Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
No, you're wrong again. It's the left and the middle which think we have already lost the war.

And if you "think" we have lost the war,it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
You think we have lost,so you do whatever you can to get us out and to save ourselves,thereby causing us to lose the war.

BS, I KNOW that we've lost.

We don't have the manpower in theater to win a guerrilla war of this scale. We don't have the civilian leadership who is competent enough to lead the military to this victory. We don't have the political leadership who can take control of the Iraqi political situation. We don't have the money to keep fighting for year after year. We haven't made any progress at all in the last 2 years.

When there are no positive indicators about a situation, there's no reason to be positive about the situation itself.

Quote:

Surely even you can see that.

Far better than you, friend.

Quote:

And ALL of the soldiers I know,both in Iraq now or Iraq vets like myself,know we can win.
Tell me,who is correct?

I am correct, and you and your anecdotal evidence are wrong. Now, it isn't that the US soldier isn't up to whatever job you put in front of him; we aren't losing because of a failure of the man on the ground, but a failure in leadership.

Surely you can see that there is a definite and real need for a soldier, in theater or out, to believe that the things he has done are for a good cause. That the bad **** that he's seen will lead to something good eventually. So there is every reason to think that their attitudes are a little biased, and not exactly objective.

Quote:

The people that dont know one end of a weapon from the other (most liberals),or the people that are actually in Iraq now and have actual knowledge of whats going on?

The average soldier in Iraq has no more idea what's 'going on' in that country than anyone else does, sorry. The picture is far, far too big to see accurately from the middle.

I may be a Liberal, but I would take you or any other soldier on in a target shooting competition with a long rifle any day of the week. Just because you are anti-war doesn't mean you don't know anything about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think that the main point of this thread is that the Democrats are doing what the clear majority American people want, and what they were elected to do.

You all can argue about words and history if you want. But the proof is in the future.

Here are my predictions.... you can praise or mock me next year.

1. Bush will veto the spending bill. The polls will be very clear that a large majority of the American people don't support him.

2. The Republicans will go on record supporting this war several more times before the 2008 elections (as the Democrats will pass temporary spending bills to keep pressure up). Each time, a couple more Republicans will break ranks.

3. The Republican presidential candidates will dither. McCain will go down the tubes supporting the war. One or two Republican candidates will flip flop.

4. In 2008 we will have a Democrat in the White House, with at least 55 Democrat Senators (not even counting Lieberman as a Democrat) and a pick up of at least 8 more Representatives.

This will be in spite of the fact that there will be a significant number of prominatnt anti-war Republicans very soon.

0 Replies

The Democrats who supposedly control congress are weak.

Besides all the pork they included in the bill, their demand for troop withdrawal is disengenious at best. The Democrats do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Stop funding the war NOW and bring the troops home YESTERDAY.

Why not?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The Democrats who supposedly control congress are weak.

Besides all the pork they included in the bill, their demand for troop withdrawal is disengenious at best. The Democrats do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Stop funding the war NOW and bring the troops home YESTERDAY.

Why not?

That is the nutz and bolts of it. Some here say Let Iraqis deal with it now so then why not call for the immediate withdrawal.

0 Replies

reverend hellh0und wrote:

woiyo wrote:
The Democrats who supposedly control congress are weak.

Besides all the pork they included in the bill, their demand for troop withdrawal is disengenious at best. The Democrats do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Stop funding the war NOW and bring the troops home YESTERDAY.

Why not?

That is the nutz and bolts of it. Some here say Let Iraqis deal with it now so then why not call for the immediate withdrawal.

Because they don't think they can get it.

Better to work on a solution you think you can get, then to make a moral stand which will have no usable results.

You guys sure are idealists

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:
woiyo wrote:
The Democrats who supposedly control congress are weak.

Besides all the pork they included in the bill, their demand for troop withdrawal is disengenious at best. The Democrats do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Stop funding the war NOW and bring the troops home YESTERDAY.

Why not?

That is the nutz and bolts of it. Some here say Let Iraqis deal with it now so then why not call for the immediate withdrawal.

Because they don't think they can get it.

Better to work on a solution you think you can get, then to make a moral stand which will have no usable results.

You guys sure are idealists

Cycloptichorn

Nah. Why not go on record that you want an imediate withdrawal then work for it. Isn't that the most honest way?

If you truly believe there is no point in the Iraq war and are not calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't you guilty of casting US troops lives away for political points?

0 Replies

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
reverend hellh0und wrote:
woiyo wrote:
The Democrats who supposedly control congress are weak.

Besides all the pork they included in the bill, their demand for troop withdrawal is disengenious at best. The Democrats do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Stop funding the war NOW and bring the troops home YESTERDAY.

