Gee, is it Tet already?

Great Debates
101

Too right I don’t trust the man or his administration. And you are right…he probably WILL use it that way. Unfortunately I doubt that even with the recent change in leadership on the legislative side of things, that the Dems can really do much before GW is history. My hope is that we can keep things from flying apart until we hopefully get someone in the WH who knows what the hell he’s doing…and perhaps one who can go, hat in hand, back to the UN and our Euro buddies and make them understand that its in their own best interest, as well as ours, to make sure that Iraq doesn’t go completely into the fire…perhaps catching the other houses in the region as well in the process.

All roads look bad from where I’m sitting. If we hang on until GW is gone then its going to mean more of the same we’ve been getting lately…more US soldiers killed every week, more Iraqi’s killed, and the situation stagnating or perhaps even getting worse. But getting worse slowly I think. If we bolt and no one comes in to replace us, then I think the situation will get very bad indeed, and quite rapidly.

Gods…what a fucked up mess. :frowning: I really wish the Dems COULD fucking impeach Bush et al and get his ass out of there now. It might not help…but I’d feel better if the man were locked away in a cell next to Saddam for the rest of their natural lives for leading us into this sorry mess.

-XT

102

I’m not trying to be snarky or anything, but if you keep predicted that we’re going to exit Iraq long enough, eventually you are going to be right. But that’s not of much interest in terms of what is going to happen next year, or even the year after that. Yes, I agree that at some point we will exit Iraq.

103

That’s not snarky, John, it is merely rephrasing my stated position into something to which it bears no resemblance.

104

In what way did that post state or restate your position? I wasn’t even talking about your position, but rather how you seem to envision the Democrats will eventually take that postion as their onw.

105

Poltical expedience, if nothing else. The momentum, I think you will concede, is moving more and more to “Out Now!”. The Dems have no need to distance themselves from that position, they have plenty of room to shuffle their feet and prevaricate. The Pubbies have no such luxury, they either back the President, or they don’t. They will probably game for wiggle room, talking “gradual and phased withdrawal” that leaves as much time as possible for miracles. That’s all GeeDub has left: refuse to admit defeat. Of course, when you’ve mounted the scaffold and your feet are on the trap door and the noose snugly around your neck…you can insist that you refuse to die, if you like.

106

And yes, you did restate my position to suit your own purposes, you claimed that my position can be boiled down to “eventually we will leave Iraq”. I very much doubt anyone else read it like that. Having reduced it to a manageable absurdity, you pretend to be perplexed by how simplistic my thinking is, as in, “Well, of course, we will *eventually * leave Iraq…”

107

Well, that’s not what I meant, and I don’t see how it could be read that way in light of my quoting your post-- the one where you were not stating your position, but predicting that the Dems would eventually come around.

But, for the record, I don’t think your position can be summarized as “eventually we will leave Iraq”.

108

Anyway, getting back to this (as well as your “Of course they take that position…” post), I see no reason to speculate about timmidity or political expedience on the part of Representative Skelton, especially since you didn’t see the interview I was talking about. The simpler explanation is that he actually thinks it’s good policy. The Dems were elected to offer a new direction on Iraq, and if they’re afraid of speaking their minds now, I can’t see that they ever will.

I don’t know that “out now” has the momentum. The poll I referenced earlier, which put the “withdraw all [troops]” side at 33% had only one data point. But if you look further down the page to “Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?”, both the “keep troops” vs “bring home” sides have been flat at about 46-48% for over a year.

If I were you, I’d probably say something like: They either back the president or they don’t? Really going out on a limb, there, aren’t you 'luc?

And since a “gradual and phased withdraw” is precisely the Democratic position, then you seem to be saying that the two parties are in sync. They should therefore be able to speed those “non-binding resolutions” right thru Congress and onto Bush’s desk in no time.

109

Nor do I! Good idea, John, let’s not! Moving right along…

Why? The Dems have every reason to believe that their hand will get stronger rather than weaker. (And, of course, the niggling fact that their butts are not in the seats yet. A Senator-elect doesn’t get to say much, they got rules.)

