US mid-term elections

[SRO]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has only become a terrorist target/training ground since we went in. Why are we there? I understand that we should now help rebuild what we helped destroy. What is wrong with a timetable? We need to send a message that we are there to help, not police. The quicker they understand that they need to take over operations, and that we will not be there forever the better.

In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

By the way, I am not a Democrat. I do not belong to any party. The party system has gotten out of control. Too many people plegde blind allegiance to their party, and this drops America from the top of the list.

[GMichael]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?
Don't get me wrong, Bush has done plenty of screwing up. But a lot of people jump on him just for the sake of jumping.

And I agree 100% about the party separation. I don't vote for a party. I vote for a person. But even then, you can almost count on the person you put in there to vote for a party instead of an issue. It's a system that needs at least a little tweaking. At most, a complete overhaul.

[basite]

Are you calling Americans stupid? Your real name isn't John Kerry, is it? Isn't it WONDERFUL that America didn't elect that lying traitor in 2004? Everything we warned about him was true. He's a pompous idiot, more concerned with his status than with the direction this country NEEDS to go in. I hope he runs again in 2008!
"

sorry to interrupt your moment of glory, even i'm not from america, i'm still going to say something,

Jeskibuff, you do know that George Bush is considered to be one of the most stupid people in the world.
name me, what went better since the war in Iraq started, there still isn't democracy in those countries, in fact, the only thing that happened is that they started to nuke eachother even more, the dollar didn't rise too, eh? and the poor people in america are even more poor,
Bush should be ashamed, the only reason why he was elected was that they didn't explain how the election thing worked,
some more things he should be ashamed about: the hurricane katrina, where at first, he didn't actually send real help too the people there, all he did was sending a few army guys over there to let them build a lousy barrier to hold the water, for the rest, he didn't do anything, at least not at the moment, until the whole world knew that, then he sent some more help eh?
and then, 'war against terrorism', man, that has to be the most stupid excuse i ever heard, i hope you're not forgetting that he IS in the oil business, why do you think that he started the war in the first place? for those poor people in iraq, that are discriminated and forgotten, could be, but more likely would be to gain control over the oil fields, yup, oil fields, to make the rich even more rich then they are now, and you know what? he failed, really hard, because the only thing that happened is that the oil price has DOUBLED!!
really, elect that guy, and then you are officially part of the worlds dumbasses,
and in the meanwhile, let him build some more secret cia prisons in europe eh?
i'm not saying that politics are only bad in america, really, most of the countries suck in it,
america is just a fine example for the rest of the world, like a guide 'how to mess with the rest of us', think about it, politics seem to be wrong everywhere, and if you make Bush president and Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor, your on a bad way, i mean ARNOLD SWHARZENEGGER for gods sake, he knows as much about politics as my cats right toe!!! he can't even pronounce the word republican.

note that this is my PERSONAL opinion, this is what i think about bush, and not saying that others will be better, but it's more likely that it will be...

that felt fine too.
ow, one more thing,
MY CAT FOR GOVERNOR!
it's more likely to think twice before saying something stupid and ti can probably speak better english then arnold.

[JSE]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said it did. I implied that something like 9/11 could change a person's course of action or perspective of the world around him. It could have changed his idea about Nation Building. So again, HOW DID HE LIE?

What is wrong with a timetable?.

Nothing is wrong with a timetable. But it has to be flexible. The problem the democrats have right now is a lot of the country believe they are hell bent on pulling troops out of Iraq by a specific time reagardless of what happens in the meantime. Timetables should be fluid. The democrats are viewed by many as wanting to make it a "hard" deadline.

We need to send a message that we are there to help, not police. The quicker they understand that they need to take over operations, and that we will not be there forever the better. .

Well, if you or the democrats know how to convince Iraq of this and make it happen sooner than later, I'm all ears. But that's the problem, democrats can't even begin to tell us how they will do this. They don't have a clue and have no interest in coming up with a plan. They just want seats. They hope that enough people will "assume" they must have a plan. I am not that happy about being in Iraq these days but I am really afraid that a democratic controlled house, senate and maybe even presidency would put Iraq on the back burner. This would be a huge mistake.

