular. Risky because Iraq could become even more of a breeding ground for terror than it already is. Expensive because we will have to commit vast sums of money to supporting an Iraqi govt, and increasing security at home. Unpopular because we will be admitting that we seriously fucked up and cant fix it.

3) We can continue to half-ass a war with no goals and no end in sight. This will be riskier, more expensive and more unpopular than any other option, but unless washington gets its head out of it's collective ass and does what's best for the country rather than what gets it elected, its the one we'll end up taking.

 

[Kulindahr]

there are countless democratic plans for he war out there... you know this all too well

i can only assume that you are intentionally misleading the readers here and playing footsy with your republican party apologist counterpart

The typical plan from Democrats quoted in the news are for bailing. I was hoping to see something for getting things done.

As to your second statement, nice of you to show your failure to read... again.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lanceva dont lie through through your teeth.

The very first thing the Dems will do as has been proven ad nauseum in the past, the first thing will be to cut defense and pay for socio-economic projects.
They can cry foul and the party in charge gets the blame, however I received more pay raises, new equipment and Op Tar funding from both Republican admins. It is all smarmy bullshit coming out of the Dems mouths. How do you think the services got so run down? It takes time to do that, It also takes time to rebuild and restock. If they would simply continue to fund all they ask for in all admins then in ten or fifteen years the military will be back on track.

There's some truth in that, but Rumsfeld made all sorts of promises about improving equipment and making the military more effective, and he didn't even manage making sure everyone had effective basic gear. After the Cold War Democrats especially talked about a peace bonus, and viewed the military budget as a mine for programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, but Republicans have excelled at funding things the Pentagon doesn't want and not funding things the guys out front need.

Besides, the Dems are moving to try to take care of at least some of what Bush's people promised and didn't do, so don't forget there's a new game in town. It remains to be seen where it will all go, but... one may hope.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lance is right its hypocritical for the republicans to accuse anyone of playing politics with the troops.

And Mazda and 69 I can't say for sure how rundown a military Clinton left Bush. What I can say for sure is that Bush thought enough of that military and its capabilities to take it into war in two countires.

Given Bush's actions I'd say he doesn't agree with your assesment.

Also 69 however much Clinton reduced the military Bush didn't send all the troops he had avaiable to him when he went into Iraq so what makes you think had he more he would have sent more?

And how do you explain the fact that it wasn't till almost 4 yrs into this war before Bush asked congress to increase the size of the military.

Bush has always tended to believe what makes him feel good; that explains his tardiness, and a lot more. He fires people who plead with him to look at reality, and accepts what looks good to him. Any sensible CIC would plan for the worst-case; Bush plans for the most optimistic.

 

[naked gent]

You seem to forget the 3,200 American dead, the 30,000 maimed and the 500,000 Iraqi dead. That's on George's dime, that's on the Republican tab.

Until it all went wrong George had a majority of both congress and the country with him. Whats that old saying 'success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan'

It became a republican war when victory didn't come quick and it got messy. Do you really think Alfie that had the Iraqi's actually welcomed us as liberators that the dems would still think the war was wrong?

The cynicism and immorality of your claim leaves me speechless. To say yours is a minority and extreme position goes, well, without need of saying.

Cynical, perhaps.....minority I'm not so sure. If those who voted for the war because of their fear of WMD's had come out against it in the summer of 03 when none of those weapons were found I think you'd have a point but to wait until it got messy and the country turned against the war does not mark those who are demanding a way out today as either moral or brave. It marks them as politicians playing to the crowd.

I saw a piece on CNN yesterday which I found interesting. It compared the opposition to this war with the opposition to the Vietnam war in 1970. The difference between the two polls was that today opposition to the war breaks down along party lines with 75% of republicans still supporting the war while only 9% of democrats do.

In the 1970 poll there was no party distinction. Half of the country was for the war and half was against it and it didn't matter what party you belonged to.

So yeah I do think this is all political.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good points, naked gent. Those dead and wounded are on Congress' tab, too, including Hillary and the other Democrats who hopped on the flag-waving bandwagon without thinking about what a man like Bush might do with the wild authority they handed him.
Though at least the Democrats apparently are trying to take care of the wounded once they've been shot up.

 

[JayHawk]

ANything that gets government money, gets politicized. To that end discussing the crush of the military is on topic.

Rummy was trying to institute a new military doctrine based off technology vice brute force and numbers. He also proved his point. Our military can cut through anything on this planet in short order. It can not secure an area without the numbers.

This issue and the war is all political because of the spin people place on the truth. That and the willingness of the masses to believe what is reported IF it corresponds to their personal feelings.

