PDA

View Full Version : Scarborough: I'd vote for Hillary Clinton before Chuck Hagel


memyselfI
08-22-2005, 08:45 PM
He's on his show losing his marbles right now about how Chuck Hagel needs to 'take back' his words that sold out our troops for the benefit of favor of the NY Times editorial board.

ROFL

I think he was so mad he didn't realize what he was saying.

Logical
08-22-2005, 08:47 PM
ROFL

memyselfI
08-22-2005, 08:50 PM
His guest, Jack RWNJsomething, was so stunned he couldn't respond in any coherent fashion.

Just how do you respond when one of your mouthpieces sells out their CON base? ROFL

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2005, 08:56 PM
I think it's called hyperbole. Hagel is free to say what he wants, like Jim Jeffries or Zell Miller....but don't expect your party to be happy about it. I'd compare Hagel's future in the Republican party to that of Jeffries and Miller, in the decisions they made. McCain walks the line, too; but Hagel seems intent on crossing that line.

Some would say more politicians should be doing that. Maybe. Just don't expect the parties to be happy about it.

memyselfI
08-22-2005, 08:58 PM
I think it's called hyperbole. Hagel is free to say what he wants, like Jim Jeffries or Zell Miller....but don't expect your party to be happy about it. I'd compare Hagel's future in the Republican party to that of Jeffries and Miller, in the decisions they made. McCain walks the line, too; but Hagel seems intent on crossing that line.

Some would say more politicians should be doing that. Maybe. Just don't expect the parties to be happy about it.

It would be hyperbole to say you would vote for a Democrat before you'd vote for Hagel...

he basically said he'd vote for Satan before he'd vote for Hagel. At least according to many RWNJs.

jettio
08-22-2005, 09:05 PM
Greta Van Scarborough can't talk about anything but that Alabama girl in Aruba and that Honeymoon cruise disappearance.

He quit covering politics now that his neo-con dream in Iraq turned to sh*t.

Greta Van Scarborough did not serve in the military, but he paid a lot of lip service to the folks in his district that did.

Now Greta is back on the GOP payroll now that he had a braindead GOP hack appear on his show with nobody to counter and Greta was a more uninformed cheerleader than the clown that was paid to do it.

Go Greta Van Scarborough go.

memyselfI
08-22-2005, 09:10 PM
Greta Van Scarborough can't talk about anything but that Alabama girl in Aruba and that Honeymoon cruise disappearance.

He quit covering politics now that his neo-con dream in Iraq turned to sh*t.

Greta Van Scarborough did not serve in the military, but he paid a lot of lip service to the folks in his district that did.

Now Greta is back on the GOP payroll now that he had a braindead GOP hack appear on his show with nobody to counter and Greta was a more uniformed cheerleader than the clown that was paid to do it.

Go Greta Van Scarborough go.


I'd really love to do a MIA list of those (both on and off CP) who were gung ho about the idea of the Iraq war and have either disappeared or pretend that the war has since it's gone South.

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2005, 10:08 PM
It would be hyperbole to say you would vote for a Democrat before you'd vote for Hagel...

he basically said he'd vote for Satan before he'd vote for Hagel. At least according to many RWNJs.

I've voted for Bush-Clinton-Gore-Bush in the last four elections; and I'm 50-50, or 60-40 (Dem to Rep), on most of my ballot selections.

How about you? Isn't the Black Lever in the voting booth, "straight ticket Moon Bat" special?

WoodDraw
08-22-2005, 11:45 PM
Why has it become so taboo to demand some level of accountability on the war?

We've been hearing the "Stay the course" line for how long now and I still don't know what it means. What course are we on right now and do we really want to stay on it?

I don't really buy the "setting a deadline will power the insurgents" arguement but I do understand, and mostly agree, that it would be wrong to pull out now. For better or for worse, we are in the war and have a responsibility to see it through.