In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

Bush appears to have "flip-flopped" on this issue (nation building) due to a significant world event. Kerry seems to flip-flop due to any slight directional wind change. Kerry's biggest problem with the "flip-flop" issue was there were so many flip-flops. He seemed to say whatever his audience wanted to hear. And that bit him in the ass. In today's internet world, a person's words can and will come back to haunt them. In Kerry's case, over and over and over again.

By the way, I am not a Democrat. I do not belong to any party.

Nor do I but I am more conservative in my political views. I have said for years, I will vote for ANY candidate that will erect a huge wall/fence along the Mexican border to keep illegals out. A big electric fence! Illegal imigration is a far larger problem here in the US than terrorism. Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats are too busy trying to find potential voters to do anything real about it.

JSE

[Feanor]

You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.

As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)

[jeskibuff]

The main problem with Bush's "plan" for Iraq is that he and his administration are not flexible enough to deal with unexpected contingencies.

By NOT micromanaging this war, giving the commanders in Iraq the ability to direct the effort, GWB is providing EXTREME flexibility. It's just really tough to fight an enemy who blends into the crowd and doesn't care about their life nor anyone else's.

We ARE fighting enemies of ours in Iraq, but that's not the only fighting going on. The Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is more bloody and widespread than I think anyone expected.

Very true, but understand that that fighting is being spurred on by terrorists. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield, but they can make a gore-fest out of Iraq by giving Shiite and Sunni enough reason to go after each other. Kill a bunch of Sunnis today, then some Shiites tomorrow. Get them to think the other side did it and you successfully polarize and destabilize the country. When everyone's sick of the bloodshed, the coalition forces pull out and the terrorists easily take over. Nice plan. It works especially well when you've got people in the U.S. working for your cause (i.e.,Democrats).

Establishing a democratic form of government based on US principles may not be the answer. But Bush insists on "Democracy" for Iraq. I think if you equate "strategy" with "goals" then the Bush plan for Iraq is failing. If you think of "tactics" in the context of fighting then our military is in a sense "hamstrung" if you consider that much of the current violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. The obvious conclusion is to re-work the goal (or, overall strategy) to something more easily achieved, like some form of representative national government combined with a loose confederation of states within Iraq. Those states would require more autonomy than is preferred and some form of monitoring would be required to prevent or warn of terrorists setting up shop. For example, Musharraf in Pakistan has very little control over what goes on in the northern region of his country, however, he knows exactly what is going on.

Whatever form of government is chosen, it will be unacceptable to the terrorists. Nothing but an Islamic state will satisfy them. What NEEDS to be done is probably already being done, but it's a tough row to hoe. It takes time to develop a good spy network - people who can be trusted and are willing to infiltrate and identify the bad guys. We can't do that overnight, especially when we don't speak their language. As long as we can't identify them, they're free to attack at will. But we DO know some bad guys, like al-Sadr and other clerics who incite their followers into violence. A "stray" bullet into the foreheads of such scum might accomplish a lot. The propaganda war is essential too, and I have no idea how well we're doing in that department...probably not very good, although al-Jazeera has been banned by the Iraqi government, and that's a good sign.

Also, consider the source of all this news we get. Take this article for instance. In it, the Kurdish Prime Minister is appalled at the coverage of American news of Iraq. Then there are many things like this, from post #13 in http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ad.php?t=86649 "most Iraqis are very happy...don't believe the media. They're trying to make it look like the Sunnis are displeased."

I think it's very clear that our goal of democracy, as we know it, in Iraq should be modified.

I disagree. It's good to have that goal...we just need to adapt to changing tactics, which we are doing. It's tough when your enemies have no values. Like Israel says: "the fighting will stop when they love their children more than they hate us".

Our current adminstration lost its credibility with the American people by its rhetoric. We will be welcomed as liberators?

We were, by MANY Iraqis! There are thousands of pictures with Iraqis with purple-stained digits and smiles on their faces. They just never realized (and probably still don't) that their worst enemies are their fellow Muslims.

Oil and gas production will pay for stabilization?