Clinton deployed us EVERY FUCKING WHERE while cutting programs and giving raises a percent and a half below inflation and Cost of living increase. We got poorer every year under his stewardship. Bosnia wasn't a war it was bombing practice. The one time he chose to operate like a invading force in Somalia he didn't commit enough and then did what Democrats do best, ran.

Incidently that lovely choice handed the muslim fringe the biggest encouragement to keep striking at the big white satan. WHy was that mission, to feed people being starved out of existence. Evidently it is not worth fighting for and most of the citizens didn't even know it happend until Black Hawk Down. Then it was entertainment.

We keep open one of the oldest naval bases that has inadequate facilities because of the seinior senator who keeps it open. At the same time we have closed brand new or refurbished bases.

The states assume that they are so entitled to a military presence for their economies that when the federal government wants to move them the sates threaten to tie it up in lawsuits. WHy were they moving, to save money.

The people who serve in leadership positions are picked in house but must be confirmed by our congress.

Vietnam taught us to value our services as National Treasures. SInce when doesn't a politician wrap themselves in a flag or the troops?

I have dropped everything and cleaned and polished and straighten the troops more times than I can count just to kiss some aide to a aide to a aide of a Congressman who happens to wanna ride the neato submarine.

Jeesh is it even a question at this point that everyone plays politics with the troops?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Good stuff.

Rumsfeld and Bush played politics with that high-tech business, too. We've got higher tech for the guys and gals who get shot at, but where was it when it was needed? We have had the ability to make IED-proof vehicles since before Iraq, but how many did we have ready to send?
The problem with Rumsfeld is that he has a C-grade science fiction view of things, expecting that a fair edge in technology makes a force invincible and able to accomplish anything. Then he neglected to even make sure the technology he put so much trust in was in place. The first is foolishness, the second dereliction of duty at best.
If we had the infantry gear that's in testing stages and on the drawing boards, suits enabling soldiers to wear armor proof against about everything up to RPGs, to leap ten feet to the top of a all, to look for enemy units with a zoom function in their helmet faceplates, well, sure, a mere hundred thousand could have walked through Iraq and be holding it today. That's the only sort of gear I could conceive of that would have led me to think this wasn't going to be a problem at least as bad as it is.

Switching gears, I head a theory the other day that floored me: that the Democrats in Congress knew full well when they voted with Bush on the war business what he would do and where it would go, and knew that tney'd be sacrificing perhaps 5,000 American lives in order to get a quagmire they could lay at Bush's feet... and take the House, maybe even the Seante, and then the White House.

Conspiracy theorists, it's your turn.....

 

[JayHawk]

I refuse to believe people are that shallow in their pursuit of power. If I believed that I would have to leave this country tommorrow for my service would be a disgrace. Indeed, no politician is that intelligent.

 

[Kulindahr]

I refuse to believe people are that shallow in their pursuit of power. If I believed that I would have to leave this country tommorrow for my service would be a disgrace. Indeed, no politician is that intelligent.

Wouldn't it make a good novel, though?

 

[JayHawk]

As a peace Mission. Clinton pushed the UN into a resolution that made it more like nation building.

A key moment in the operation was when the mission shifted from delivering food supplies to nation-building.

On March 3, 1993 the U.N. Secretary-General submitted to the U.N. Security Council his recommendations for effecting the transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. He indicated that since the adoption of Council resolution 794 (1992) in December 1992, the presence and operations of UNITAF had a positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance (UNITAF deployed some 37,000 personnel over forty percent of southern and central Somalia). However, there was still no effective government, police, or national army with the result of serious security threats to UN personnel. To that end, the U.N. Security Council authorized UNOSOM II to establish a secure environment throughout Somalia, to achieve national reconciliation so as to create a democratic state.

That was Clinton.

Bush agreed to provide support for the transport of AID. Heed your own words about history, Sunshine

 

[Kulindahr]

And Bush II didn't learn from Clinton's oops.

As a wise man once said, history teaches that man learns nothing from history.

 

[chance1]

If it's about "blame" well put it on Bush and his band of merry men (and Condi)

But it's not about that

We all know that

The Dems were put in power in the midterm elections to make a difference not to put Bush in a corner politically and "stall the ball"

that's what they're doing

If they're not gonna make it better, why be there?

 

[JayHawk]

They willnot accomplish shit. They are setting up an executive win. As I mentioned when they were boasting at how they would not do that partisan witch hunts right after they got elected. Well the ball ended and cindarella is now a dirty slave girl again.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ So you're saying that every subpoena the Dems issue is doing damage to your brain?