Why not?

That is the nutz and bolts of it. Some here say Let Iraqis deal with it now so then why not call for the immediate withdrawal.

Because they don't think they can get it.

Better to work on a solution you think you can get, then to make a moral stand which will have no usable results.

You guys sure are idealists

Cycloptichorn

Nah. Why not go on record that you want an imediate withdrawal then work for it. Isn't that the most honest way?

If you truly believe there is no point in the Iraq war and are not calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't you guilty of casting US troops lives away for political points?

No, because if you work as hard as you can for something you know won't pass, and then it doesn't pass, and there's nothing to show for it, then you've wasted your time. The Dems are merely pursuing a slower strategy.

As you sir are obviously a supporter of someone other than the Dems, what makes you think that your advice is either germane, warranted, or welcomed? Taking advice from one's opponent is not generally considered to be a prime strategy. So, the way I seez it, the longer the Dems infuriate people on the Right, the more they are doing correct.

Here's Josh Marshall on the subject of why this war is such a problem for Bush and his supporters such as yourself:

Quote:

(April 27, 2007 -- 02:18 AM EST // link)

With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever. A more realistic description is President Bush's long twilight struggle to see just how far he can go into one brown paper bag.

We had a war. It was relatively brief and it took place in the spring of 2003. The critical event is what happened in the three to six months after the conventional war ended. The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves wtih the US.

Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate.

That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. Not crazy about a secular government, certainly not wild about one aligned with Israel and just generally not ready to be America's new proxy in the region. Most importantly, those early months showed clear signs that anti-Americanism (not surprisingly) rose with the duration of the occupation.

This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region. As the occupation continued, anti-American sentiment -- both toward the occupation and America's role in the world -- has only grown.

I would submit that virtually everything we've done in Iraq since mid-late 2003 has been an effort to obscure this fact. And our policy has been one of continuing the occupation to create the illusion that this reality was not in fact reality. In short, it was a policy of denial.

It's often been noted that we've had a difficult time explaining or figuring out just who we're fighting in Iraq. Is it the Sunni irreconcilables? Or is it Iran and its Shi'a proxies? Or is it al Qaida? The confusion is not incidental but fundamental. We can't explain who we're fighting because this isn't a war, like most, where the existence of a particular enemy or specific danger dictates your need to fight. We're occupying Iraq because continuing to do so allows us to pretend that the initial plan wasn't completely misguided and a mistake. If we continue to run the place a bit longer, the reasoning goes, we'll root out this or that problem that is preventing our original predictions from coming to pass. And of course the longer the occupation continues we generate more and more embittered foes to frame this rationalization around, thus creating an perpetual feedback loop of calamity and self-justification.

It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. It just means what the war supporters said would happen didn't happen. The premise was bogus. Like I said at the outset, the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag.

Of course, the damage that's been done over the last four years of denial is immense -- damage to ourselves, to the Iraqis, damage to Middle Eastern security and our standing in the world. So walking out of the bag isn't easy and it won't fix things. But the stakes alleged by the White House are largely illusory. Most of the White House's argument amounts to the threat that if we walk out of the bag that we'll have to give up the denial that the White House has had a diminishing percentage of the country in for the last four years. The reality though is that the disaster has already happened. Admitting that isn't a mistake or something to be feared. It's the first step to repairing the damage. What the president has had the country in for four years is a very bloody and costly holding action. And the president has forced it on the country to avoid admitting the magnitude of his errors.
-- Josh Marshall

He, and the national Republicans, cannot begin to admit the fact that they screwed up, badly. So they are trying to bluster it out. It isn't wrong to call that for what it is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Nah. Why not go on record that you want an imediate withdrawal then work for it. Isn't that the most honest way?

If you truly believe there is no point in the Iraq war and are not calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't you guilty of casting US troops lives away for political points?

No, because if you work as hard as you can for something you know won't pass, and then it doesn't pass, and there's nothing to show for it, then you've wasted your time. The Dems are merely pursuing a slower strategy.

But we are talking about American lives here. If the dems truly believe that this is a lost war they should call for the IMMEDIATE withdrawal and not keep our troops in harms way for what they think is a lost cause.

No?

Quote:

As you sir are obviously a supporter of someone other than the Dems, what makes you think that your advice is either germane, warranted, or welcomed? Taking advice from one's opponent is not generally considered to be a prime strategy. So, the way I seez it, the longer the Dems infuriate people on the Right, the more they are doing correct.

Heh heh.... I am just talking as a vet here. But if you think this is the wrong war wrong time etc. etc. etc. why are you willing to delay bringing my brothers and sisters home? Political points?

