Does Ted kennedy Really Want....

Well, the president's policy, if they're going to enhance the number of the troops, there's going to be opposition to that, not only just by the members of the Armed Services Committee but within the Defense Department itself. I mean, we've heard what General Abizaid has said, General Casey has said. This isn't a question about individual members of the Congress or Senate.

But we have to understand that there is absolute chaos that is taking place there. This country is falling apart. The bottom is falling out of this thing. And we have to — as the number-one issue is the protection of the American troops, and not let them be in a sinkhole. And that is our commitment.

Kennedy is very clear about his goal in this interview...

Ted Kennedy wrote:

Well, the president's policy, if they're going to enhance the number of the troops, there's going to be opposition to that, not only just by the members of the Armed Services Committee but within the Defense Department itself. I mean, we've heard what General Abizaid has said, General Casey has said. This isn't a question about individual members of the Congress or Senate.

But we have to understand that there is absolute chaos that is taking place there. This country is falling apart.

You know Madam, Ted Kennedy was elected by American citizens and millions of American citizens support and respect him.

I don't know why you have to be so bitter toward your fellow citizens.

I and many (if not most) Americans will say "no" to 50,000 more troops in Iraq-- unless it is combined with a definitive plan to get out of Iraq.

The inevitable polls will come out soon, but I would be very surprised if most Americans are in line with the moderate line the Kennedy is taking. Many Americans want US troops out now, but Kennedy is asking for a more measure withdrawral plan.

You need to accept that Iraq is a disaster. Everything we have tried to do has failed. The Democratic government we have put into place has split along ethnic lines and everyone knows it is impotent. The army we want to keep peace is involved in ethnic killings. The ethnic violence keeps increasing.

You are upset at Kennedy for accepting this. But the vast majority of Americans also accept it. Even the bipartisan study group lead by a Republican accepts this.

You want to slap the face of your favorite target on this-- and then you want to make believe that the rest of America is on your side.

But on the Iraq war-- the American people is strongly on the side of Kennedy. Your understanding of the American public is as unreasonable as your fantasies of imminent victory in Iraq.

We can argue this here... but the argument will be won in 2008 when the inability to accept reality shown by you and Bush will lead to bigger electoral victories in both the Congress and the White House.

God Bless America and God Bless Ted Kennedy

LoneStar, since Bushie is constantly kissing Saudi butt and the Saudis are known to be arming and funding the Sunnis who are killing our soldiers I say it's fair to say Bushie is kissing the butts of the insurgents. And all that reminds me of the Saidi/911 connection. "Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11"

Paul Joseph Watson

Comment: Despite studying September 11 for two years solid, one fact I only just discovered is that George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.

Recall that the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/new_revelations_on_911

The Bush senior/bin Laden meeting was reported on by CBC. See http://www.propagandamatrix.com/021103fifthestate.html

This was also reported by the London Observer. See the last paragraph at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html

"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."

or should we do whatever it takes to win & then get out?

Quote:

or should we do whatever it takes to win & then get out?

Very few Americans now think that this is a realistic option (depending on what you mean by win).

The most important thing to most Americans is that we get out. If we can get out while avoiding a sectarian blood bath, it would be great, and Americans will give some flexibility if there will be a plan to set up a federal system.

But we want to get out of Iraq-- period. This idea of "victory" is an idea that is only held by a few very partisan conservatives and I haven't seen what victory means anyway?

To most Americans "victory" means simply-- "American troops are out of Iraq".

Victory in Iraq? Or does he want to use Iraq for his own political purposes?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

WALLACE: ... to scale down our involvement.

KENNEDY: That's exactly right. But we are not at this point at this time, but we are at a point where we are going to put the safety and the security of the troops first. We're going to look out after the troops and take whatever steps are going to be necessary to keep those troops or to try and protect those troops.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Victory in Iraq? Or does he want to use Iraq for his own political purposes?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

What would be "his own political purposes?"

He has no presidential ambitions.

He has no problem getting re-elected.

Did you ever consider that this may be his motive?

Quote:

WALLACE: ... to scale down our involvement.

KENNEDY: That's exactly right. But we are not at this point at this time, but we are at a point where we are going to put the safety and the security of the troops first. We're going to look out after the troops and take whatever steps are going to be necessary to keep those troops or to try and protect those troops.

Sending more troops in will just make the situation worse. We're not going to win the hearts and minds by killing more people.

xingu wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Victory in Iraq? Or does he want to use Iraq for his own political purposes?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

What would be "his own political purposes?"

He has no presidential ambitions.

He has no problem getting re-elected.

Did you ever consider that this may be his motive?

Quote:

WALLACE: ... to scale down our involvement.

KENNEDY: That's exactly right. But we are not at this point at this time, but we are at a point where we are going to put the safety and the security of the troops first. We're going to look out after the troops and take whatever steps are going to be necessary to keep those troops or to try and protect those troops.

Sending more troops in will just make the situation worse. We're not going to win the hearts and minds by killing more people.

Kennedy, along with most of the dems, are good at telling what won't work, they have yet to come up with what will work.
He wants a dem in the WH so badly his front teeth shake, that would make it easier for him to get even more socialist programs through, that is his political purpose

LoneStarMadam wrote:

xingu wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Victory in Iraq? Or does he want to use Iraq for his own political purposes?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

What would be "his own political purposes?"

He has no presidential ambitions.

He has no problem getting re-elected.

Did you ever consider that this may be his motive?

Quote:

WALLACE: ... to scale down our involvement.

KENNEDY: That's exactly right. But we are not at this point at this time, but we are at a point where we are going to put the safety and the security of the troops first. We're going to look out after the troops and take whatever steps are going to be necessary to keep those troops or to try and protect those troops.

Sending more troops in will just make the situation worse. We're not going to win the hearts and minds by killing more people.

Kennedy, along with most of the dems, are good at telling what won't work, they have yet to come up with what will work.
He wants a dem in the WH so badly his front teeth shake, that would make it easier for him to get even more socialist programs through, that is his political purpose

Well let us hope Kennedy is successful in his endeavor.