The expectation was that the Iraqis would be more help than they are. There were a few problems with that expectation: the underestimation of the pure evil nature of Islamic fundamentalists, the hope that the good would rat out the evil, the hope that Iraqis who were brutalized for so long would pick up the baton and run with it. The main problem is the stranglehold that Islam has on people who have been indoctrinated with it for so long. It doesn't take much to persuade someone who has been taught from birth that Jews and people who support Jews are the enemy. The promise of paradise to anyone who will blow themselves up in order to kill as many people as they can is also pure evil. We just don't have much of a concept of that kind of evil in America. Our evil is on a much smaller scale (Columbine, Son of Sam, etc.). Certainly, we underestimated the evil of Islamic fundamentalists and the power of that evil.

My comment on your post has nothing to do with grammar.

Follow the bouncing ball, please. I was saying that I was WELL AWARE of what I had written and didn't need to read my post again to understand what I wrote. The spelling, grammar and content checks were the reasons I had read it multiple times.

I was referring to your obvious hatred of Democrats ( sorry, Dumbocrats ).

I don't HATE Democrats. I hate stupidity. I would like nothing better than for Democrats to develop some smarts and common sense. Until then, I'll ridicule them for being stupid because they don't seem to respond to any other positive impetus.

It must be the respect you show by the capital D.

Nope. I just used that notation because it is what most people are familiar with. If you think I respect Democrats, you're more clueless than I first thought!

Oh yeah, you mentioned the " some of my best friends are... " argument as well.

I didn't say "my best friends", now did I? I said liberals that I have interacted with in person. If you need an example, here's one who gets politely taken to the cleaners: http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ad.php?t=72180

Where is Osama? He was a priority for a while, dead or alive we were going to find him. Then W doesn't think about him too much. Is this a flip flop? Seems we took our eye off the ball.

No flip flop. There are terrorists galore who are just as dangerous as Osama. There are lots of vermin to be exterminated. It makes no sense to expend valuable resources in the search for one man (who has to be EXTREMELY wary of his visibility) when there are Osama wannabes all over the world, just as deserving of an accelerated encounter with "Allah"!

They want someone who is not a republican. The arguments will change as needed.

Precisely. If McCain or another Republican had won the primary and defeated Gore and Kerry, they'd be doing the same song and dance routine. It isn't as much as hating GWB as it is getting back for the "wrongs" done to their idol Slick Willie. The Clintons are proven liars, so they have to accuse GWB of lying. Too bad they get caught in lies while fabricating their accusations! The Clintons were corrupt, so they feel they have to pin the "corrupt" label on GWB. There was nearly a scandal a day during Clinton's terms. There's no doubt that Democrats have tried to paint everything in the world a Republican scandal, while they conveniently ignore items like Sandy Berger stashing documents in his pants! It's really quite obvious: they're simply avenging Clinton, although the simpleton mindset of the Democrat MUST resort to hatred, for they have no other ammunition they can use in their attacks!

In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

Neither. A flip-flopper will lie in order to try to please multiple parties. Kerry wore that label like no one ever has before. After 9/11, given all the available knowledge, the best option was to remove the threat that Saddam posed and once that occurred, the only "out" was to rebuild Iraq. GWB hadn't anticipated 9/11, but he had to follow the best path in the interest of America's security. So, he's neither a liar nor a flip-flopper. He had to apply the best solution under the circumstances.

Jeskibuff, you do know that George Bush is considered to be one of the most stupid people in the world.

Do you think that bothers me? The people who say such things are the most stupid people in the world, so why should I give them any credence? These are the same idiots who cited a poll that claimed that Bush was less "popular" than Saddam. That kind of mentality just boggles my mind. It was intended to get people to believe that Bush was incredibly hated, but it backfired because it further exposed the lefty lunatic mindset.

name me, what went better since the war in Iraq started

The Iraqis are no longer subject to a brutal dictator and have the opportunity to control their own destinies. What?? You don't think that's a good thing? You expected it to be an easy transition?? Remember the USSR's transition many years back?? It had a lot of rough spots, but it's now much better there than it used to be!

there still isn't democracy in those countries, in fact, the only thing that happened is that they started to nuke eachother even more

Nukes? Gee, I must be behind in the news!

the dollar didn't rise too, eh? and the poor people in america are even more poor

Sorry, but your "facts" don't mesh very well with reality. America's doing quite well, thank you! We pulled out of Clinton's recession and the 9/11 repercussions and our economy is chugging along good and strong! Again, thank you George W. Bush, for being a REAL leader and not listening to DUmbocrats about those tax cuts! If you had been a coward like Clinton, you would have taken an opinion poll instead!