Quote:

Here's Josh Marshall on the subject of why this war is such a problem for Bush and his supporters such as yourself:

Quote:
(April 27, 2007 -- 02:18 AM EST // link)

With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever. A more realistic description is President Bush's long twilight struggle to see just how far he can go into one brown paper bag.

We had a war. It was relatively brief and it took place in the spring of 2003. The critical event is what happened in the three to six months after the conventional war ended. The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves wtih the US.

Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate.

That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. Not crazy about a secular government, certainly not wild about one aligned with Israel and just generally not ready to be America's new proxy in the region. Most importantly, those early months showed clear signs that anti-Americanism (not surprisingly) rose with the duration of the occupation.

This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region. As the occupation continued, anti-American sentiment -- both toward the occupation and America's role in the world -- has only grown.

I would submit that virtually everything we've done in Iraq since mid-late 2003 has been an effort to obscure this fact. And our policy has been one of continuing the occupation to create the illusion that this reality was not in fact reality. In short, it was a policy of denial.

It's often been noted that we've had a difficult time explaining or figuring out just who we're fighting in Iraq. Is it the Sunni irreconcilables? Or is it Iran and its Shi'a proxies? Or is it al Qaida? The confusion is not incidental but fundamental. We can't explain who we're fighting because this isn't a war, like most, where the existence of a particular enemy or specific danger dictates your need to fight. We're occupying Iraq because continuing to do so allows us to pretend that the initial plan wasn't completely misguided and a mistake. If we continue to run the place a bit longer, the reasoning goes, we'll root out this or that problem that is preventing our original predictions from coming to pass. And of course the longer the occupation continues we generate more and more embittered foes to frame this rationalization around, thus creating an perpetual feedback loop of calamity and self-justification.

It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. It just means what the war supporters said would happen didn't happen. The premise was bogus. Like I said at the outset, the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag.

Of course, the damage that's been done over the last four years of denial is immense -- damage to ourselves, to the Iraqis, damage to Middle Eastern security and our standing in the world. So walking out of the bag isn't easy and it won't fix things. But the stakes alleged by the White House are largely illusory. Most of the White House's argument amounts to the threat that if we walk out of the bag that we'll have to give up the denial that the White House has had a diminishing percentage of the country in for the last four years. The reality though is that the disaster has already happened. Admitting that isn't a mistake or something to be feared. It's the first step to repairing the damage. What the president has had the country in for four years is a very bloody and costly holding action. And the president has forced it on the country to avoid admitting the magnitude of his errors.
-- Josh Marshall

He, and the national Republicans, cannot begin to admit the fact that they screwed up, badly. So they are trying to bluster it out. It isn't wrong to call that for what it is.

Cycloptichorn

[/quote]

Well then you should be screaming at the top of your lungs "Bring em home now!"

I know if I agreed with this and your assesments I would be and I would demand my "party" do the same.

0 Replies

Speaking for myself only, the time to stop this war was before it started. We're there now, and we need to find a solution -- preferably one that doesn't require our extended presence and the lives of our service people and the lives of countless Iraqi civilians who now live in terror of something worse than Saddam. I don't know what that solution is but I believe that this administration has the responsibility to handle it before they leave office. This is their mess and they should clean it up.

What the dems in congress now are trying to do is restore some semblance of a check on the president and his people, who appear to be both irrational and incompetent and incapable of finding a solution on their own. If the president doesn't like them telling him what to do then he shouldn't have f-ed up so badly. Somebody has got to lead, and The Decider isn't doing it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Heh heh.... I am just talking as a vet here. But if you think this is the wrong war wrong time etc. etc. etc. why are you willing to delay bringing my brothers and sisters home? Political points?

No, it's about actually accomplishing something.

Look, without the support of House and Senate Republicans, the Dems can't actually do anything. They can't make Bush bring the troops home. They could scream at the top of their lungs, and he wouldn't give a damn. So what exactly makes that an effective strategy? The current one forces more and more Republicans to peel off from the Bush position as election time moves ever closer for the house and senate.

Also, it isn't as if the Dems are rock-solid on this issue. There are many who would like, as you say, for us to pull out immediately and poste haste. There are some who would like to see us withdraw in a reasonable time frame, to give the Iraqi gov't and the IA some time to get their act together. Some would like to see us leave next year, because they are afraid of Republicans who will brand them as cowards if they cut off the funds immediately.

You are talking about an ideological position: Get out Now! And it isn't a bad one. But a realistic position calls for a subtler strategy, and that's exactly what is being employed here.

