EXCELLENT
Posted on 12/22/2007 3:29:14 PM PST by Lorianne
On Tuesday, the Senate voted down two motions that would have put some conditions on the $70 billion in emergency funds that President Bush requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One motion would have required that most U.S. troops be redeployed within nine months. The other would have required that most combat troops "transition" to more limited missions—support, logistics, training, and counterterrorism—by the end of next year. Both motions lost.
The Democrats recaptured the House and Senate in the 2006 election in large part because of the growing opposition to the war in Iraq. Yet here they are, continuing to write Bush huge checks to conduct the war as he pleases, absolutely no strings attached. Have the Democrats betrayed their electoral mandate? It's not so simple. Two big factors are at play here.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I've always thought that the reason the Dims won was because we were not winning the war, at that time, and many in the GOP didn't really give it their best shot, given the lack of progress in the war. The fact that Rumsfield was fired helps prove my point. He was not fired for losing, but for not winning.
Blah, Blah Liberal rag,.. Just like Rush said the Democrats are going to start to try and take credit for the surge in Iraq.. This is the strategy now... They have rationalized that the surge worked and took hold and that political reconciliation and real progress is going to come fairly quickly so they will not be able to run from it. They are going to try and Paint the picture that Bush and the Republicans really don’t know what they want to do in Iraq and the Democrats will come up with some magic answer and claim that all along this is what they supported and not what Bush did...
It is so transparent and yep millions of Americans will fall for it..
Let’s redeploy them to Iran.
Thanks for posting. The Democrats (John “I Have a Plan” Kerry) never had a plan, do not have a plan now, and will not have a plan in the future. Recall how they treated General Patraeus. They are deceivers. Fred Kaplan can only offer excuses.
"Congress, by nature, cannot deal with issues on this level. Only a president can. And this one isn't."
EXCELLENT
The article is vapid. Vaccuous. Without intellectual merit.
It can be summed up as saying “Democrats blew their first year in the majority without great accomplishments, don’t know what to do about Iraq, and President Bush isn’t wavering to give them cover, but we want to pretend that he just isn’t doing anything.”
Make NO mistake the Democrats have a real Serious Problem and Rush has not captured the essence of the dilemma of the Democrats.
General David Howell Petraeus, USA (born November 7, 1952) is the current Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I). This man will certainly win in Iraq; he comes out of this little war the real Presidential candidate and he can write book after book and be number one on the New York Times best seller. The Democrats are seeing perhaps they can not afford to offend King David. I believe King David is what the Iraqi people call’s the General.
Actually, it might be summed up by "We want to pretend...".
The Democrats are peddling fantasies as policy.
Nonsense. Pubbies acting like dims cost the pubbies the election. Nothing more nothing less.
bump
Let’s redeploy them to Iran.Go in. Break up the nuke construction. Unseat the mullahs. And get right out. It's doable.
Typical libs: Repeat a lie long enough and eventually they will believe it.
Republicans lost their majorities because they were acting like liberals. In dozens of races, the results were razor thin. In part, that was due to a small percentage of true conservatives staying home.
If the Republicans had 4-5 real conservatives running for Senate instead of races where RINO's were running, and 25-30 real conservatives running in races where RINO's were running, the results would have been dramatically different.
You Nailed it Hammer !
“All these puzzles lead to the ultimate question: What are we doing in Iraq? If we just want to get out, that’s one thing, and the solution is fairly obvious. But if we’re concerned about what we leave behind, the question’s a lot harder. Few Democrats have addressed that question, in part because they don’t know the answer. Nor, by the way, do Republicans.”
_______________________________________________________
Is the author of this article completely ignorant? The Bush Administration laid out victory goals years ago. Has this putz forgotten The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (published in late 2005, I believe). Moreover, Bush enumerated the main points of the plan in several speeches. This guy is clueless.
Nope, Syria first.
That was only part of the reason for the debacle in 2006. The other reason was the corruption which had infiltrated into the repub side of the isle and the repubs didn’t seem to think it was a big deal .. plus the illegal immigration issue was and is being ignored.
The “silent majority” pulled the plug. I don’t necessarily agree it was a good move .. but in 2008 the stakes are much higher .. there is no way I want the Clintons back in the WH. They have done enough to disgrace the office .. they don’t deserve another opportunity to more harm.
Let's not forget the "little" things.
They sprung Mark Foley (my Congressman) on an unsuspecting electorate with only two months to recover. My district nearly recovered, with just 1000 votes electing his Dim replacement.
I am so sick of the dims and their MSM shills. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.