But that doesn't mean that Bush gets a free pass to do as he likes. Congress tried that for a few years and it didn't work out so well. It's time to set out a public plan with tangible goals. The plan is to train Iraqi troops? Great, I can get on board with that. Tell me how many you are going to train, how long it will take, and when they will be ready to take over.

At least this way there would be some way to evaluate the progress of the war and some aspects of accountability. The current excuses of the Iraqis needing to step up, it being a long "process" that can't be judged, and so on just aren't working anymore.


[edited for spelling]

Logical
08-23-2005, 12:26 AM
Why has it become so taboo to demand some level of accountability on the war?

We've been hearing the "Stay the course" line for how long now and I still don't know what it means. What course are we on right now and do we really want to stay on it?

I don't really buy the "setting a deadline will power in the insurgents" arguement but I do understand, and mostly agree, that it would be wrong to pull out now. For better or for worse, we are in the war and have a responsibility to see it through.

But that doesn't mean that Bush gets a free pass to do as he likes. Congress tried that for a few years and it didn't work out so well. It's time to set out a public plan with tangable goals. The plan is to train Iraqi troops? Great, I can get on board with that. Tell me how many you are going to train, how long it will take, and when they will be ready to take over.

At least this way there would be some way to evaluate the progress of the war and some aspects of accountability. The current excuses of the Iraqis needing to step up, it being a long "process" that can't be judged, and so on just aren't working anymore.Very well stated. :clap:

Mr. Kotter
08-23-2005, 12:34 AM
...I don't really buy the "setting a deadline will power in the insurgents" arguement ....

This is a serious question, asked but unanswered (IIRC) in another thread:

Doesn't setting a deadline allow insurgents to "lay low" until the 'end-date' of American participation...and, then, they can cut loose with all they've got, and all they can garner in the mean time? Doesn't setting a deadline give the "insurgents" a 'light at the end of the tunnel'....so they can regroup, resupply, and await our departure? Doesn't "setting a deadline" undermine Iraqi democracy and any chance we have at accomplishing the mission?

Much like we did to South Vietnam, when we left......and expected "Vietnaminzation" to protect them from invasions by the North?

Seriously? Why is this not a valid analogy? :hmmm:

Logical
08-23-2005, 12:40 AM
This is a serious question, asked but unanswered (IIRC) in another thread:

Doesn't setting a deadline allow insurgents to "lay low" until the 'end-date' of American participation...and, then, they can cut loose with all they've got, and all they can garner in the mean time? Doesn't setting a deadline give the "insurgents" a 'light at the end of the tunnel'....so they can regroup, resupply, and await our departure? Doesn't "setting a deadline" undermine Iraqi democracy and any chance we have at accomplishing the mission?

Much like we did to South Vietnam, when we left......and expected "Vietnaminzation" to protect them from invasions by the North?

Seriously? Why is this not a valid analogy? :hmmm:Well for one because we were driven out of Vietnam (I take it you do not remember the great evacuation and the scenes from the embassy and apartment building rooftops?)April 29, 1975. We actually lost that war, the North took the south and over-ran Saigon and turned it into one country. So no I don't see your analogy.

http://www.mishalov.com/images/22gialongstreet.gif

WoodDraw
08-23-2005, 12:47 AM
This is a serious question, asked but unanswered (IIRC) in another thread:

Doesn't setting a deadline allow insurgents to "lay low" until the 'end-date' of American participation...and, then, they can cut loose with all they've got, and all they can garner in the mean time? Doesn't setting a deadline give the "insurgents" a 'light at the end of the tunnel'....so they can regroup, resupply, and await our departure? Doesn't "setting a deadline" undermine Iraqi democracy and any chance we have at accomplishing the mission?


If that was a true possibility though then why wouldn't the insurgents do the same thing now? Stop the attacks and group up until the US pulls out and then start up their war. It seems to me like it is just a flawed argument.

There are other legit reasons for not wanting to set a deadline; my main argument against it being that deadlines tend to be based off of the current political situation and not the military realities.

