Howad Dean is a joke...

[recxjake]

DNC's Dean: U.S. Will Lose War in Iraq
www.newsmax.com

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," comments that drew immediate fire from Republicans.

In an interview with WOAI-AM in San Antonio, Dean criticized what he called President Bush's "permanent commitment to a failed strategy" while saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops' back." Dean suggested "a strategic redeployment" of U.S. troops over the next two years.

"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."

Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman said Dean's "outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."


what a disgrace..... the Repubs might be in some hot water right now, but i can sleep much better night knowing the Dems have this guy in charge!

[jAZ]

I know you aren't going to read the full quote from him in NewsMax... but do you even care to read it yourself? Do you even know what he's talking about?

[recxjake]

I know you aren't going to read the full quote from him in NewsMax... but do you even care to read it yourself? Do you even know what he's talking about?

He said we are going to lose in Iraq.... that sends a great message to the troops, insurgents, iraqi goverment....... Dean should resign

[jAZ]

He said we are going to lose in Iraq.... that sends a great message to the troops, insurgents, iraqi goverment....... Dean should resign
Stop spinning and answer my question.

[jAZ]

In the mean time, I'll share these quotes...

"Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, who supported the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at about the same time to privately warn Vice President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel 'had learned that there's no way to win an occupation.' The only issue, Barak told Cheney, 'was choosing the size of your humiliation.' Cheney did not respond to Barak's assessment. (Cheney's office declined to comment.)"
Seymour Hersh article from New Yorker Magazine archived here...
http://www.nonfamous.com/blog/archives/000608.html


"The longer we stay, the bigger mess we create. Once we invaded, we set in motion a group of forces that inexplicably has taken us to this point. We can‘t change that by staying longer. We can make it worse.

We essentially invaded for other peoples‘ interests without understanding it. We made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, therefore, we really encouraged or pleased Osama bin Laden."
-- Retired Lieutenant General William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan on Hardball 12/6/2005


"We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."
-- Ayman al-Zawahiri, broadcast in September 2003 on the al-Jazeera satellite network


In particular, I'd suggest reading the transcript from Odom's appearance on Hardball last night here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10348418/

[recxjake]

Stop spinning and answer my question.

he's talking about Bush's plan for winning in Iraq............ How do you feel that this man is the leader of your party?

[jAZ]

he's talking about Bush's plan for winning in Iraq............ How do you feel that this man is the leader of your party?
Stop spinning and answer my question.

[recxjake]

Stop spinning and answer my question.

what are you talking about.... of courese i read it

[jAZ]

what are you talking about.... of courese i read it
You didn't post it, so what makes anyone think you read the FULL QUOTE? If you read it, then find the source where you read it and post both the full quote and the link to where you read it.

[recxjake]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

Dean: U.S. can't win Iraq war
GOP says Democrat leader embraces 'retreat and defeat'

(CNN) -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is drawing GOP fire after telling a Texas radio station that the idea the war in Iraq can be won is "just plain wrong."

In an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio Monday, the head of the Democratic Party drew a parallel between efforts to hand over security responsibilities to Iraqis and similar efforts during the Vietnam War to the South Vietnamese.

That side ultimately lost the war.

"Of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to support their own country," Dean said. "I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice."

Dean said he wished President Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.

Calling President Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy, Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops within the next six months.

He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq.

"We cannot have our troops being targets there," he said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman blasted his Democratic counterpart, accusing Dean of embracing "retreat and defeat" and "predicting that America will lose the war in Iraq."

"His outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections," Mehlman said in a statement. "Democrats across the nation should stand up and reject the pessimism of their chairman."

Responding to Mehlman's broadside, Dean spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Republicans were "cherry-picking" Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

"We can only win if the Iraqi people are able to play a greater role in peacekeeping, and we can only win if the president gives an honest assessment of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq," Finney said. "Staying the course and paying for good headlines are not a strategy. It's merely a bad excuse for not having a plan."

[recxjake]

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.

Jaz you should be outraged that he is your leader

[jAZ]

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.
Thanks for proving my point and hers...
Responding to Mehlman's broadside, Dean spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Republicans were "cherry-picking" Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."
ROFL

[Chief Henry]

Thanks for proving my point and hers...

ROFL



.......does "withering on the vine" bring back any memories ?

[recxjake]

Thanks for proving my point and hers...

ROFL

so you agree with him.... Jaz you have hit a new low

[patteeu]

Thanks for proving my point and hers...

ROFL

He posted the full article and then highlighted a sentence. He did it with two posts, but others do it by bolding a line of text within the main article. What's the difference? He posted the context and a link to CNN, he doesn't prove her point.

[jAZ]

He posted the full article and then highlighted a sentence. He did it with two posts, but others do it by bolding a line of text within the main article. What's the difference? He posted the context and a link to CNN, he doesn't prove her point.
He didn't post the text of the interview... he posted cherry picked quotes.

[jAZ]

He didn't post the text of the interview... he posted cherry picked quotes.
Not only that, he claimed he had in fact read the full quote while only reposting his cherry picked quotes in various forms.

[recxjake]

He didn't post the text of the interview... he posted cherry picked quotes.

Jaz you are disgusting.... your Democratic party is disgusting..... they are using American deaths for political gain instead of bringing forth any ideas of how to win the war besides RETREAT

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/dean_nuts.mpga

[jAZ]

Jaz you are disgusting.... your Democratic party is disgusting..... they are using American deaths for political gain instead of bringing forth any ideas of how to win the war besides RETREAT

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/dean_nuts.mpga
You attempt at dodgeball doesn't seem to be working.

[recxjake]

You attempt at dodgeball doesn't seem to be working.

Jaz you are the one that can't seem to answer any questions... Do you agree w/ Howard, do you think what he said is good for the troops or the Iraqi govt 10 days before the biggest vote the country has ever seen?

[jAZ]

so you agree with him.... Jaz you have hit a new low
Actually history agrees with him...

Ask the British how their occupation of the new world went.
Ask the Isrealis how the occupation of Palistinian lands has gone.
Ask the Russians how the occupation of Afganistan has gone.
Ask Nixon how the occupation of Vietnam went.
Ask Bush 41 his toughts about occupying Iraq would go back in 1991.
Ask Cheney that same question back in 1991.

I personally think that there can be a better way out than immediate withdrawl and that way involves a longer commitment than that. But there is no disputing history on this issue. And lots of people agree, despite your faux outrage and ignorance of history.

[recxjake]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, Dec. 5, 2005 11:43 p.m. EST
Michael Reagan: Dean 'Should Be Hung'


Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.

Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

In a Texas radio interview, Dean predicted a rerun of the Vietnam debacle, where U.S. forces had to withdraw after Congress voted to cut support for South Vietnam's government.

"This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," the top Democrat said. "Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too

stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean said he favored a plan to immediately withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops - with all military personnel slated to be out of Iraq within two years.

[recxjake]

Actually history agrees with him...

Ask the British how their occupation of the new world went.
Ask the Isrealis how the occupation of Palistinian lands has gone.
Ask the Russians how the occupation of Afganistan has gone.
Ask Nixon how the occupation of Vietnam went.
Ask Bush 41 his toughts about occupying Iraq would go back in 1991.
Ask Cheney that same question back in 1991.

I personally think that there can be a better way out than immediate withdrawl and that way involves a longer commitment than that. But there is no disputing history on this issue. And lots of people agree, despite your faux outrage and ignorance of history.

You just can't admit that Dean is wrong

[patteeu]

Not only that, he claimed he had in fact read the full quote while only reposting his cherry picked quotes in various forms.

