Don't try to tell me what I know. Democrats didn't say they'd get out instantly, they said they would get out as soon as possible. And it ain't going to happen while Bush is still President with his veto. He won't allow it. You attempts to divert attention from Republican failures in Iraq by trying to blame a democratic Congress that just got back into power are completely transparent. The original occupation mission was a total failure, everyone agrees. The "surge" was a four-year-late Bush admission that he had failed to send enough troops there to get control. It's something he proposed to try to avoid Republican defeat in the 2006 elections but it didn't work. But what is working best there that will allow troop withdrawals is "The Awakening", which is a program that came from military officers on the ground in late 2005 before the "surge" ever started to stop overreacting to every threat from all parties with airstrikes and tanks and to start a dialog with the Sunni tribal chiefs to fight Al Qaida. Got a source for this as a party platform? Are you saying that no Republicans ran on lowering gas prices? What a laugh! You are definitely on another planet! Bush's biggest political failure has been his absolute refusal to accomodate any democratic voices on any major issue, as if 50% of the country wasn't being represented by them. Until they got control of Congress a year and a half ago the democrats were simply ignored by the neocons. Ye reap what ye sow.
The usual red55 tactic. I suppose I am now supposed to produce a link to a Democrat saying "elect me and I'll get us out of Iraq INSTANTLY!!! It doesn't exist, but you know the impression they were trying to give the electorate....Oh, sorry, I'm not supposed to tell you what you know. Dictate the terms of the debate, and only hear what you want....you've learned the lessons of Obama well. Remember John Murtha's completely erroneous allegations? Remember General Betray-us? Don't try to tell me Dems have not been actively undermining the confidence of Americans in this operation. Ever heard the phrase,"no military plan ever survives contact with the enemy"? It means there's simply no way of knowing exactly how the mission will go. And if it was totally wrong (I disagree, a murderous dictator was removed from office, as was planned), at least give the administration credit for coming around and listening to the ground commanders, and adjusting to a more successful strategy. My source is....me and my memory. I was listening. Were you? Apparently not, if you can deny this. You've also learned the lessons of Hillary well. Democrat John Breaux was offered a Cabinet post! Norman Minetta was 43's first Secretary of Transportation. Bush essentially let the Democrat Party write his education plan. And your comment, "50% of the country"? If you believe 50% of the country is Democrat, you must also concede that the other 50% is Republican. All rancor aside, do you believe Presumptive President Obama will allow the Republicans any victories in Congress? I'm having a very good time here.:thumb:
That's BS. Bush has worked with the dems on a very few occasions to pass a bill he thought he needed or PR reasons, like No Child Left Behind. In daily operation, if he needed to steamroll the dems, he unleashed his attack dog, Tom DeLay. http://citizensforethics.org/node/22628/print Bush is known by the company he kept, Tom DeLay. Over aggressive, knee in the groin, super partisanship, and a crook, like Jack Abramoff his longtime friend. What a scumbag!
Wahington DC ain't Sunnybrook Farm. I'm surprised an older fellow like yourself is so vehemently anti- Republican/Bush. Are you on the dole?
:rofl: Who would put me on the dole? I tell the truth too much. I voted for Reagan and Bush I. It ended after Bush I. The repubs used to put the country first, and if they made some money along the way, that was ok. Now, the repubs put themselves first. They and their CEO buddies make mega bucks first, and if that hurts the majority of americans, as the Bush administration did the last 8 years, tough. They are just thinly veiled rip off artists. The dems have their problems also. When they get in, they and their CEO buddies clean up also. The dems just seem to get fewer fine americans killed while they are looting the till. So, they are the lesser of the two evils. Most americans prospered nicely under Clinton's 8 years.
You act like this is something new. Big Business uses politicians to grease the skids? Who knew? Where is the vitriol for Bush coming from? Is it the Cheney/Halliburton connection? I don't get it. You and Red and all of the liberals have their panties in a wad because Big Oil made a lot of money on Bush's watch. But they've been making a ton of money forever. Is it the Iraq war? I can see where people get upset about tat but they conveniently forget the circumstances leading up to going after Saddam. If you think electing Obama is going to cure what ails you, you are going to be just as, or more,pissed off 4 or 8 years from now. Here's a news flash. Nobody who gets elected to office gives a crap about Joe Mainstream. It';s all about staying in office/power. I support Bush because he realizes the threat terrorism is to us. That's it.
For me, its all about the economy and all americans moving ahead, and foreign policy with americans being safe at home. Under Clinton, the standard of living went up for most americans. Under Bush it is going backwards, while his rich "skull and bones" buddies get megabucks. They pay good poor and middle class americans to fight their wars for them. Bush has fought terrorism in Afghanistan, but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. You don't get 4,000 americans killed and 30,000 wounded without a good explanation. No WMD, no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. All the good men on his team have quit in disgust, Paul O'Neal, Colin Powell, Scott McClellan. Bush is not bright, and we were sold the war for god only knows what misguided reason. Taking and holding large land masses like Iraq, when 99% of their people didn't have a grudge against the US, and far fewer than that had any ability to do anything about it, is inefficient and a dumb way to prosecute a war against terrorists that camp out in kitchens. Bush has trashed the dollar through his fiscal irresponsibility, run up huge deficits, let the inflation genie out of the bottle which will ravage all of our retirement savings. Kids coming out of college will have to defer buying their first house till an older age. It doesn't have to be that way, it is a result of decisions made on the Bush watch. I think terrorism is a threat to us. I think it should be fought intelligently and efficiently. That is not happening, certainly not in Iraq. Because you are against the war in Iraq does not mean you don't think terrorism is a threat. It can and usually means we are not for stomping around like a bull in a china shop, ineffectively pursuing the objective.
Think so? The Clinton Administration got 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 by emboldening our enemies with their cavalier attitude towards terrorism. The fact that Bush was President by then is irrelevent; the seeds had been planted long before. Democrats are not collectively the anti-Christ and I'll give every elected Dem the benefit of the doubt and say they have the country's best interests at heart. But too many are taking their cues from the extreme left fringe groups that feel America is the root of all evil in the world, and the American military is the instrument of that evil. We dodged a bullet when Hillary failed to win the nomination (she hates the military without any help from the kooks). But I'm afraid Obama as Commander-in-Chief wouldn't be much better.
It's pretty apparent that you are not an objective observer, and you oversimplify from a strictly partisan point of view. If Bush was so great, he had 7 months to get ready. Richard Clarke, counter terrorism coordinator, couldn't even get time on his calendar. Bush, along with all the major police and intelligence agencies were asleep at the wheel. There was a female agent for the FBI in Minneapolis or the upper midwest, who was basically yelling to the FBI leaders in Wash. about strange things going on, she basically fingered one of the conspirators to her bosses. She was ignored. Is that Clinton's fault? There was plenty of blame to go around. Could Clinton have done a better job? Sure. Could a thousand others in the various govt. agencies have done a better job? Yes, definitely. Could Bush have done a better job in the leadup to 9/11? Yes.