You can call the Dems whatever names you like, or accuse them of playing politics (as if that isn't exactly what Bush and his crew have been doing time, and time, and time again with 9/11 and the war), but we/they don't care one bit. Continue to call them names and accuse them of low moral character, and they/we will simply continue our current strategy, peel senators away from Bush, and cruise to victories in both houses of Congress and the presidency in '08.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Heh heh.... I am just talking as a vet here. But if you think this is the wrong war wrong time etc. etc. etc. why are you willing to delay bringing my brothers and sisters home? Political points?

No, it's about actually accomplishing something.

Look, without the support of House and Senate Republicans, the Dems can't actually do anything. They can't make Bush bring the troops home. They could scream at the top of their lungs, and he wouldn't give a damn. So what exactly makes that an effective strategy? The current one forces more and more Republicans to peel off from the Bush position as election time moves ever closer for the house and senate.

Sure they can. IF the polls are as bad as they say and Americans truly wanted the troops to come home now without completing the mission you think they would do as their constituency supposedly demands. Think of all the media and political pressure they could apply if for once they did not think of thier power and actually thought of thier people.

Quote:

Also, it isn't as if the Dems are rock-solid on this issue. There are many who would like, as you say, for us to pull out immediately and poste haste. There are some who would like to see us withdraw in a reasonable time frame, to give the Iraqi gov't and the IA some time to get their act together. Some would like to see us leave next year, because they are afraid of Republicans who will brand them as cowards if they cut off the funds immediately.

You are talking about an ideological position: Get out Now! And it isn't a bad one. But a realistic position calls for a subtler strategy, and that's exactly what is being employed here.

You can call the Dems whatever names you like, or accuse them of playing politics (as if that isn't exactly what Bush and his crew have been doing time, and time, and time again with 9/11 and the war), but we/they don't care one bit. Continue to call them names and accuse them of low moral character, and they/we will simply continue our current strategy, peel senators away from Bush, and cruise to victories in both houses of Congress and the presidency in '08.

I have not called anyone names have I? I just pointed out this disengenuous position of stating this war is lost yet not screaming for an immediate withdrawal. Afterall this is not like arguing over tolls on the highway. This is about supposedly American lives.

0 Replies

"Also, it isn't as if the Dems are rock-solid on this issue. There are many who would like, as you say, for us to pull out immediately and poste haste. There are some who would like to see us withdraw in a reasonable time frame, to give the Iraqi gov't and the IA some time to get their act together. Some would like to see us leave next year, because they are afraid of Republicans who will brand them as cowards if they cut off the funds immediately.

You are talking about an ideological position: Get out Now! And it isn't a bad one. But a realistic position calls for a subtler strategy, and that's exactly what is being employed here. "

Who is being idealistic here?

The Iraqi Govt and Army have had plenty of time to "get their act together". In fact, they ARE and "ACT" as the minute we leave, that Govt is in shambles and the Army will be divided.

You so called "more subtle approach' will NOT change the inevitible outcome, except more soldiers will die to support your "subtle approach" or GW's weak approach.

I have asked this question 3 time in this post and no one has been able or willing to answer it.

What purpose does it serve to leave our troops there until October? What will they do for 5 months (besides get killed)?

0 Replies

Quote:

I have asked this question 3 time in this post and no one has been able or willing to answer it.

What purpose does it serve to leave our troops there until October? What will they do for 5 months (besides get killed)?

Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't think it serves any purpose to do so.

But I don't think the Dems getting mad, the media getting mad, or whatever, is going to make any difference at all. Do you?

I mean, let's say that the Dems did start hollering about immediate redeployment from Iraq. And the media did too. And even some moderate Republicans did. What exactly is it that you think will happen? That Bush will decide that everyone else was right? That conservative Republicans are going to decide that it's better to agree with the loud, angry mass of Democrats than to stick with the leader that they've placed on a platform all these years?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I have asked this question 3 time in this post and no one has been able or willing to answer it.

What purpose does it serve to leave our troops there until October? What will they do for 5 months (besides get killed)?

Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't think it serves any purpose to do so.

But I don't think the Dems getting mad, the media getting mad, or whatever, is going to make any difference at all. Do you?

I mean, let's say that the Dems did start hollering about immediate redeployment from Iraq. And the media did too. And even some moderate Republicans did. What exactly is it that you think will happen? That Bush will decide that everyone else was right? That conservative Republicans are going to decide that it's better to agree with the loud, angry mass of Democrats than to stick with the leader that they've placed on a platform all these years?

Cycloptichorn

If the Congress passed a bill that called for the immediate end of funding of this war (meaning the immediate pullout of troops), they can debate the usefulness of keeping our troops there in the public arena. That places GW in a position to explain in detail what purpose there is to continue the "war". Let him veto that bill and let those republicans who support him explain to the people why GW is right and the Congress is wrong.

