Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A plan, a real plan. Any type of evidence that something in their history suggests what we're doing would work.> The plan has been given and given. And the evidence is 12 million people voting, a coalition government being formed, and the Iraqis taking on more and more of their own security. <Instead of pouring a thousand gallons of gas on a fire they'll just be pouring a hundred.> No, instead of a huge bombfire threatening everything there will be only small flames, easily extinguished. <I don't understand this president.> I don't think you're trying.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No they don't. They say that the situation is deteriorating rapidly.> Please provide a quote from General Casey or Abizaid that says that. <So how many direct quotes do you need? If bush and the generals in iraq aren't a credible enough source for you, what will it take?> Just one that actually says what you and other liberal critics say it says.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Why does it have to be casey or abazaid? Perhaps because you don't like what caldwell is saying? As it happens, bush has been meeting with abazaid and others over the past two days. From AP today ... >> President Bush reviewed Iraq strategy on Saturday with top generals for a second day in a row amid increasing election-season pressure to make dramatic changes to address deteriorating conditions. Gathered around a Roosevelt Room conference table with Bush were Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East; Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley; and other officials. Vice President Dick Cheney and Gen. George Casey, who leads the U.S.-led Multinational Forces in Iraq, joined in by videoconference. Bush also met with Abizaid for a half-hour on Friday. << Granted, there are no quotes from abazaid or anybody else in this most recent news, but it specifically references the "deteriorating conditions" in iraq, and comes only a day after caldwell's and bush's comments. But you go ahead and believe whatever you like. Examine only the facts that support your contentions. Except there aren't any.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Here's another troubling quote. >> Bush said the violence has increased because the Baghdad campaign has put a greater number of American forces in the most violent areas and because terrorists are grasping for propaganda tools. He insisted his goal of victory in Iraq would not change. << So, according to bush (and he's probably right about this one) when we place more american forces in violent areas, the violence increases. In this, he's essentially agreeing with murtha - that we're inflaming the situation and making it worse. The vast majority of iraqis want the US to leave. Since these are the same people we're trying to liberate, does that count for anything? A clear majority of iraqis also support the killing of american troops. Does this have any relevance to bush supporters? I'll bet it does with the troops themselves? But who cares what they think?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why does it have to be casey or abazaid?> Casey and Abizaid are the generals in charge. <Perhaps because you don't like what caldwell is saying?> I'm fine with what General Caldwell is saying. But you're not quoting him, are you? You're quoting an AP writer.
Originally Posted By ecdc People can point to Iraqis voting all they want. It shows nothing about real progress. Baghdad is down to two hours of power a day - the lowest in the war. That's not progress.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The plan has been given and given. And the evidence is 12 million people voting, a coalition government being formed, and the Iraqis taking on more and more of their own security." The "plan" is a disaster. The "plan" really never stood a chance. The "plan" has failed. "I don't think you're trying." Flippant comebacks won't suffice for you anymore. Unless the Bush Admistration has an epiphany, Iraq is only going to get worse. You conveniently ignored the emergency meetings this weekend. Iraq is indeed the proverbial quagmire. You know it, I know it, the country knows it, the world knows it. It's indefensible at this point Doug, and it's silly to proclaim otherwise.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder We should also be going after this guy. Remember him? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/22/mullahomar.statement/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ asiapcf/10/22/mullahomar.statement/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The "plan" is a disaster. The "plan" really never stood a chance. The "plan" has failed.> If we knew then what we know now, I'm sure we would have done things differently. But the plan that was developed was as good of a plan as any could have been, and it is not a failure. <You conveniently ignored the emergency meetings this weekend.> Maybe because they weren't "emergency meetings". President Bush has met with the top generals in Iraq in the past, and I'm sure he will again. <Iraq is indeed the proverbial quagmire. You know it, I know it, the country knows it, the world knows it.> No, I don't know, and neither do you. You only believe it, and I'm not sure why.
Originally Posted By ecdc "No, I don't know, and neither do you. You only believe it, and I'm not sure why." Probably because all the evidence points that way. Only the most desperate partisans would cling to evidence so twisted it makes a pretzel look straight to suggest otherwise.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Probably because all the evidence points that way.> If all the evidence pointed that way, critics wouldn't keep having to mischaracterize or bend the evidence to make it look worse.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No, I don't know, and neither do you. You only believe it, and I'm not sure why." You're insulting your own intelligence with that one. Your statement is tantamount to admitting you wouldn't know fire if you were burning. The sooner your wing of the Republican party faces reality the better off we'll all be.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If all the evidence pointed that way, critics wouldn't keep having to mischaracterize or bend the evidence to make it look worse." No one is, Doug, and that's the sad and frightening thing. It isn't necessary.
Originally Posted By ecdc So calling October the deadliest month for Americans is a mischaracterization? Noting that Britain's top general's recent statements is a mischaracterization? The truth is the only mischaracterizations come from those who still defend the war, no questions asked. They point to largely meaningless developments and ignore escalating violence and a worsening - not improving, remarkably - infrastructure. All the while, the real enemy grows stronger in Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're insulting your own intelligence with that one. Your statement is tantamount to admitting you wouldn't know fire if you were burning.> No, I'm not, and no, it's not. <The sooner your wing of the Republican party faces reality the better off we'll all be.> I'm not really sure which "wing" of the Republican party is mine - the non-cut and runners, maybe? - but I'm pretty sure nobody will be better off by admiting defeat and leaving Iraq now. Well, no one but the terrorists. <No one is, Doug, and that's the sad and frightening thing.> Yes, they are. They've done it in the newspapers and on television broadcasts. They've done it in other threads here on the LP. In fact, you did in this thread, in post 23.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So calling October the deadliest month for Americans is a mischaracterization?> Well, yeah. I believe January of 2005 was the deadliest month for Americans. It also is taking things out of context, since the main reason we've had more deaths this month than others this year is because we launched an operation on the insurgents in Baghdad. <The truth is the only mischaracterizations come from those who still defend the war, no questions asked.> That's not the truth.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They point to largely meaningless developments and ignore escalating violence and a worsening - not improving, remarkably - infrastructure.> That's because the developments are tangible and the "escalating violence" and "worsening infrastructure" are not. <a href="http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU4MGQyOTczODZjNWFmOTk2MGFjNzBlMjkwMjM4Yjg=" target="_blank">http://sixers.nationalreview.c om/post/?q=MzU4MGQyOTczODZjNWFmOTk2MGFjNzBlMjkwMjM4Yjg=</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Iraq war as presently fought is undefendable. Period.> That's an opinion, not a fact. No matter how much you may want it to be.