Is the "full quote" supposed to mean the entire transcript of the interview? Are you aware of something that would make these comments something other than they seem?

[jAZ]

Jaz you are the one that can't seem to answer any questions... Do you agree w/ Howard, do you think what he said is good for the troops or the Iraqi govt 10 days before the biggest vote the country has ever seen?
When exactly did you post such a question? Make sure to quote yourself please.

[jAZ]

You just can't admit that Dean is wrong
Actually, Dean has a hell of a good point. And he has hundreds of years to back himself up. But the solution to this problem isn't going to be found in a soundbite. The Republicans are playing politics on this issue and trying to crush both dissent (from their plans) and honest discussion of the issue at all with this campaign to pull.

That Dean chose words in such a way as to allow the Republicans to be Republicans and the media to be the media is in fact quite stupid. But that doesn't mean that Dean is wrong to make such a point. It's a point that everyone kinda knows and no one wants to admit. Doing so is bad politics. But it's good for the debate, which is bad for Republican politics.

[jAZ]

Is the "full quote" supposed to mean the entire transcript of the interview? Are you aware of something that would make these comments something other than they seem?
I'm aware that the context always provides more information. The full quote would be anything surrounding the clipped quote that would provide that context. Forgive me for not being willing to rely on jake, newsmax or cnn to fill in those blanks.

[Cochise]

This just in, Howard Dean is still a punchline.

[Cochise]

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/

Sounds pretty clear to me. Cost of doing business with him.

[NewPhin]

YAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[jAZ]

Since people chose to ignore this last time, I'll re-share these quotes...

"Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, who supported the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at about the same time to privately warn Vice President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel 'had learned that there's no way to win an occupation.' The only issue, Barak told Cheney, 'was choosing the size of your humiliation.' Cheney did not respond to Barak's assessment. (Cheney's office declined to comment.)"
Seymour Hersh article from New Yorker Magazine archived here...
http://www.nonfamous.com/blog/archives/000608.html


"The longer we stay, the bigger mess we create. Once we invaded, we set in motion a group of forces that inexplicably has taken us to this point. We can‘t change that by staying longer. We can make it worse.

We essentially invaded for other peoples‘ interests without understanding it. We made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, therefore, we really encouraged or pleased Osama bin Laden."
-- Retired Lieutenant General William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan on Hardball 12/6/2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10348418/


"We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."
-- Ayman al-Zawahiri, broadcast in September 2003 on the al-Jazeera satellite network
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/obltext.asp


In particular, I'd suggest reading the transcript from Odom's appearance on Hardball last night here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10348418/

[jAZ]

Here's another beauty...

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
-- George W. Bush, NBC's Today Show, August 2004 talking about the War on Terror

[Radar Chief]

Thanks for proving my point and hers...

ROFL

You do realize you just did the exact same thing, “cherry picked” the info you wanted to read. :shrug:

[Radar Chief]

so you agree with him.... Jaz you have hit a new low
Actually history agrees with him...

Ask the British how their occupation of the new world went.
Ask the Isrealis how the occupation of Palistinian lands has gone.
Ask the Russians how the occupation of Afganistan has gone.
Ask Nixon how the occupation of Vietnam went.
Ask Bush 41 his toughts about occupying Iraq would go back in 1991.
Ask Cheney that same question back in 1991.

I personally think that there can be a better way out than immediate withdrawl and that way involves a longer commitment than that. But there is no disputing history on this issue. And lots of people agree, despite your faux outrage and ignorance of history.



You attempt at dodgeball doesn't seem to be working.

:LOL: ROFL :shake:

[jAZ]

You do realize you just did the exact same thing, “cherry picked” the info you wanted to read. :shrug:
Uh... did you see those two links in the quotes I provided? Both are links to either (a) the full text of Odom's interview or (b) much of the text of the Hersh article which itself contains a link to the actual full article.

You got me on the al-zarwahiri quote. I forgot to post the link to that one. I'll try to dig it up.

[jAZ]

You got me on the al-zarwahiri quote. I forgot to post the link to that one. I'll try to dig it up.
Here's the full text from al-Zarwahiri... (scroll down)

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/obltext.asp

[Radar Chief]

Uh... did you see those two links in the quotes I provided? Both are links to either (a) the full text of Odom's interview or (b) much of the text of the Hersh article which itself contains a link to the actual full article.

You got me on the al-zarwahiri quote. I forgot to post the link to that one. I'll try to dig it up.

Uh, in post #12, the one I quoted, you didn't post any links. You just "cherry picked" the part of the article you wanted to read and apparently ignored the rest. :shrug:

[jAZ]

Uh, in post #12, the one I quoted, you didn't post any links. You just "cherry picked" the part of the article you wanted to read and apparently ignored the rest. :shrug:
That's what you're left with? Being upset because I dared quote jakes article? The one he posted in full right there in the post before? How dare I do that! Don't I know that people will never be able to read the full article Jake posted and I quoted!?!

Bastard! :cuss:

[Radar Chief]

That's what you're left with? Being upset because I dared quote jakes article? The one he posted in full right there in the post before? How dare I do that! Don't I know that people will never be able to read the full article Jake posted and I quoted!?!

Bastard! :cuss:

:spock: ROFL Apparently you have much more emotionally invested here than I do. I’m just point’n and laugh’n at the hypocrisy of it. The rest is entirely on you.

[jAZ]

:spock: ROFL Apparently you have much more emotionally invested here than I do. I’m just point’n and laugh’n at the hypocrisy of it. The rest is entirely on you.
Yeah, that's it.

You didn't screw up and fail to realize that I quoted a post from Jake above... you were pointing at "the hypocrisy" of it.

And seeing as how you are prone to missing certain details, I'll clarify that the "Bastard! :cuss:" was faux-outrage directed at myself, not at you.

[Radar Chief]

Yeah, that's it.

You didn't screw up and fail to realize that I quoted a post from Jake above... you were pointing at "the hypocrisy" of it.

And seeing as how you are prone to missing certain details, I'll clarify that the "Bastard! :cuss:" was faux-outrage directed at myself, not at you.

Wouldn’t normally waste my time but WTH.
Lets walk through this slowly. You “cherry picked” a specific portion of Jakes post just after berating him for “cherry picking” a quote from Deans speech.

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypocrite

I’m sorry that this totally flies right over your head.

[recxjake]

Wouldn’t normally waste my time but WTH.
Lets walk through this slowly. You “cherry picked” a specific portion of Jakes post just after berating him for “cherry picking” a quote from Deans speech.



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypocrite

I’m sorry that this totally flies right over your head.

dont even waste your time with jaz

[jAZ]

Wouldn’t normally waste my time but WTH.
Lets walk through this slowly. You “cherry picked” a specific portion of Jakes post just after berating him for “cherry picking” a quote from Deans speech.



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypocrite

I’m sorry that this totally flies right over your head.
Enough with the handwaiving and just admit that you missed that I had quoted Jake in that post. It's ok. It's a mistake. Not even as big a mistake as you are making now by trying to assert that what I did was an act of a " person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion".

I was just quoting Jake's aticle... that's not cherry picking when the full version is provided FIRST and I just quoted it.

[Radar Chief]

dont even waste your time with jaz

You don’t have to tell me ‘bout jAZ, I’ve known him for a few years now. He’s a decent guy but he’s certainly flailing here.

[jAZ]

dont even waste your time with jaz
I'm still waiting for your response to the quotes you are hiding from. Bush himself said we couldn't win his own "war". Where's your outrage at him? What about your outrage at General Odom? Your outrage at Isreal and Ehud Barak?