Bush should be ashamed, the only reason why he was elected was that they didn't explain how the election thing worked,

Huh? I thought the reason he was elected was that too many Dumbocrats didn't have a clue how to punch the proper hole in a paper card. Who is "they" and who didn't explain "how the election thing worked"? It's really pretty simple. You go to a designated place, punch a card or pencil in a block, drop your ballot in a box and your vote gets counted! Why should Bush be ashamed that Democrats were too stupid to follow such a simple procedure?

some more things he should be ashamed about: the hurricane katrina, where at first, he didn't actually send real help too the people there, all he did was sending a few army guys over there to let them build a lousy barrier to hold the water, for the rest, he didn't do anything, at least not at the moment, until the whole world knew that, then he sent some more help eh?

Oh my! Such brilliance you have. It's amazing how disasters get handled in this good ol' USA. The first responders are the locals, then the state, THEN the Feds. Nagin bungled the local. Blanco bungled the state. But your blame conveniently ignores those fools and targets the national. Typical liberal ignoramus, only with a French accent!

and then, 'war against terrorism', man, that has to be the most stupid excuse i ever heard

Yeah, say that when one of your dear Muslim friends has a dull knife at your throat. It happened to Theo Van Gogh and it can happen to you. You obviously have no clue who the real enemy is. You think a few weeks of riots in Paris was just a fluke?? Get ready for the ride of your life! It'll be worse than Hitler's occupation. Europe has been infiltrated nicely and everyone knows that they haven't assimilated into your cultures very well!

i hope you're not forgetting that he IS in the oil business, why do you think that he started the war in the first place?

Do you have any kind of proof for your accusations or have you just watched too many Mikey Mooron films?

really, elect that guy, and then you are officially part of the worlds dumbasses

Coming from you, that's a compliment! Your world is totally backwards and given that most any conservative can run rings around you intellectually, it's somewhat entertaining. Someday you may realize that, but I imagine that it won't be for a LOOOONG time.

i mean ARNOLD SWHARZENEGGER for gods sake, he knows as much about politics as my cats right toe!!! he can't even pronounce the word republican.

Whatever he may be, he's light-years better than Gray Davis was. And is it a requirement to pronounce Republican in order to be one? I didn't think so. I might also point out that most of us conservatives don't consider Arnie to be much of a conservative. Hanging out with his whacked-out liberal in-laws SURELY has had a detrimental affect on his intellect!

note that this is my PERSONAL opinion, this is what i think about bush

Duly noted. Just beware, because Bush doesn't tolerate dissent and soon you'll be carted off to join DavieThek in Gitmo.

one more thing,
MY CAT FOR GOVERNOR!
it's more likely to think twice before saying something stupid and ti can probably speak better english then arnold.

It probably can type better than you can, too! Go on...put it on the keyboard. I'm dying to talk with someone who has a bit more intelligence!

You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.

Oh my! It looks like Feanor has been ALL OVER THE WORLD and can speak for the world's view with authority! Feanor, DON'T believe everything you read.

As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)

There's that projection again. You guys are pretty good at that!

[jrhymeammo]

I smell a DingDong.

[jeskibuff]

I smell a DingDong.

Sorry about that!

I had four of them for dessert tonight and they always tend to give me gas!

[Feanor]

...
Oh my! It looks like Feanor has been ALL OVER THE WORLD and can speak for the world's view with authority! Feanor, DON'T believe everything you read....

It's not hard to be well informed if you get your head out of your back end.

[basite]

Yeah, say that when one of your dear Muslim friends has a dull knife at your throat. It happened to Theo Van Gogh and it can happen to you. You obviously have no clue who the real enemy is. You think a few weeks of riots in Paris was just a fluke?? Get ready for the ride of your life! It'll be worse than Hitler's occupation. Europe has been infiltrated nicely and everyone knows that they haven't assimilated into your cultures very well!