If the President sets out a war plan like the one I mentioned above then a deadline will become apparent as the postwar plan moves forward. A pullout date should be a result of a well executed plan, not the consequence of a poorly executed one.

Now if Bush continues to move forward without any real plan then at some point you have to ask yourself if the leaders are capable of turning this thing around. If not then it would be time to cut your losses and just get everyone home. I don't think we are at that point yet though.

Mr. Kotter
08-23-2005, 12:50 AM
Well for one because we were driven out of Vietnam (I take it you do not remember the great evacuation and the scenes from the embassy rooftop?)April 29, 1975. We actually lost that war, the North took the south and over-ran Saigon and turned it into one country. So no I don't see your analogy.

Sorry, Jim...that is a serious re-writing of history, IMHO. Yes, we evacuated....but only because we had SET a "withdraw by" date, and pulled MOST of our troops by then.

We "lost" the war, because we never had the will to fight the war to win it--much like some are suggesting we "need to do" now with Iraq. We are there, some may not like it, but damn it....let's finish it this time.

If we LEAVE Iraq, now....and allow the "insurgency" to survive to fight another day, we will do to Iraq, what we did to South Vietnam.

IMHO, we should remain, in sufficient numbers for as long as the Iraqis think they need us, and until the insurgency is "erradicated" to the point, that it is no longer a legitimate threat to their future.

Anything LESS than that, would dishonor the deaths of those already sacrificed, in the name of a new start for Iraq, IMHO.

Logical
08-23-2005, 01:07 AM
Sorry, Jim...that is a serious re-writing of history, IMHO. Yes, we evacuated....but only because we had SET a "withdraw by" date, and pulled MOST of our troops by then.

We "lost" the war, because we never had the will to fight the war to win it--much like some are suggesting we "need to do" now with Iraq. We are there, some may not like it, but damn it....let's finish it this time.

If we LEAVE Iraq, now....and allow the "insurgency" to survive to fight another day, we will do to Iraq, what we did to South Vietnam.

IMHO, we should remain, in sufficient numbers for as long as the Iraqis think they need us, and until the insurgency is "erradicated" to the point, that it is no longer a legitimate threat to their future.

Anything LESS than that, would dishonor the deaths of those already sacrificed, in the name of a new start for Iraq, IMHO.Technically the ground pounders left Vietnam in 1972 and only minimal occupational forces were left which is what was over-run. So for your analogy to have been correct you have to assume that the insurgents won't either over-run the country or succeed in creating a revolution up to three years after the majority of US forces leave. Why anyone feels that in a region where they fight amongst each other for 100s if not 1000s of years they cannot be patient enough to accomplish the same.

Mr. Kotter
08-23-2005, 01:10 AM
.... Why anyone feels that in a region where they fight amongst each other for 100s if not 1000s of years they cannot be patient enough to accomplish the same.

We left entirely, by summer of '73 (shortly after the promise of "peace, at hand" and a "pull-out" in Fall of '72)....it took about three years for Charlie to defeat "Vietnamization" (72-75.)

I can think of a number of scenarios, in Iraq, in which that would be HIGHLY unlikely.....heh. :hmmm:

jettio
08-23-2005, 08:45 AM
Theoretically, it would be posible to set a deadline and then have the american troops get out of the air-conditioned halliburton mess halls and go and kick enough azz that the Iraqi people will be able to defend themselves.

But that won't happen because B*sh is too lily-livered to take the casualities that it would have taken to establish stability in that sewer pit.

RINGLEADER
08-23-2005, 09:23 AM
Hagel's an idiot. Did we defeat the N. Vietnamese army? Did we occupy Hanoi? Did we capture Pol Pot and put him on trial? Did we give the N. Vietnamese the right of self-determination?

Adept Havelock
08-23-2005, 10:11 AM
Hagel's right on one thing, we fought the Vietnam war with one hand tied behind our back, just like we've fought the Iraqi campaign.

It just might be our undoing there as well.