Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

dear north south threatened white fur bear

why should anyone think otherwise?

0 Replies

well, let's see... should be interesting :wink:

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

I do believe that more troops wi;ll be sent. But you're wrong about Congress not being able to do anything about it, they control the $$$.

0 Replies

Congress can refuse to fund the Shrub's military adventurism, but he can also rob Peter to pay Paul to keep his idiocy ticking over until the end of his term. I am reminded of the ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

I still don't think the election had anything to do with Iraq but instead with the coruption of the Rep party. There was almost no mention of Iraq in any of the campaign propaganda that was put out. Did I miss something?

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Baldimo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

I still don't think the election had anything to do with Iraq but instead with the coruption of the Rep party. There was almost no mention of Iraq in any of the campaign propaganda that was put out. Did I miss something?

You didn't miss something, you missed nearly EVERYTHING:

From CBS poll courtesy of dailykos;

Quote:

The pro-war fringe
by kos
Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:21:12 AM PST

CBS News poll (PDF):

BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL RATING:

Approve: 30
Disapprove: 63

BUSH'S JOB HANDLING IRAQ :

Approve: 23
Disapprove: 72

Anyone that still supports Bush and his and McCain's war truly, truly are in the outer fringes of this country.

Furthermore, people are stoked about the new Democratic Congress:

FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CONGRESS:

Optimistic: 68
Pessimistic: 25

But don't they know that the horrible "San Francisco Liberal" Nancy Pelosi is in charge? And she's catty! And wears nice suits! And is short! And, um, did they mention that she's a "San Francisco Liberal"?

Guess what they think our congresscritters should be working on?

WANT NEW CONGRESS TO CONCENTRATE ON:

War in Iraq: 45
Economy/Jobs: 7
Health Care: 7
Immigration: 6

And as Congress focuses on Iraq, what are people expecting of Democrats?

ON IRAQ, EXPECT DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS TO:

Increase U.S. troops: 12%
Keep same number of troops: 8
Decrease U.S. troops: 35
Remove all U.S. troops: 36

71 percent want expect us the Democratic Congress to start pulling troops out (not that they can, it's Bush's call), and 68 percent are optimistic about this new Congress. Sounds like a real mandate to me.

I can't wait to see McCain run into that brick wall as he continues pushing for escalation of his and Bush's war.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Baldimo wrote:

I still don't think the election had anything to do with Iraq but instead with the coruption of the Rep party. There was almost no mention of Iraq in any of the campaign propaganda that was put out. Did I miss something?

Well, yes and no.

This Fox News "Hannity & Colmes" page from August, 2006, quotes "Democratic Strategist" Michael Brown as saying that Iraq would be the central issue--but that was before the Republican melt-down. (Note that i included that link so as to have "fair and balanced" coverage--that is a pretty bizarre passage, with Ann Coulter joining in to say she doesn't know how the election will come out, and that Democrats don't do national security, after which the guest host states that Coulter says the election will be about Iraq. Can anyone tell me if this sort of surreality is typical of Fox "News" commentary?)

Two months after that August program, with two weeks to go before the election, this ABC News commentary states that the election will be a referendum on Iraq.

This page at Wikipedia on the mid-term election, however, agrees with you that corruption was the central issue, but notes that voters disapproved of the handling of the war:

Wikipedia wrote:

Exit polls indicated that, although a majority of Americans who voted in the midterm elections disapproved of the war in Iraq, corruption was their most influential concern and national issues mattered to them more than local ones.

They cite a CNN exit poll story from the day after the election.

Finally, this story at CBS News, dated the day after the election, says that the election was a referendum on Bush, the war and congressional corruption.

It might appear that it is a "take your pick" kind of affair, with people believing that the election outcome reflects their own favorite stalking horse. However, i would point out that the electorate, like any broad sample of educated adults, represent complex individuals who do complex things. The Shrub has a lower approval rating than the plurality he secured in the 2004 election, which is strong inferential evidence that many people who voted for him no longer have confidence in his conduct of the war. At the same time, many people believed until just before the election (and i was one of them) that the Democrats would not make large gains, because of the power of incumbency. Therefore, one cannot ignore the Republican melt-down due to charges of corruption, which probably accounts for the disasterous loss which they suffered in the House.

0 Replies

Impeach Bush and then give a strong "boo" to Cheney. That way we can have Nancy in the Oval Office. She can't be as bad as B and C.

0 Replies

I would love to have a babe in the Oval Office. Women are much less likely to kill people.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Setanta wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
I still don't think the election had anything to do with Iraq but instead with the coruption of the Rep party. There was almost no mention of Iraq in any of the campaign propaganda that was put out. Did I miss something?

Well, yes and no.

This Fox News "Hannity & Colmes" page from August, 2006, quotes "Democratic Strategist" Michael Brown as saying that Iraq would be the central issue--but that was before the Republican melt-down. (Note that i included that link so as to have "fair and balanced" coverage--that is a pretty bizarre passage, with Ann Coulter joining in to say she doesn't know how the election will come out, and that Democrats don't do national security, after which the guest host states that Coulter says the election will be about Iraq. Can anyone tell me if this sort of surreality is typical of Fox "News" commentary?)

