You must be joking. You can?t seriously be that obtuse. I'm not joking, and I'm not obtuse. Either you've got a direct quote referencing what you said (you didn't say "I think the left wants us to lose and blame Bush blah blah blah", you stated it as fact, not opinion) or you're a mind reader. I doubt you're a mind reader.
Let?s make this as simple as possible. If we withdrawn from Iraq before the Iraqi governement and the Iraqi miltary are stable enough to defend the country against the insurgents/terrorists within and the Iranians, the Turks, and perhaps even Pakistan (depending on how much lionger that government can hold out), what will the result mean to the united States? That we are't mired in a financial black hole with changing objectives, coupled with an incompetent and bickering govt that can't stop infighting long enough to get their burning house in order? (I'm speaking of the Iraqi govt, not ours). How long is it going to take to stabilize themselves? 5 years? 20? 50?
What is the left calling for? some are calling for withdrawl in 08, and some are calling for immediate withdrawl. Therefore, they want us to lose.You fail to take into account that a lot of people on the left (and increasingly on the right) see this as an unnecessary and/or imperialistic war that has been so poorly managed that it's beyond repair. Do some on the left want egg on Bush's face, at any expense? Probably, but you do a disservice to your argument when you throw blanket assertions around.
Who will they blame? Themselves? Please, I can?t stop laughing.I don't know about the guy on the street, but the ones in Congress that lean left are guilty as well. They voted for the war authorization with nary an objection (the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Byrd) and then failed for years to keep any kind of check on the Executive branch. I don't know why so many are worried about blame, there is plenty to go around. Enough for just about everyone in fact.
Do do realize that our enemies have cable. Don?t you? I may be just a backwoods hick with a blue collar job, but we can stop with the pretension. If the terrorists are sophisticated enough to hijack planes with boxcutters then I'm sure that they can get the news.
When they hear that piece of shit Sen. Reid say we?ve lost the war, and that other piece of shit Kerry say our troops are terrorists, and the other steaming pile of shit Edwards calling the war nothing more than a bumper sticker, do you think the enemy finds that comforting? I have no idea what they find it, I'm not them. If they have half a brain (and I'm sure they do) they would recognize it for the political infighting that it is. If the terrorists take comfort in the fact that the American people have lost faith in this war, is that the fault of the left for amplifying it, or the right for allowing it to happen in the first place?
If so, then you?re an idiot.No, I can't think of anyone on this board that I would consider an out and out idiot, well, with one exception (and no, it isn't you).
Then why are they reinlisting? Probably for the pay and the lack of transferable non combat skills to the private sector. Honestly, I don't know, but I doubt it's some kind of idealistic do what's right thing (though it may be for some, just not most). The big question is why aren't more people enlisting, and why the military has to lower the bar to allow people in?
There have been countless interviews with troops in the field who say the left?s retorisc effects moral. And there have been interviews with vets that served in combat in Iraq against the war. Interviews with retired generals speaking out against the war. Interviews with soldiers failing to deploy to the war. A lot of people have misgivings about this war for a lot of different reasons. I doubt that the rhetoric of the left has any serious impact. You take politicians seriously?
What does homosexuality have to do with anything?? It doesn't. That doesn't stop people like Fred Phelps and his merry band of wack jobs from protesting at military funerals, or Jerry Falwell trumpeting that 9/11 was the vengeance of God for gays and abortionists and whoever else he could think of.
Benchmarks. That?s hilarious. No it's not.
Give me some axamples of previous wars where time tables have been met.Give me an example of a war so poorly managed that Congress would think it necessary to implement benchmarks. Notice I said benchmarks, not timetables, they are two different things, though they may be tied together soon. The President has the power to prosecute war, Congress has the power of the purse, to fund the war. It was set up this way for a reason, so that the People (through their representatives) might have an avenue for mitigating a war, if they felt such war was unjust, unwise, or unnecessary. Congress (and the People) has every right to ask to see progress for what they are paying for.
That?s simply not true. If it is, please provide some proof.The National Intelligence Estimate believes that Al Qaeda has regrouped to pre 9/11 strength. This despite the elimination of many of their leaders and resources.
And how do you know Osama is alive?Do you think we wouldn't hear if he wasn't? With all of our intelligence crawling through the mid east? I really doubt the govt would sit on such info.
I?m truly hurt by your comments.I apologize, it was not my intention to hurt your feelings but to point out the merits of civil discourse and how your arguments could benefit from it. Evidently I missed the mark. If you look in the upper right corner of your screen, in the newsbox, you will note the following: A New Forum and a New Beginning
And a new opportunity to
Elevate the Debate
Let's take advantage of the opportunity!
Telling UP to "Fuck off dipshit", and calling someone a "losertarian" is not elevating a debate. It's dragging it down to a sixth grade pissing match. I'm sure that you can do better.
Let me ask you a question. How do you think Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington would react to the leaking of secret government activities during war time? Lincoln and Washington both fought wars on American soil before the advent of mass media. They weren't out playing in the Mid East sandbox trying to bring democracy to people who evidently either a) don't want it or b) can't handle the responsibilities of it. One fought to establish this nation, the other fought to hold it together. The similarities between them and the current situation are nearly nil. A more contemporary precedent is what did Nixon do when the Pentagon papers were released? He had his guys break into the psychiatrist's office who had treated the leaker (Ellsberg), looking to discredit him.
How would they react to what Democrats and the Bush-haters are currently engaged in?Washington abhorred the thought of a two party system, he wanted nothing like the British had. He also pardoned the two men convicted of treason and sentenced to hang during the Whiskey Rebellion. As for Lincoln:
The president was criticized by secessionists because he denied the legality of their action and by Northern advocates of a more vigorous policy because he believed that the executive lacked the power to coerce a state.Link:
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0044980-0&templatename=/article/articlThey'd call it what it is, treason.I doubt it. Washington pardoned men convicted of treason. Lincoln could call it treason, but he revoked the right of habeas corpus and instituted martial law. When Bush does the same, you can call it treason.