First of all, I don't have any "dear Muslim friends"

Second: Go to London (UK), and see the true meaning of multicultural, people live together there instead of desperatly trying to be the best, i've seen all kinds of people there, and they were all doing their thing, and after work, all those people went out TOGETHER.
That would be something you obviously don't know, eh.

when i read your 'reply' i assume that you think that all the muslims are bad,
by this i assume that you are kind of a racist,
now that's not good eh? i also think that the only thing you know about other people not living in your neighbourhood is that what you see on tv, and that, of course will be only bad news,
seriously, not all muslims are bad,
Yes, they are a little bit to obsessed with their religion,
yes, the extremists are evil,
but so are other extremists, that's racism: hating other people,
but the majority of people are not extremists.


ow yeah, and before i forget, Who won the election, eh?
yup, that's right, the democrats,

[basite]

It probably can type better than you can, too! Go on...put it on the keyboard. I'm dying to talk with someone who has a bit more intelligence!

BREMOSLAKY

hmm, that was my cat, i'm pretty sure i can hear the word democracy in it, with a bit of imagination,

I know i do make some spelling faults, but what the heck, you could read it eh, didn't you.
i've never been a pro in languages, but, at least i'm trying to learn them, which is very hard, when you learn 4 languages at school (dutch, french, english and german) and oh god, i want to see you learn them, then we will talk again about languages.

tot ziens, au revoir, see you again, Auf wiedersehen.
Basite.

[basite]

i just don't watch the FOX news

i think i read something about that, or was it abc (weird channel name, looks like it's trying to learn the alphabet) anyways, they spend like 20 seconds a day on foreign news!! that's just time enough to say "one guy shot another". then there are commercials.

[SRO]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?
Don't get me wrong, Bush has done plenty of screwing up. But a lot of people jump on him just for the sake of jumping.

And I agree 100% about the party separation. I don't vote for a party. I vote for a person. But even then, you can almost count on the person you put in there to vote for a party instead of an issue. It's a system that needs at least a little tweaking. At most, a complete overhaul.

GMichael,

I am not sure who you might be talking about. After 9/11, the country was more united than it has been in my 35 years. I know of no one who suggested we go to Iraq rather than after Osama. The story couldn't be straighter. There will alway be fringe wackos, but it occurs on the right as well as the left.

[SRO]

OK, he didn't lie or flip flop. He changed his mind. If it takes a national tragedy to change his mind, he's thicker than I thought.

If we set a timetable ( even a fluid one ) then the Iraqi government will have to step up the training of their own police and military forces. This is what is claimed to need to happen to get our troops out of there. It is only the Republican party and it's fawning right wing media that claims the Democrats want to cut and run. To their followers, I say turn off Rush and Foxnews and join the real world.

[GMichael]

GMichael,

I am not sure who you might be talking about. After 9/11, the country was more united than it has been in my 35 years. I know of no one who suggested we go to Iraq rather than after Osama. The story couldn't be straighter. There will alway be fringe wackos, but it occurs on the right as well as the left.

More united than in my 46 years too. But there were plenty of nay-sayers a few months later when we were in after Bin. The papers were filled with editorials about how we should be after Sadam instead. That was just the beginning of the slide. Bush went from some 90+% approval to 60 something in about a year. But when it looked like it would cost him the election, he kept on the same path as he promised he would. Seems to me that if he wanted to cinch the election he would have flip-flopped as is normally the case with most politicians. So now he's still on coarse with the same agenda. Right or wrong (most likely wrong) he's at least doing what he said he would. And I don't agree with almost all of his choices, here and on other fronts as well. He makes a lot of mistakes. But I'd rather have him in there than Bill or Kerry or Hilary or, .......

Wackos in the middle too. Don't leave us out.

[SRO]

As you seem to want to get in to semantics, you in fact did not say "my best friends". But you also did not say "that I interact with" either. You may want to re-read your post.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the only way a Democrat can be smart is to think like a Republican in your view. If we all think the same way, we are not a Democacy. It tends to become more communist or fascist. Is this the America that you want?

[SRO]

GMichael,

I have to say that I do not remember the editorials. I will accept that they were there, but are you sure they from anti-Bushies. Could it have been the Neo-cons already building the non-existant threat of Iraq.

[FLZapped]

You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.

As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)

Oh, well, there is always John Kerry.