Just curious how you view these things. You spend your energy avoiding the hard questions and playing cheerleader. Show us that you are willing to stand in there when your central points are challenged.

Respond to the tough ones, don't hide from them.

[Radar Chief]

Enough with the handwaiving and just admit that you missed that I had quoted Jake in that post. It's ok. It's a mistake. Not even as big a mistake as you are making now by trying to assert that what I did was an act of a " person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion".

I was just quoting Jake's aticle... that's not cherry picking when the full version is provided FIRST and I just quoted it.

Let me get this straight. You post a particular portion of Jakes article and act as if that lone portion is validation of your assertions but that’s not “cherry pick’n”. Jake posts a particular portion of Dean’s speech but it is “cherry pick’n”?
Also, I point this out but I’m “hand waving”. You’re desperately attempting to deny what you posted but aren’t a " person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion"? :spock:

I take back what I posted, you are beyond ridiculous. ROFL

[jAZ]

Let me get this straight. You post a particular portion of Jakes article and act as if that lone portion is validation of your assertions but that’s not “cherry pick’n”. Jake posts a particular portion of Dean’s speech but it is “cherry pick’n”?
Also, I point this out but I’m “hand waving”. You’re desperately attempting to deny what you posted but aren’t a " person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion"? :spock:

I take back what I posted, you are beyond ridiculous. ROFL
Yes, there is quite a big difference.

Jake preemtpively posted the NewsMax article with selected quotes, claimed he had read the FULL QUOTES and then refused to actually post the full transcript of the interview and the context that they would provide. He repeatedly refused to do so.

So in place of any context provided by the full interview, I provided a substitue to that and provided numerous quotes to give a little context to the many people who have made similar statements including GWB himself. He has continued to ignore all of that information and rely upon the selected quotes to express his faux-outrage towards the Dems and Dean.

That's cherry picking - selecting the choice information needed to make your case, hiding the rest of the evidence and ignoring any contradictory information provided.

I on the other hand, merely quoted a portion of the article Jake himself posted. That's not cherry picking or even objectionable.

[recxjake]

Yes, there is quite a big difference.

Jake preemtpively posted the NewsMax article with selected quotes, claimed he had read the FULL QUOTES and then refused to actually post the full transcript of the interview and the context that they would provide. He repeatedly refused to do so.

So in place of any context provided by the full interview, I provided a substitue to that and provided numerous quotes to give a little context to the many people who have made similar statements including GWB himself. He has continued to ignore all of that information and rely upon the selected quotes to express his faux-outrage towards the Dems and Dean.

That's cherry picking - selecting the choice information needed to make your case, hiding the rest of the evidence and ignoring any contradictory information provided.

I on the other hand, merely quoted a portion of the article Jake himself posted. That's not cherry picking or even objectionable.

jaz your nuts, i didnt repeatedly rufuse to post them! I didn't think thats what you meant, I thought you asked what does he mean.... you take this stuff way to seriously.....Repubs rule, Dems Drool haha

[Radar Chief]

Yes, there is quite a big difference.

Jake preemtpively posted the NewsMax article with selected quotes, claimed he had read the FULL QUOTES and then refused to actually post the full transcript of the interview and the context that they would provide. He repeatedly refused to do so.

So in place of any context provided by the full interview, I provided a substitue to that and provided numerous quotes to give a little context to the many people who have made similar statements including GWB himself. He has continued to ignore all of that information and rely upon the selected quotes to express his faux-outrage towards the Dems and Dean.

That's cherry picking - selecting the choice information needed to make your case, hiding the rest of the evidence and ignoring any contradictory information provided.

I on the other hand, merely quoted a portion of the article Jake himself posted. That's not cherry picking or even objectionable.

ROFL Now you're "hand waving".

[jAZ]

jaz your nuts, i didnt repeatedly rufuse to post them! I didn't think thats what you meant, I thought you asked what does he mean....
Wow... you actually missed all this stuff?
I know you aren't going to read the full quote from him in NewsMax... but do you even care to read it yourself?
Or...
You didn't post it (the full quote), so what makes anyone think you read the FULL QUOTE? If you read it, then find the source where you read it and post both the full quote and the link to where you read it.
Or...
what are you talking about.... of courese i read it
Or...
He didn't post the text of the interview... he posted cherry picked quotes.
Or...
Not only that, he claimed he had in fact read the full quote while only reposting his cherry picked quotes in various forms.
I can see where I was unclear in asking you to post the full quote. My bad.

[Sully]

So is anyone actually gonna rgue the point of this thread? Or is this just another of those attack the otehr guy threads, where no actual issue is brought up?

[recxjake]

First of all Dean is saying that we will loose in IRAQ

Bush was talking about defeating every terrorist all over the world.... he was saying it will never be over

nice try though

Even Dems are disagreeing w/ what Dean said......

[jAZ]

First of all Dean is saying that we will loose in IRAQ

Bush was talking about defeating every terrorist all over the world.... he was saying it will never be over

nice try though

Even Dems are disagreeing w/ what Dean said......
Yeah, it's bad politics, but that doesn't make him wrong.

The problem Bush recognized about the WOT is exactly the reason that Dean said what he said... and exactly the reason the Isreali's now say you can't win in Iraq... and exactly the same reason why the Russians pulled out of Afganistan... and exactly the same reason why Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.

History shows that there is no "winning" of an entrenched occupation. There is merely better ways to leave than others. Put all the political spin aside and realize that even if we train up the Iraqi troops and pull out... the fight will continue. We will have just excused ourselves from that fight. We will try to declare victory and leave. It's basically the only realistic option.

We never should have started down this path, but the really, really big problem is that BushCo (in spite of history and repeated warnings) tried to do it on the cheap because of the general lack of support for the war at the time.

I do think that if we had done the war correctly from the outset (applying the Powell doctrine), we would never have been an occupying force. If we had provided enough troops and money from day 1 to properly manage the chaos and protect anything else but the oil fields, we would have had a real chance to transition relatively smoothly to a democratic goverment - ala Panama.

But, Cheney, Rumsfled & Bush listened to Rove and tried to win the political game rather than the military war. "We can do this and do it cheap!" That was just stupid. They set us up for failure, from the beginning with their incompetence.

No matter how many times Bush says " I will settle for nothing less than complete victory", he knows that it's impossible to "defeat every terrorist".

Dean is saying what many understand, few want to admit and history has proven... "There's no way to win an occupation. (The only issue is) choosing the size of your humiliation."

Some choose a much higer level of humiliation (pull out now) others choose trying to minimize that humiliation (stay the course).

I'm in the "stay the course" block, but Dean's point is entirely valid.

[jAZ]

So is anyone actually gonna rgue the point of this thread? Or is this just another of those attack the otehr guy threads, where no actual issue is brought up?
I've been doing that all along. No one wants to engage me on the subject.

[Radar Chief]

So is anyone actually gonna rgue the point of this thread? Or is this just another of those attack the otehr guy threads, where no actual issue is brought up?

Quit the hand waving and admit the superiority of my ideology and, vicariously, me. ;) ROFL

[Nightwish]

So is anyone actually gonna rgue the point of this thread? Or is this just another of those attack the otehr guy threads, where no actual issue is brought up?I have a couple thoughts on the thread topic. First, Dean is an idiot. The only reason he's in charge of the DNC is because nobody ran against him for the position, and only the members of the DNC are allowed to vote for the chair (so the common Democrat voter has no say in who is elected chairman). He's an unmitigated fool. It's one thing to say that we can't win the war unless we significantly change our strategy and our definition of "victory." It's quite another to snub all the efforts of our troops and declare outright that we've lost ... while they're still there directly in harm's way. He's welcome to that opinion, and for the most part, I don't differ much with his assessment of the war, but it's an opinion he should have either stated differently or kept private.