The election wasn’t the explosion, the election lit the fuse. You think the Pubbies look bad now? Wait till all those cans of worms have been opened, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

Certainly would be what you’d expect, isn’t it? As things get progressively worse and worse, do you imagine enthusiasm for the war increases? Of course not. And things are getting progressively worse, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the momentum will flow along with it.

Well, you aren’t, and we can both be appropriately grateful. And, as I’m sure you already know, I was making an observation *about * their dilemma, not advancing an argument that such a dilemma exists. That’s more or less obvious, isn’t it?

Not in the slightest. There is a universe of mischeif than can be hidden in that phraseology. A committment to withdraw a couple hundred here and there every few months could be a “gradual and phased withdrawal”, these guys are masters of straight faced horseshit. It could also be stretched to fit mine own position, being the earliest practical and effective process to disengage. Phase One, remove 90% of our combat force, Phases Two, Three and Four, remove the rest.

I exaggerate, of course, but I trust my point is made: the phrase offers cover to a wide variety of positions and doesn’t force the issue of when! Which is the only issue worth the name. If GeeDub has his way, he will interpret “gradual and phased withdrawal” to mean “after the Victory Celebrations”. It will not be easy to disabuse him of these fantasies, and it will not be quick.

The Bad News is that things will have to get worse. The Badder News is that they almost certainly will. There is no Good News

110

I give up. We’re either talking past each other, or you’re speaking Russian while I’m speaking Chinese if you’re going to object to my saying those lost two posts of yours claimed that Skelton was being timid (“it has no risk”) and politically expedient (which is exactly what you did say in post #105) in advancing the argument he did.

I think we’ve taken this as far as it’s going to go in this thread. I’ll just chalk this up to “falure to communicate”. Cheers!

111

John, I never referred to Skelton. Where you got this stuff, I got no clue.

112

You guys need to give it up and go have a hardboiled-egg-eating contest.

113

It could have either been Skelton or the Dems in general you were referring to. It really doesn’t matter. I mentioned both in the post you were responding to, but you were clearly responding to that post-- unless there is another “John” around here you were talking to.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go eat 40 hardboiled eggs. I bet you couldn’t do that! :wink:

114

Hey, they don’t call me “Cool Hand 'luc” for nothing

115

Not rocket science involved just to let you know wow wrong I think you are. The US and allies were fighting the a provoked against Third Reich (and unbeatable force one-on-one against almost any other nation in the woorld, possibly and IMHO (in as much as I can be humble) it simply shows that all the pre-war rethoric (flowers and the like) was simply a ploy to get most Americans to rallyy around the flag --Reps and Dems alike, or else it was some sort of twisted logic that never made sense to me.

I mean, really, did you really believe for a minute that Iraq was any sort of direct – or indirect for that matter – threat to the US? If so, I’ve got some beach front property in Nebraska I’d like to show you.

Not to derail the thread, but the most basic approach to the Iraq invasion was so flawed as to be absurd to begin with. – simply illogical if you’ve read a book or two on the matter Seriously what country in the world can afford to attack the US , with not only impunity, but with the knowledge that it’s simply suicide/genocide to a very large najority

I could go on for pages, but too tired to so at the moment.
Un beso.

Later.

PS-Germany and Japan had such a complely set of circumstances that it’s simply not applicable to the current discussion.

116

:confused: Have no idea where the “un beso” came from. Please ignore.

Like I said, too tired to9 be coherent at the moment.

117

So go to bed, pumpkin. Buenos noches and pleasant dreams!

118

Gracias! I did and I feel brand new 2day. Shouldn’t have posted after a 14 hour oddessy/trip back from Spain – including technical delays and protracted waiting time once on board due to luggage searches of passengers that weren’t on the plane.

Still and all, if you can read past my incoherence, the points I attempted to make stand on factual evidence.

All the best.

119

From the WaPo:

Meanwhile, a top Bushie is something less than a master of understatement:

Not well enough, certainly - but not fast enough??

Sheesh. Things are certainly getting worse over there more than fast enough to suit my tastes.

120

Did you know the White House website has a Renewal in Iraq website? :eek:

I don’t know what’s so great about violence, anarchy, and butchery that anyone would want to ‘renew’ it, but those people think differently than we mere mortals do.