[Resident Loser]

...don't have a clue...Dubya was the only unifying issue they could come up with..."Vote for me! I don't like George Bush and my opponent does!"...it's all BS...Now there are folks who bought into all the Bush/Iraq cr@pola and are waiting for the next term to start, expecting daily flights from the middle east to start bringing the troops home...SURPRISE, ain't gonna' happen...All this is going to do is cause political grid-lock on a major scale...And...and if we do ultimately cut-and-run, all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action will have been proven right, which will only embolden them...

jimHJJ(...and yes Martha, history does repeat itself...)

[nobody]

Bush supporters just have to face facts...they were shown in a very big way that the American people do not agree with the neo-con agenda and the administration's insistence on following this path has put them outside the mainstream of the political mood of the country.

For better or worse, the good thing about the US is that our system generally does give us a government fairly reflective of the people. Right now, that means a turn away from a poorly-conceived, pre-emptive war and corporate infiltration and coruption of our governmental officials...the main reasons people have given for voting against the republicans...and yes, I surely admit that the votes were much more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat. Hell, I'm more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat...as are many Democrats.

I still don't see too much to give the Democrats a real shot at getting back the White House, because Hilary is a sure-fire loser...as is Obama...and they don't exactly seem to be able to come up with any inspiring choices. So, we may truly be looking at many years of gridlock with a Republican President or two and a Democratic Congress. But, to be honest, I much prefer gridlock and the status quo over watching the country get run into the ground as has been the case lately...and I think that represents the view of more Americans than the neo-con Republicans care to believe.

[nobody]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?

This confuses me. The Neo-Con agenda had Iraq ion the table before 9-11 and kept it there. It was not the anti-Bush crowd saying he should ease up on Bin-Laden and go after Iraq, it was his inner circle that had been pushing the Iraq agenda all along.

We had near universal support both at home and abroad going after Bin-Laden, it wasn't until Bush and his crew decided to go into Iraq instead that the tide started to shift.

[dean_martin]

...don't have a clue...Dubya was the only unifying issue they could come up with..."Vote for me! I don't like George Bush and my opponent does!"...it's all BS...Now there are folks who bought into all the Bush/Iraq cr@pola and are waiting for the next term to start, expecting daily flights from the middle east to start bringing the troops home...SURPRISE, ain't gonna' happen...All this is going to do is cause political grid-lock on a major scale...And...and if we do ultimately cut-and-run, all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action will have been proven right, which will only embolden them...

jimHJJ(...and yes Martha, history does repeat itself...)

Grid-lock ain't a bad thing. Without grid-lock, laws get passed. We have too many damn laws now. The mid-90's, which all you Clinton haters should remember, was a wonderful time because Clinton couldn't get his agenda through Congress and Congress couldn't get its agenda past Clinton's "veto" stamp. I don't cry over grid-lock, I'm thankful for it. I'm more wary of the crap they do push through than I am of the crap that fails.

Just who are "all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action"? I don't remember that being the argument in support of staying the course. The argument dealt with the consequences of pulling out before stabilization. IOW, the argument had more to do with our brains than our guts, didn't it? Are you talking about terrorists accusing us of being gutless?

[SlumpBuster]

Grid-lock ain't a bad thing. Without grid-lock, laws get passed. We have too many damn laws now. The mid-90's, which all you Clinton haters should remember, was a wonderful time because Clinton couldn't get his agenda through Congress and Congress couldn't get its agenda past Clinton's "veto" stamp. I don't cry over grid-lock, I'm thankful for it. I'm more wary of the crap they do push through than I am of the crap that fails.

Just who are "all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action"? I don't remember that being the argument in support of staying the course. The argument dealt with the consequences of pulling out before stabilization. IOW, the argument had more to do with our brains than our guts, didn't it? Are you talking about terrorists accusing us of being gutless?

Hear! Hear! One man's "gridlock" is another man's "checks and balances."

For those that want to bag on the "broken" two party system, I say go back to a civics class. If you're a Dem and can't see value in the GOP platform then your a fool. Similarly so if you're a GOP and can't see value in the Dem party. Yin and yang, my friends.

If anyone is so intent on getting an efficient, one-party system, where the legislature is never challenged by internal dissent and the President never uses his veto power, then I got a one way ticket to Havana for you.

Oh, wait. Bush doesn't use his veto power. Well that's gonna change in a hurry.

"Freedom's on the march!" Ya right.