[patteeu]

Yeah, it's bad politics, but that doesn't make him wrong.

The problem Bush recognized about the WOT is exactly the reason that Dean said what he said... and exactly the reason the Isreali's now say you can't win in Iraq... and exactly the same reason why the Russians pulled out of Afganistan... and exactly the same reason why Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.

History shows that there is no "winning" of an entrenched occupation. There is merely better ways to leave than others. Put all the political spin aside and realize that even if we train up the Iraqi troops and pull out... the fight will continue. We will have just excused ourselves from that fight. We will try to declare victory and leave. It's basically the only realistic option.

We never should have started down this path, but the really, really big problem is that BushCo (in spite of history and repeated warnings) tried to do it on the cheap because of the general lack of support for the war at the time.

I do think that if we had done the war correctly from the outset (applying the Powell doctrine), we would never have been an occupying force. If we had provided enough troops and money from day 1 to properly manage the chaos and protect anything else but the oil fields, we would have had a real chance to transition relatively smoothly to a democratic goverment - ala Panama.

But, Cheney, Rumsfled & Bush listened to Rove and tried to win the political game rather than the military war. "We can do this and do it cheap!" That was just stupid. They set us up for failure, from the beginning with their incompetence.

No matter how many times Bush says " I will settle for nothing less than complete victory", he knows that it's impossible to "defeat every terrorist".

Dean is saying what many understand, few want to admit and history has proven... "There's no way to win an occupation. (The only issue is) choosing the size of your humiliation."

Some choose a much higer level of humiliation (pull out now) others choose trying to minimize that humiliation (stay the course).

I'm in the "stay the course" block, but Dean's point is entirely valid.


You've got an interesting position, jAZ, arguing that we needed to more fully occupy Iraq with a more massive force to avoid looking like occupiers. Brilliant.

[Baby Lee]

I do think that if we had done the war correctly from the outset (applying the Powell doctrine), we would never have been an occupying force. If we had provided enough troops and money from day 1 to properly manage the chaos and protect anything else but the oil fields, we would have had a real chance to transition relatively smoothly to a democratic goverment - ala Panama.
So which is it;

We can't bring democracy to Iraq because 'dem Arabs juss gots fightin' in dey blood.

or

Iraq was primed for a smooth transition to democracy, if only we had came down upon them with overwhelming occupational forces.


What's the crazy of the day?

[jAZ]

You've got an interesting position, jAZ, arguing that we needed to more fully occupy Iraq with a more massive force to avoid looking like occupiers. Brilliant.
You look like occupiers over time. That you are confused by something so simple is kinda suprising.

[jAZ]

So which is it;

We can't bring democracy to Iraq because 'dem Arabs juss gots fightin' in dey blood.
So which is it?

Are you asserting that position as your own, or
Are you lying by asserting that I've taken such a position ever.

My guess is that you've chosen to adopt this false-false choice because you've got nothing else to say since you know I'm right and it hurts to admit it.

I can't think of any other reason why you'd deliberately interject a undeniably false assertion as the "either" option in an either-or question, opposite the position I just stated.

Oh... unless I missed your supportive sarcasm. Was that it? Just being supportive, but forgot to include the [/sarcasm]? That makes more sense than anything else I can think of, and yet for some reason it doesn't make any sense here.

[RINGLEADER]

In the mean time, I'll share these quotes...

"We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."
-- Ayman al-Zawahiri, broadcast in September 2003 on the al-Jazeera satellite network[/indent]

Is it lost on you that you just posted a statement from Al Qaeda's number two guy that essentially makes the same point that Howard Dean made? I find it funny that you'd post missives from a terrorist to support the position of the leader of the Democrats.

Politically, Howard Dean has the precision of a wrecking ball and the statement from the head of the Democrats that we can't win a war that we're currently engaged in pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the left.

[Nightwish]

Is it lost on you that you just posted a statement from Al Qaeda's number two guy that essentially makes the same point that Howard Dean made? I find it funny that you'd post missives from a terrorist to support the position of the leader of the Democrats.Whether the message comes from Al Qaeda's #2, or from Dean, or from the Pope, shouldn't really matter if the message is true. The question is, is the message true? Will we lose everything we've fought for if we pull out now? In my opinion, perhaps not "everything," but we'll lose more than we can afford to lose. Will Americans continue to bleed and die if we stay? Yes. So while the message may be a bit of a hyperbole, it is essential an accurate assessment of our current predicament. The terrorists may be evil, but they're not dumb.Politically, Howard Dean has the precision of a wrecking ball and the statement from the head of the Democrats that we can't win a war that we're currently engaged in pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the left.I wouldn't say that it's his precision he has in common with a wrecking ball, it's his tact. For the most part, I agree with his call on the current state of the war, I just disagree with the tactlessness of making that call in such a public and insensitive manner.

[Baby Lee]

So which is it?

Are you asserting that position as your own, or
Are you lying by asserting that I've taken such a position ever.

My guess is that you've chosen to adopt this false-false choice because you've got nothing else to say since you know I'm right and it hurts to admit it.

I can't think of any other reason why you'd deliberately interject a undeniably false assertion as the "either" option in an either-or question, opposite the position I just stated.

Oh... unless I missed your supportive sarcasm. Was that it? Just being supportive, but forgot to include the [/sarcasm]? That makes more sense than anything else I can think of, and yet for some reason it doesn't make any sense here.
I was remarking on what I saw as a sharp turn in the general state of the 'Iraq is an utter failure because;' line. If you say you didn't weigh in on it, I'm not gonna refute you. But have to be aware of the long discussions on how 'Iraqis just aren't ready for democracy, they're too . . . [insert euphemism/justification for stereotyping here].' And I suspect you're aware of my assessment of those arguments. Again, if you didn't weigh in on it, I didn't mean to directly attribute the old line to you, just to compare the old line to the new line you'd posted.

[Nightwish]

I was remarking on what I saw as a sharp turn in the general state of the 'Iraq is an utter failure because;' line. If you say you didn't weigh in on it, I'm not gonna refute you. But have to be aware of the long discussions on how 'Iraqis just aren't ready for democracy, they're too . . . [insert euphemism/justification for stereotyping here].' And I suspect you're aware of my assessment of those arguments. Again, if you didn't weigh in on it, I didn't mean to directly attribute the old line to you, just to compare the old line to the new line you'd posted.
What kind of government do you believe the Iraqis are most likely to vote in? And why do you believe that?

[Eye Patch]

WHAT THE MEDIA IGNORED FROM HOWARD DEAN

The leader of the major American opposition party called the war in Iraq "unwinnable", compared the supposed scandal over intelligence -- the same intel that Congress had seen since the Clinton administration -- with Watergate, and issued a demand that Bush immediately withdraw half of the forces in Iraq -- and yet the major newspapers could not be bothered to write their own articles about the story or include it in their print versions today. Neither the NY Times nor the Washington Post gave any kind of comprehensive report to Howard Dean's shrieking for retreat and surrender, nor to his ridiculous notion of how to fight against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as told to WOAI radio in San Antonio:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. ...
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.