What would the 3 Republican candidates do if Congress passed a bill that way and saw how weak GW's position is? They will now have to change their tune if they expect to win in 08.

This half assed bill just plays into GW's position of maintaining this useless effort.

The Democrats know (or should know) that keeping our troops there until October is useless. So every death from now on can be blamed on the Democrats in addition to GW.

The old guy on the debate last night had it 100% correct. "All of you up here scare me!" was his quote and the best on of the evening.

The rest of the gang were just double talking politicians.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner.

wrongo

Just because we are losing the war - have lost our opportunity to get our goals accomplished - does not mean there is a clear winner yet.

Foolishness, and a predictable right-wing talking point, no more.

Cycloptichorn

If we are "losing the war" and must get out,lets look at some recent history.
Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941,do you agree with that?
Now,without exception,we lost EVERY battle we had with the Japanese from then till Feb of 1943,when we defeated the Japanese in the Guadalcanal-Tulagi campaign.

So,using your logic,we should have given up the fight,because it took us over a year to win our first battle.
I agree,it has taken us longer then I thought it would to win in Iraq,but only the left thinks we cant win.

But,I gotta ask this...
Why is it wrong for us to be involved in a "civil war" in Iraq,yet many of you want us involved in the civil war in Darfur?
Also,why is it wrong now,but it was OK when the left wanted us involved in a civil war in Bosnia in the 1990's.

Is it a matter of which civil war it is?

reverend hellh0und,
You are not going to change any of these peoples minds about Iraq.
Their minds are made up and they dont want to be confused with facts.

They claim that all of the comments you posted by dems were made because Bush fooled them,yet they seem to ignore the fact that it makes the people that made the comments look more stupid then normal if they let Bush fool them.
And,if Bush did fool them,it must mean that Bush was smarter then they were.

Also,many of the left on here are great "armchair generals".
They all know what must be done,and how,yet most of them have never served and wouldnt know one end of a weapon from another.

So,welcome to A2K,but dont expect much from those on the left.

So mysteryman - what are your thoughts on the recent testimony by Jessica Lynch and the family of Pat Tillman about the lies told about them by the military and this administration?

0 Replies

come home or nuke 'em. One of the two.

0 Replies

Annual terrorism report will show 29% rise in attacks

The facts remain as follows:

1. Bush got us into this mess we have no way of ever winning with misleading evidence of WMD and mushroom clouds.

2. The public by and large went along with it because they were still scared after 9/11 and so brought into the fear mongering misleading evidence.

3. The media has been friendly to Bush and to the republicans since the Florida vote fiasco. Most still are and so they didn't question too hard anything that they were told by the administration.

4. Congress including democrats didn't question or look too hard (with a few exceptions) what they were told by the administration.

5. Everything the Bush administration claimed before war has turned out not to be the case; including how we were going to be treated as liberators.

6. The Bush administration didn't listen to intelligence which were telling them about the trouble they would have between the Sunnis and Shiites post sad dam Hussein.

7. The only thing that seemed really important to them was guarding the oil wells right after the capturing the Iraq and so all the looting and violence was allowed to get out of hand right away and has continued to since. It might have anyway, but at least they should done something besides guard the oil wells.

8. So they captured Saddam Hussein and they have had elections of sorts with heavily guarded security; big deal when everything is gone to hell in a hand basket including their basic needs and security.

9. If it aint lost, what is it? At what point can a decision be made on the outcome of the misadventure of conquering and Americanizing Iraq?

10. To get a definite timetable with benchmarks is better than a never-ending open ending war in Iraq with no end in sight and no good coming out of it just so Bush and his parroting supporters never have to say we lost.

11. Lastly as you can see from the link we aint making anything safer.

0 Replies

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B83C0FB73-8FA9-4066-AA7E-D4BF4A7B38E7%7D.gif

0 Replies

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B67083287-0EA8-4E0E-BC30-85A68F9EFF8F%7D.gif

0 Replies

Quote:

So mysteryman - what are your thoughts on the recent testimony by Jessica Lynch and the family of Pat Tillman about the lies told about them by the military and this administration?

Assuming that the govt did lie (and I have seen no evidence to contradict the fact that they did),then what they did was wrong and despicable.
The families of those two (and all soldiers) have a right to know the truth about what happened to them.

Having said that,since time immemorial,wars have produced heroes,real or made up.
The govt screwed up,and I guess they thought they needed some heroes to hold up to the public.
THey were wrong,and they made the situation FUBAR.

I cant and I wont defend their actions.

0 Replies

Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know