Two months after that August program, with two weeks to go before the election, this ABC News commentary states that the election will be a referendum on Iraq.

This page at Wikipedia on the mid-term election, however, agrees with you that corruption was the central issue, but notes that voters disapproved of the handling of the war:

Wikipedia wrote:
Exit polls indicated that, although a majority of Americans who voted in the midterm elections disapproved of the war in Iraq, corruption was their most influential concern and national issues mattered to them more than local ones.

They cite a CNN exit poll story from the day after the election.

Finally, this story at CBS News, dated the day after the election, says that the election was a referendum on Bush, the war and congressional corruption.

It might appear that it is a "take your pick" kind of affair, with people believing that the election outcome reflects their own favorite stalking horse. However, i would point out that the electorate, like any broad sample of educated adults, represent complex individuals who do complex things. The Shrub has a lower approval rating than the plurality he secured in the 2004 election, which is strong inferential evidence that many people who voted for him no longer have confidence in his conduct of the war. At the same time, many people believed until just before the election (and i was one of them) that the Democrats would not make large gains, because of the power of incumbency. Therefore, one cannot ignore the Republican melt-down due to charges of corruption, which probably accounts for the disasterous loss which they suffered in the House.

I only ask because none of the Dems in my area mentioned the War but instead ran on a ticket of fixing the corruption in DC. I never heard Iraq mentioned.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I would love to have a babe in the Oval Office. Women are much less likely to kill people.

If thats the case then please explain all those women who kill their own babies pre and post birth.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Baldimo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

I still don't think the election had anything to do with Iraq but instead with the coruption of the Rep party. There was almost no mention of Iraq in any of the campaign propaganda that was put out. Did I miss something?

Exactly.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I would love to have a babe in the Oval Office. Women are much less likely to kill people.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't have any problem with killing, look at all the unborn babies she's championed the death of by supporting & demanding abortion rights.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Baldimo wrote:

I only ask because none of the Dems in my area mentioned the War but instead ran on a ticket of fixing the corruption in DC. I never heard Iraq mentioned.

Well, as i pointed out, people make decision on complex bases. I would suspect that candidates who ran in areas in which they believed there was widespread support for the war would be smart enough not to attempt to make that the issue. Other candidates, taking the pulse of the district in which they were running, might have made it an issue--that would be a matter of anecdotal evidence, though, whether you reported it or i did. For example, it has been my experience (anecdotal evidence) that blacks do not support the war (i'm not saying none of them do, and once again, this is just my experience). That would suggest to me that someone running in a district with a large number of blacks who do not support the war might make that the issue.

Citing corruption in Washington is a dicey issue, though--both sides do it, have done for a long time, and both sides can get burned on an issue such as that. One of the proofs of the Democratic pudding will be if they manage to actually effectively address the issue of congressional corruption. I suspect they won't.

0 Replies

I don't think there is any clear reason to believe that women are less deadly than men. And, Baldino, VERY FEW women kills their babies, and LSM, abortion is such a gross red herring, of no relevance to this discussion..
I'm just saying that Nancy Pelosi HAS to be an improvement on what we have now.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I don't think there is any clear reason to believe that women are less deadly than men. And, Baldino, VERY FEW women kills their babies, and LSM, abortion is such a gross red herring, of no relevance to this discussion..
I'm just saying that Nancy Pelosi HAS to be an improvement on what we have now.

true dat.

0 Replies

Re: Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I do... I don't think a dem congress and senate can do anything about it. Bush obviously has no concerns about opinion or his legacy, or the will of the undeniable majority of the country.

If you impeach him, then it's Cheney....even worse.

Oh, I did not know you personally knew President Bush and what he thinks. Next time you see him tell him I said "HI".

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I don't think there is any clear reason to believe that women are less deadly than men. And, Baldino, VERY FEW women kills their babies, and LSM, abortion is such a gross red herring, of no relevance to this discussion..
I'm just saying that Nancy Pelosi HAS to be an improvement on what we have now.

Abortion is gross period & so are the people that have no qualms about killing or championing the killing of unborn babies. You like pelosi, fine, but you take her warts & all. What we had was a travisty, no doubt, but that doesn't lessen pelosis stance on abortion, NAMBLA, or character flaws.

0 Replies

No More 'Surge' Protection? Now Oliver North Comes Out Against Iraq Plan

By E&P Staff

Published: January 05, 2007 2:50 PM ET

NEW YORK Bob Herbert and our own Joe Galloway, you'd expect -- even, by this point, Thomas Friedman -- but Oliver North? But it happened, in the hawkish Fox News contributor's new syndicated column, where he came out against President Bush's reported plan to escalate the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

North recalls that on his recent return to Iraq, "Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,' was a common refrain. They are right.

"The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- a 'solution' that was first proffered last summer as the congressional election campaign heated up -- sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s....

"Adding 10,000 or 20,000 more U.S. combat troops -- mostly soldiers and Marines -- isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight -- an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war....

"A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."

The entire column can be found at: www.humanevents.com.

0 Replies

Do You Think There Will Be A Troop Surge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know