First, from these comments Dean makes clear that he has no idea of the difference between a strategic redeployment and running away. The former refers to a rearrangement of tactical positioning, including tactical retreat in some cases, in order to regain the initiative for a bigger push later on. "Redeployment" by disengagement with no intent to return to the battlefield has another term in military parlance: full retreat. Dean also exposes his utter lack of comprehension of the situation in Southwest Asia when he suggests that we can easily find a "friendly nation" to host 80,000 American troops while our country lacks the political will to allow them to fight. Exactly who will want to board Americans when the terrorists come after us in our new bivouac? And would Dean and the Democrats allow them to fight then, or will they claim that we're still the root cause of the terrorist activity and give up the Middle East altogether?

Dr. Dean, which country would sign up for that duty? The only nations large enough to host 80,000 American troops would be Turkey (which won't do it), Kuwait (which is on the wrong side of Iraq to easily address the issues in the west and center of Iraq), and Saudi Arabia (which is where we supposedly offended the Islamofascists initially).

Most laughably, the leader of the Democrats and the man responsible for coordinating their electoral efforts then claims that by pulling American troops out of Iraq and outside of the range of Zarqawi, we'll be better prepared to fight the insurgents -- even though we will no longer have assets on the ground gathering intelligence and conducting the kinds of patrols necessary to find and engage the enemy on our terms. Instead, Zarqawi will simply start taking over towns like Falluja and Ramadi all over again and operating in the open to spread his lunatic Islamofascism across central Iraq.

The embarassment of Dean's military analysis would make clear that the Democrats have no business conducting foreign affairs and national security for the US in this age of Islamofascist terrorism. That's why the newspapers buried Dean's comments on their web sites. They had plenty of time to write their own copy, or at least to include the AP story in their print edition. However, the NYT and the Washington Post obviously hope that Dean's comments get quickly forgotten. (The Los Angeles Times doesn't bother to mention it at all, despite the longer lead time for their newspaper.)

Perhaps this comes as no surprise -- it doesn't surprise me -- but the national media has long since decided it needs to downplay Dean if the Democrats are to survive 2006. The Democrats still haven't gotten the same message.

[jAZ]

ROFL

[Eye Patch]

COMING OUT OF THE ANTIWAR CLOSET

You'd think it would be news when the chairman of one of the national parties comes out and says publicly that we can't win the war in Iraq. Apparently not. I can't find any mention of Dean's remark on the web sites of The New York Times or The Washington Post - though both give predictable front page treatment to the story that yesterday that a judge declared Ronnie Earle's original indictment of Tom DeLay totally bogus and without merit (Texas Judge Lets Stand 2 of 3 Charges Against DeLay and DeLay's Felony Charge Upheld).

Anyway, it's clear that a growing number of Democrats in the House now feel confident enough to voice the antiwar sentiment that they've done a poor but diligent job of keeping stuffed in the closet over the last two years. War hero and patriot Jack Murtha was the key that opened the closet door.

The first key tried by the Democrats, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Senator, who by the way served in Vietnam and who was for the war before being against it, did not work. Nor did the second: the month-long media-inspired spectacle of a mother exploiting the memory of her dead war hero son. But Murtha, despite the utter incoherence he's demonstrated defending his position of late, has given Democrats two things they've never had before: the cover and credibility of a true, living war hero and a shiny new militaryesque sound bite: "strategic redeployment."

Needless to say, the antiwar coming out party of Howard Dean and the House Democratic caucus is causing signficant problems for some Democratic members of the Senate. Poor Hillary is now being "bird dogged" by antiwar activists. Even hard core progressives with ambitions of leading the country can't bring themselves to get on board. Here's Barack Obama in today's Chicago Tribune:

Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that the Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq, conceding: "The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly."

As Democrats work to win control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Obama (D-Ill.) said a cacophony of views over the Iraq war threatens to divide the party once again.

"It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: `Let's bring our troops home,' " Obama said. "It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."

In an interview with the Tribune's editorial board, Obama renewed his opposition to immediately pulling troops from Iraq.

Obama and Clinton are smart enough to at least wait until after the December 15 election in Iraq before deciding whether or not to join the call for "strategic redeployment." At that point the difference between "drawing down forces" and "immediate withdrawal" will be less pronounced and it will be much easier for them to walk through the closet door.

[Eye Patch]

http://news.bostonherald.com/images/holbert/holbert20051205.jpg

[Nightwish]

Y'know, I think I'm figuring it out. Maybe it's not simply me that Eye Patch doesn't like, maybe it is the whole idea of centrism or moderacy in general that he doesn't like. EP, are you one of those Limbaugh apes who doesn't believe there is such a thing as a moderate? Is that why you continue to demonstrate such pathology with regard to the suggestion that someone is a moderate? Dude, you might want to stop letting buffoons like Limbaugh do your thinking for you, and start thinking for yourself. You might find you actually enjoy the experience!

[Dave Lane]

We win NEVER win the war in Iraq. It isn't possible and it never was. An occupying force will never suceed over the long term. Maybe just maybe we can get a UK / India retreat out of there but it is already over. We have lost and just need to pick the date we will admit it.

Daave

[Sybil]

We win NEVER win the war in Iraq. It isn't possible and it never was. An occupying force will never suceed over the long term. Maybe just maybe we can get a UK / India retreat out of there but it is already over. We have lost and just need to pick the date we will admit it.

Daave

What a frickin' downer. I mean, why not dream a little and support the trooops we have there...even if you opposed the war to begin with? Waving the white flag solves nothing; and contributes to nothing.

[Nightwish]

What a frickin' downer. I mean, why not dream a little and support the trooops we have there...even if you opposed the war to begin with? Waving the white flag solves nothing; and contributes to nothing.
I think Bush's "plan" for victory is too drawn out and entrenching at best, and unrealistic at worst, so I have some serious doubts that he's going to be able to win his war. However, that doesn't mean the troops can't win theirs. Their war isn't necessarily Bush's war.

[Sybil]

I think Bush's "plan" for victory is too drawn out and entrenching at best, and unrealistic at worst, so I have some serious doubts that he's going to be able to win his war. However, that doesn't mean the troops can't win theirs. Their war isn't necessarily Bush's war.

So why not give the troops the encouragement and support they need to succeed, rather than whining about politician's fugg-ups? You know?

[Nightwish]

So why not give the troops the encouragement and support they need to succeed, rather than whining about politician's fugg-ups? You know?I give them plenty of support. Phone calls, letters, care packages. I have friends and family over there. Most of them don't follow the internet while they're there. And for what it's worth, most of the people I know over there happen to share most of my opinions on the war. They serve because it's their duty to do so, and they feel better by making their particular war about something they believe in, not something Bush believes in. They're not fighting for Bush.

So if it's all the same to you, I'll continue to support them as I've always done, and at the same time I won't be cowed by the likes of a few pseudo-patriot right-wingers into wearing a gag on my opinions of a few chickenhawks they're not over there fighting for.

[Sybil]

... I'll continue to support them as I've always done, and at the same time I won't be cowed by the likes of a few pseudo-patriot right-wingers into wearing a gag on my opinions of a few chickenhawks they're not over there fighting for.By all means, continue the support; but if you fore-go gaggin' on your opinion for right-wingers, you might dust off your knees for taking the "DNC talking points" down the throat. If nothing else, be original; parroting the party-line is both transparent and boring.

[Nightwish]

By all means, continue the support; but if you fore-go gaggin' on your opinion for right-wingers, you might dust off your knees for taking the "DNC talking points" down the throat. If nothing else, be original; parroting the party-line is both transparent and boring.I'm not sure which party line you think I'm parroting. I'm not a Democrat, nor do I believe I've mentioned what party I do belong to. For the record, I'm registered Independent, and voted for the Libertarian candidate last time. I can't stand the Democrats, and the only party I find more discouraging to free-thinking Americans is the Republicans. I would be quite happy if both parties were completely abolished.

