Replies

Historically we've let the other side define the debate since I can remember.
This time it actually seems like the RNC, GWB, etc. believed that simply doing what was necessary, having a good economy, using diplomacy (like they'd been told to do), and 'bipartisanship' would bring in the vote. They believed that the voters actually would vote on what was best or what what was clearly evident to the administration. Yes, it WAS a national vote and not a local one, despite what some chose to believe.
No need to go to any lengths to disprove what the left was saying over six years & not just the week before election. Instead, GWB campaigned by turning away from every asinine charge made against his administration and tried appeasement at home while fighting against it in Iraq.
Too bad people don't vote based on what IS, they vote on what has been hammered into their heads and on what they FEEL should be.

It wasn't a quagmire before, the voting populace made it an impending quagmire because that's what SHOULD follow from a war they would rather not face up to.

At the time, no one believed that JFK's 'stuck in Iraq' comment actually was part of the dem voters' core belief....Americans have created 'another Vietnam' and done it on purpose.

Sorry, I guess that makes it two rants, maybe I'll settle down by Turkey Day...that seems appropriate.

"It wasn't a quagmire before, the voting populace made it an impending quagmire because that's what SHOULD follow from a war they would rather not face up to."

You'll get no argument from me.

*It wasn't a quagmire before*

Agreed. For a year after the media started the quagmire nonsense I believe the American people ignored them. So what happened? Communication. Repubs in Washington just assumed that the voters could hear it for 2 more years and not start to get worn down by that drum beat of defeat.

Republicans need to be that crucial connection between the war front and America. Standing on your record only works with people who pay regular attention to politics. That's not most people!

*the voting populace made it an impending quagmire*

Agreed. Now we've got Gates who wants to give Iran a sphere of influence and Congressional Repubs who are ticked that Bush won't stop supporting the war and thinking that's what made them lose election.

You don't decide war policy on 6 year mid-term elections but try telling that to the numbskulls on the hill. Now they are looking at anyone to blame for their failure to regularly take their case the American people. You can only blame the MSM so much but they've known for decades that was a problem and they still aren't tackling it. So now impending quagmire is what appears to be on the horizon.

*what SHOULD follow from a war*

Agreed. What most Americans, thanks to the MSM and incompetent communication from the right, heard was 'We Won' and nothing else. The MSM/left picked up on that and beat Bush over the head with it. Why'd they get away with that? Still the real problems came from the inaction towards Syria and Iran early on. Now Gates/Baker thinks it's because we failed to get them involved &^*(&%^??? I thought the problem was because they were involved?

*would rather not face up to*

Agreed. Now whether they were real failures or just MSM hyped failures, the voters are having a hard time facing up to it. They wanted 'change' and voted that way but I still think they'd rather we tackled the problems than run away. They didn't wanna be losers in 2004 when they re-elected Repubs so I have a hard time believing they wanna be losers now. There have been many victories by our military but no one thought they needed to tell anybody.

I do not think Bush is a failed leader but he failed to communicate SUCCESS.

Yeah... Turkey Day but finding some new leaders for 2008 to pick up the ball and run with it will help me calm down too. Now I'm ranting! o_0