And speaking of partisan talking points, isn't the whole if you criticize the President or the war, you're hurting the troops spiel the latest Republican talking point du jour?

[Sybil]

I'm not sure which party line you think I'm parroting. I'm not a Democrat, nor do I believe I've mentioned what party I do belong to. For the record, I'm registered Independent, and voted for the Libertarian candidate last time. I can't stand the Democrats, and the only party I find more discouraging to free-thinking Americans is the Republicans. I would be quite happy if both parties were completely abolished.

I apologize for being dubious, but from what I've seen of you (and I've been, as they say, "lurking" for months) you seem to be a card carrying member of the DNC...incognito: that is to say, you are attempting to deny it, for some unestablished reason.

I've been wrong before, and may yet be here. We shall see. And I will offer my apologies, if it is deserved.

[Nightwish]

I apologize for being dubious, but from what I've seen of you (and I've been, as they say, "lurking" for months) you seem to be a card carrying member of the DNC...incognito: that is to say, you are attempting to deny it, for some unestablished reason.

I've been wrong before, and may yet be here. We shall see. And I will offer my apologies, if it is deserved.
What I think you're seeing, and mistaking for Dem loyalty, is a staunch anti-Iraq-war position. Granted, the Democrats are the largest single body that tends to hold that position. But they're by no means the only people who oppose this particular war. Nor are the liberals. If you read my "What are your politics?" thread, you might get a better picture of how many ways I differ with the Dems and all their PC bullsh*t. The right-wingers on here are making two continuous errors: first, the Democrats are the largest single body in opposition to the war, so the rw's jump quickly to the assumption that anybody who happens to share their opinion of the war must therefore be a Democrat. The second mistake is similar: a majority of liberals oppose the war, so therefore anybody who opposes the war must be a liberal. To be truthful, unless you've read that thread I mentioned above, you're not going to have the first idea what my position is on issues other than Bush and the Iraq war, since that's about all we've been talking about on here. Right now, those are huge issues, but they're hardly the only issues that make up a person's total politics.

[patteeu]

We win NEVER win the war in Iraq. It isn't possible and it never was. An occupying force will never suceed over the long term. Maybe just maybe we can get a UK / India retreat out of there but it is already over. We have lost and just need to pick the date we will admit it.

Daave

We couldn't win in Afghanistan either... until we did.

[Eye Patch]

Y'know, I think I'm figuring it out. Maybe it's not simply me that Eye Patch doesn't like, maybe it is the whole idea of centrism or moderacy in general that he doesn't like. EP, are you one of those Limbaugh apes who doesn't believe there is such a thing as a moderate? Is that why you continue to demonstrate such pathology with regard to the suggestion that someone is a moderate? Dude, you might want to stop letting buffoons like Limbaugh do your thinking for you, and start thinking for yourself. You might find you actually enjoy the experience!

I don’t dislike you at all… I don’t dislike anybody with a different point of view. In fact I like you because you are entertaining… you’re like a cartoon character and I like to watch you dance.

As for Limbaugh… who has a chance to listen to this entertainer three hours a day? I know I don’t because I’m working at that time. In fact I have only listened to him a few times only when I happen to be in my truck during lunch and only for a few minutes at a time. To really understand where a political pundit stands you have to listen to them constantly for at least two weeks straight to get their jest. So if that makes you happy to paint me that way to justify your centrist opinion. Be my quest. It seems you know far more about the guy than I do. I bet you also listen to Air American and slobber over Al Franken. You see two can play this game.

Now on to centrism. When you first arrived here you stated that you were a fair-minded centrist. Okay that’s cool… lets hear what he has to say…. But all I have heard from you is left wing DNC talking points. I have heard before from a few folks, like you, who claim they are centrist just so when they disagree with somebody they can give the aura of being brilliantly correct so when they goose step their talking points they hope it provides them a perceived idea of instant credibility. That is what you do… and frankly sport… it’s not working and I’m not the only one to point this out. Do they dislike you too?

Take for example this very thread. You think by calling Howard Dean names and then virtually agreeing with all of his talking points makes you a fair-minded centrist? The man is a left wing bomb thrower… and an embarrassment to many democrats because of his extreme views. Yet you agree with his extreme takes… just not in the way he paraphrased them or the forum that he used. Yup sounds like a centrist to me all right.

As for the cartoon that set you off… if you believe that Hillary is a centrist then it would make sense that you think of yourself being a centrist. The woman will say or do anything to get elected… by pretending to be a centrist. Sound familiar? The woman has no core values and judges her political decisions on opinion polls and having her husband stick his finger into the political winds or any other place he gets lucky.

There are a lot of extremism left wing takes on this war on Iraqi such as me&me and Jaz, etc. yet by your silence towards them and your zest to slam any conservative thoughts on this subject is priceless. My guess is you don't think there are any exteme anti-war views on this board and thus your centrist silence. Maybe when I hear you take on one of the many left wing critics who say extreme things, something a centrist would recognize, then maybe you can claim to be a quasi centrist or a born again centrist… but until then your silence towards them and always slamming conservative thought speaks volumes. IMO… actions speak larger than words.

[patteeu]

I think Bush's "plan" for victory is too drawn out and entrenching at best, and unrealistic at worst, so I have some serious doubts that he's going to be able to win his war. However, that doesn't mean the troops can't win theirs. Their war isn't necessarily Bush's war.

Do you have an idea behind that last sentence or was it cryptic for cryptic's sake?

[Eye Patch]

Do you have an idea behind that last sentence or was it cryptic for cryptic's sake?

I can't wait for this tap dance...

[mlyonsd]

Dean taking over for Mcawful is the best thing the Republican party could hope for.

[Nightwish]

We couldn't win in Afghanistan either... until we did.
We did? Last time I checked, Afghanistan is still being fought, and our primary goal -- finding bin Laden -- is still unrealized. I'd say we've made some substantial gains over there, with toppling the Taliban, but "won?" ... not yet. You can't say we've won, if we're still fighting it.

[Nightwish]

Do you have an idea behind that last sentence or was it cryptic for cryptic's sake?
Yes, there is an idea behind it. Bush had his own agenda, his own reasons for fighting the war. Not all of our soldiers were in favor of the war, and there are several who are still opposed to it and have been from the start. They don't agree with Bush's reasons for the war, so in order for them to make this war seem worthwhile to them, they fight it for their own reasons. They're fighting for the Iraqis, not for Bush. Liberating the Iraqis from oppression and fear is something dear to the hearts of many of our fighting men and women, but for Bush, that was only a talking point, one which he didn't even switch to until three days before the invasion, because support for the war was waning, and he was desperate to find a rationale that people would believe in. It's readily apparent that Bush wanted this war for any reason and every reason except the liberation of the Iraqi people, but that's the main reason for many of the soldiers over there.

[Sybil]

We did? Last time I checked, Afghanistan is still being fought, and our primary goal -- finding bin Laden -- is still unrealized. I'd say we've made some substantial gains over there, with toppling the Taliban, but "won?" ... not yet. You can't say we've won, if we're still fighting it.

Some guys in my office still think the "South is gonna rise again" too.

[Radar Chief]

Yes, there is an idea behind it. Bush had his own agenda, his own reasons for fighting the war. Not all of our soldiers were in favor of the war, and there are several who are still opposed to it and have been from the start. They don't agree with Bush's reasons for the war, so in order for them to make this war seem worthwhile to them, they fight it for their own reasons. They're fighting for the Iraqis, not for Bush. Liberating the Iraqis from oppression and fear is something dear to the hearts of many of our fighting men and women, but for Bush, that was only a talking point, one which he didn't even switch to until three days before the invasion, because support for the war was waning, and he was desperate to find a rationale that people would believe in. It's readily apparent that Bush wanted this war for any reason and every reason except the liberation of the Iraqi people, but that's the main reason for many of the soldiers over there.

Um, where do you come by this? Cause I can point out a speech he made at approximately the same time Powell was presenting the case to the UN in which he outlined for the American people the reasons for toppling Saddam and liberating the people of Iraq was one of them.
I know it’s a talk’n point to try and create doubt with the “shifting rational” rhetoric, but you shouldn’t fall for it.

[mlyonsd]

We did? Last time I checked, Afghanistan is still being fought, and our primary goal -- finding bin Laden -- is still unrealized. I'd say we've made some substantial gains over there, with toppling the Taliban, but "won?" ... not yet. You can't say we've won, if we're still fighting it.

77% of Afghani's think the country is moving in the right direction.
87% think the US led overthrow of the Taliban was a good thing.
83% have a favorable view of the US.

You are correct in that we are still policing Afghanistan. IMO you are wrong though to say we haven't won the war.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276

[Nightwish]

Now on to centrism. When you first arrived here you stated that you were a fair-minded centrist. Okay that’s cool… lets hear what he has to say…. But all I have heard from you is left wing DNC talking points. I have heard before from a few folks, like you, who claim they are centrist just so when they disagree with somebody they can give the aura of being brilliantly correct so when they goose step their talking points they hope it provides them a perceived idea of instant credibility. That is what you do… and frankly sport… it’s not working and I’m not the only one to point this out. Do they dislike you too?
I asked you this the other day, and you refused to answer. I'll now ask you again, what do you know of my views on any subject other than Bush and the Iraq war? I posted a thread entitled "What are your personal politics?", so you should be able to answer that question. You seem to be suffering from the fallacious notion that only a liberal could possibly be opposed to the war and opposed to Bush. You also seem to suffering from the fallacious notion that if someone is a centrist, then they can only be against Bush and the war part of the time, thus you act as if I should be switching back and forth in my opinions on the topic in order to fairly claim to be a moderate.

Take for example this very thread. You think by calling Howard Dean names and then virtually agreeing with all of his talking points makes you a fair-minded centrist?
I partially agreed with one -- ONE -- of his talking points, sport. ONE. Do you know how many one is? It's less than two, and more than none. I find it interesting that you equate ONE talking point with "virtually all of his talking points." Care to explain that one?

The man is a left wing bomb thrower… and an embarrassment to many democrats because of his extreme views. Yet you agree with his extreme takes
Take. Singular. Learn the difference.

As for the cartoon that set you off… if you believe that Hillary is a centrist then it would make sense that you think of yourself being a centrist.
I couldn't care less if Hillary is a centrist or not, and no I don't believe she is. I took your cartoon to be a broad jab at people who say they're centrist, suggesting that you don't believe such a thing exists. After all, "there's no such thing as a moderate" is a recognized talking point among certain segments of the Right.

The woman will say or do anything to get elected… by pretending to be a centrist. Sound familiar? The woman has no core values and judges her political decisions on opinion polls and having her husband stick his finger into the political winds or any other place he gets lucky.
I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with a Clinton fan.

There are a lot of extremism left wing takes on this war on Iraqi such as me&me and Jaz, etc. yet by your silence towards them and your zest to slam any conservative thoughts on this subject is priceless.
What I take as priceless is the fact that you think I've been completely silent towards them both. It shows you haven't been following closely enough. In fact, I've had disagreements with both of them. They've just been civil disagreements, so you've probably skimmed right past them. For that matter, most of my disagreements with right-wingers such as patteeu and Radar Chief have been equally civil. My only disagreements that were less than civil have been with you and recxjake, because neither of you are inclined to believe that not everyone from the left is a mindless drone, and Loki, mainly because he came out swinging the moment he was disagreed with.

Now, if you would like to know why I'm more adamant in challenging the right than in challenging the left, even when I disagree with the left, it is because it has been my experience that the left is more narrowly focused on what they believe the cause of the problems to be. Their criticisms are a bit more fair than those of the right, from what I've seen. The left paints Bush, Blair and their respective administrations primarily responsible for the problems they see with the war in Iraq and the problems our troops are having against the insurgency. They focus their attack on a couple dozen people who realistically have something to do with those things. It's not all that often that I hear them broadly disparaging conservatives or the entire right wing, or even all Republicans. To be fair, I have heard such things a few times, but I've not encountered many such broad aspersions on this board, and when I have I've spoken up (which is what led to my civil disagreement with Jaz). Conversely, it appears that there are quite a few on the right who are fond of taking their criticisms far beyond just the Clintons, the Kerrys and the Democratic elite, to broadly asperge liberals, left-wingers and Democrats in general. These broad aspersions are much, much more common from the right than they are from the left. I have no problem with people criticizing a particular person or group of people who are realistically involved in the problem, but I do have a problem with people trying to paint an entire class of people with one broad stroke. That's something you have a tendency to do yourself, hence my harsh criticism of you.

As for what few opinions of mine you've seen, bear in mind that nearly every discussion that we've had on here has concerned only two things -- Bush, and the war in Iraq. Those are major issues, to be sure, but they are hardly the only issues that make up a person's total politics. On those two particular issues, my opinions do happen to line up a lot more with the left than with the right. But it's pretty foolhardy to try to pinpoint someone's position on the political spectrum based only on their opinions of Bush and the war. After all, some of the harshest criticisms of both have come from the right. Would you call those people liberals? Ask me about abortion, welfare, affirmative action, taxes, and the "PC" agenda, and then we'll talk about just how liberal I am.

[Nightwish]

Some guys in my office still think the "South is gonna rise again" too.
Yes, but do we still have Union troops engaging in skirmishes with the Confederates?

[Nightwish]

Um, where do you come by this? Cause I can point out a speech he made at approximately the same time Powell was presenting the case to the UN in which he outlined for the American people the reasons for toppling Saddam and liberating the people of Iraq was one of them.
I know it’s a talk’n point to try and create doubt with the “shifting rational” rhetoric, but you shouldn’t fall for it.
If you can show that, then I'll retract. Every resource I've seen dates the first mention of Iraqi liberation, from Bush's mouth, to three days before the invasion. At any rate, it wasn't given nearly as much weight rhetorically as the wmds and Saddam's immanent threat to America and the world. It should have been the weightiest rationale, not the lightest.

[Nightwish]

77% of Afghani's think the country is moving in the right direction.
87% think the US led overthrow of the Taliban was a good thing.
83% have a favorable view of the US.

You are correct in that we are still policing Afghanistan. IMO you are wrong though to say we haven't won the war.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276
Toppling the Taliban was at best a secondary goal of the war, and at worst a pleasant side effect. The primary goal was to find and extract bin Laden. If the primary goal hasn't been met, but is still being sought, then the war isn't over. If the war isn't over, then it hasn't been won. I'd say we're "winning" the war, but until the primary goal of capturing bin Laden has been met, that war won't be won.

[Eye Patch]

Yes, there is an idea behind it. Bush had his own agenda, his own reasons for fighting the war. Not all of our soldiers were in favor of the war, and there are several who are still opposed to it and have been from the start. They don't agree with Bush's reasons for the war, so in order for them to make this war seem worthwhile to them, they fight it for their own reasons. They're fighting for the Iraqis, not for Bush. Liberating the Iraqis from oppression and fear is something dear to the hearts of many of our fighting men and women, but for Bush, that was only a talking point, one which he didn't even switch to until three days before the invasion, because support for the war was waning, and he was desperate to find a rationale that people would believe in. It's readily apparent that Bush wanted this war for any reason and every reason except the liberation of the Iraqi people, but that's the main reason for many of the soldiers over there.

Spoken exactly like somebody who doesn’t know what the hell they are talking about. It’s amazing how you throw your opinion and conjecture around as resounding fact.

The soldiers are not fighting for the Iraqis... they are fighting for themselves.. they are fighting for the guy to their left and to the guy to their right to protect there back.

When they’re in their foxhole with bullets flying around they are not thinking about the Iraqi’s liberation or how much they hate Bush… they are fighting for their friend, their fellow soldier, their brotherhood, and their main thought is not let each other down.

[Sybil]

Yes, but do we still have Union troops engaging in skirmishes with the Confederates?

Afghans seem content with replacing the tactics of the Taliban with these "skirmishes," which are not at all uncommon outside of the Western world.

[Nightwish]

The soldiers are not fighting for the Iraqis... they are fighting for themselves.. they are fighting for the guy to their left and to the guy to their right to protect there back.

When they’re in their foxhole with bullets flying around they are not thinking about the Iraqi’s liberation or how much they hate Bush… they are fighting for their friend, their fellow soldier, their brotherhood, and their main thought is not let each other down.
They're fighting for both. If you don't think the liberation of the Iraqis is meaningful to them, perhaps you should ask some of them. At any rate, they're not all fighting for Bush. I stand by my statement that although Bush's war isn't likely to be won, at least not in any near foreseeable future, the soldiers' war still can be. If they can push back the insurgency so that it is practically nil, or at least just a minor inconvenience, and Iraq erects a government that the majority of its people want, then the soldiers' war is won. Bush's war, to have Iraq become a stable democracy, a model democracy for the Middle East, and it's people living free from fear and oppression, is another story. A theocracy is the opposite of a Democracy, and if the Iraqis elect a theocratic government (good chance), then they will have done what the soldiers have fought for their right to do -- elect a government of their choice. But if that government is a theocracy, then it couldn't be further from Bush's plan for victory.

[Nightwish]

Afghans seem content with replacing the tactics of the Taliban with these "skirmishes," which are not at all uncommon outside of the Western world.
Agreed, the hostilities are on a lower scale than they were. But the fighting still goes on. And the primary reason, the main reason, the number one reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was to find and capture Osama bin Laden, not to replace the Taliban government. Bin Laden is still out there, that goal has yet to be met, so final victory has yet to be won.

[Sybil]

Agreed, the hostilities are on a lower scale than they were. But the fighting still goes on. And the primary reason, the main reason, the number one reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was to find and capture Osama bin Laden, not to replace the Taliban government. Bin Laden is still out there, that goal has yet to be met, so final victory has yet to be won.

If and when bin Laden is captured or killed, will you concede "victory" then? Or will you move the goalposts, and raise the "Al Queda has been emboldened by US actions" canard?

[Eye Patch]

Toppling the Taliban was at best a secondary goal of the war, and at worst a pleasant side effect. The primary goal was to find and extract bin Laden. If the primary goal hasn't been met, but is still being sought, then the war isn't over. If the war isn't over, then it hasn't been won. I'd say we're "winning" the war, but until the primary goal of capturing bin Laden has been met, that war won't be won.

Please show me from Bush or Cheney, or Rummy where the Primary goal was removing big laden and removing the taliban regime was secondary. I would like to read that. Seriously.

Because looking for one person vs. fighting his army does not make sense militarily for this kind of priority... but I'm sure you have all the facts.

Btw… According to a Pakistan official a couple of weeks ago...he claims Bid Laden is dead.

Now it's just a question whether you want to believe him or not.... but I'm sure you won't because they would mean the war is won... and you can't have none of that.

[Radar Chief]

If you can show that, then I'll retract. Every resource I've seen dates the first mention of Iraqi liberation, from Bush's mouth, to three days before the invasion. At any rate, it wasn't given nearly as much weight rhetorically as the wmds and Saddam's immanent threat to America and the world. It should have been the weightiest rationale, not the lightest.

Ok, but it'll probably be tomorrow before I get to it.

[Nightwish]

If and when bin Laden is captured or killed, will you concede "victory" then? Or will you move the goalposts, and raise the "Al Queda has been emboldened by US actions" canard?
No, I'd say that would be victory. I was, and still am, for the war in Afghanistan.

[Nightwish]

Please show me from Bush or Cheney, or Rummy where the Primary goal was removing big laden and removing the taliban regime was secondary. I would like to read that. Seriously.Are you kidding me? The whole schtick was, "Give us bin Laden, or we'll come in with enough force to take him ourselves." If you didn't know that, you're probably the only person in America who didn't. Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. It wasn't about the Taliban. It was about Al Qaeda and 9/11. They knew that bin Laden and Al Qaeda did it. Have you heard anybody claim that the Taliban was responsible for 9/11?Because looking for one person vs. fighting his army does not make sense militarily for this kind of priority...Why not? It worked for Iraq.Btw… According to a Pakistan official a couple of weeks ago...he claims Bid Laden is dead.Add it to the list. That's pretty much a weekly thing. Who was it this time? Bin Laden has had more lives than all the cats I've ever owned put together (and I'm a cat lover).

[Eye Patch]

Are you kidding me? The whole schtick was, "Give us bin Laden, or we'll come in with enough force to take him ourselves." If you didn't know that, you're probably the only person in America who didn't. Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. It wasn't about the Taliban. It was about Al Qaeda and 9/11. They knew that bin Laden and Al Qaeda did it. Have you heard anybody claim that the Taliban was responsible for 9/11?Why not? It worked for Iraq.Add it to the list. That's pretty much a weekly thing. Who was it this time? Bin Laden has had more lives than all the cats I've ever owned put together (and I'm a cat lover).

My mistake I didn't mean to write Taliban... I meant Al Qaeda.

Well if this info is such common knowledge... then it should be no problem finding such documentation or a speech from any of those mentioned where those priorities are stated. I'm not saying you are wrong or that I am right... I would just like to read it.

Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.... I'm sure you'll understand.

[Nightwish]

My mistake I didn't mean to write Taliban... I meant Al Qaeda.
You're right, I should not have limited it to just bin Laden. The primary goals were to capture bin Laden and to uproot Al Qaeda. In fact, both of those goals remain unrealized. Bin Laden is still on the loose, and Al Qaeda still has a presence in Afghanistan. What most people trumpet as the shining successes in Afghanistan are the toppling of the Taliban regime, and the ridding of Al Qaeda. As you'll see shortly, the former was not a stated goal of the war, and the latter is just untrue. Al Qaeda's numbers in Afghanistan are believed to be diminished, and their activity there has been curbed to a large degree, but nobody (except perhaps a few die-hard righties) is under the illusion that they're gone.

Here were the public demands made to the Taliban by President Bush on September 20, 2001. You'll see no mention of getting rid of the Taliban (except as an implied consequence of not handing over bin Laden), which is why I say it was a secondary reason at best, and a pleasant side effect at worst.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

[Eye Patch]

thanks for the quote... and the clarification of the goals.

[Radar Chief]

If you can show that, then I'll retract. Every resource I've seen dates the first mention of Iraqi liberation, from Bush's mouth, to three days before the invasion. At any rate, it wasn't given nearly as much weight rhetorically as the wmds and Saddam's immanent threat to America and the world. It should have been the weightiest rationale, not the lightest.

Here ya go Nightwish. I finally made some time to search it up.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

October 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

Snip…
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.