Originally Posted By ecdc "So we see what the Democrats plan to confront terrorism is: bravely tuck their tail and run." My, my, ignorance is bliss. Douglas just can't own up to what a devastating blow this is for the administration. Congressman John Murtha is one of the more powerful, and respected men in the House. He's also a well-known hawk with an impressive service record. Dick Cheney had five deferments during the Vietnam war, so I think I'll take Murtha's service record over Cheney's. This isn't Joe Blow 1st term token liberal trying to generate headlines for himself. Murtha's the real deal, and the GOP smear machine needs to watch itself before they go after him. "More than zero." Is it over 2,000? And how many of those that are "more than zero" (hey, thanks for the solid numbers) were killed during actual combat ops and not just from mishaps and accidents? Douglas, this is one of your poorer arguments. Are you really suggesting the U.S. presence in Japan, Korea, and Germany is the same as the U.S. presence in Iraq? Are you suggesting a handful of deaths over a 50 year period is the same as 2,000 deaths in a three year period?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas just can't own up to what a devastating blow this is for the administration.> That's true. I can figure how its a blow to the administration that some Democrats want to be like the French. Want some cheese with your surrender flag? <Are you really suggesting the U.S. presence in Japan, Korea, and Germany is the same as the U.S. presence in Iraq?> No, and I didn't say that. <Are you suggesting a handful of deaths over a 50 year period is the same as 2,000 deaths in a three year period?> Are we comparing casualties? 2,000 men isn't a whole lot when compared to the numbers we lost in Korea, or Vietnam, or Japan, or Germany. Hell, we lost more men than that during one skirmish in the Civil War. While every death is tragic, 2000 deaths isn't bad when it means 25 million people free of tyranny and able to lead prosperous lives.
Originally Posted By ecdc "While every death is tragic, 2000 deaths isn't bad when it means 25 million people free of tyranny and able to lead prosperous lives." It is bad when it's not our job and when it's not what we were told. You said that the Democrats plan was to tuck tail and run like cowards and surrender. You said it implying that of Murtha. I think I'll pit his service record against yours, mine, Dick "Deferment" Cheney and George "Arkansas" Bush any day. He's no coward, no chicken, and no surrenderer. He's a war veteran who, unlike the cowards in the administration who bent over backwards to avoid service, actually knows what war is all about. It's not just lip service to him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is bad when it's not our job and when it's not what we were told.> How far the Democrats have fallen. Once upon a time, they used to say things like, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." I guess those days are long gone.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's a bit early to assume that liberty has taken root in Iraq. They've had a democracy before, and it fell apart. Let's give them a few years on their own to see how successful this experiment at nation building has been.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>that we shall pay any price,<< Just so long as you get your tax cut, right Douglas?
Originally Posted By itsme >>What's your point? Major combat operations ended decades ago in Germany, Japan, and Korea, but we still have troops stationed there. -------- Are they still fighting there?
Originally Posted By crapshoot From #10 <<He was told to tell where the caches of WMDs and the location of the WMD programs were. He said there weren't any. Guess what we've found since then?>> If you recall during the initial days of the invsion, even the embedded reporters saw compelling evidence of WMD's. What did each and every Iraqi Unit carry on their belts? What did each schoolhouse that our troops entered hold in storage? Gas Masks. At the time, that was enough evidence to support the original claims that SH had at least some of the components of claimed WMD's. And no one will probobly ever know if WMD's were spirited into Syria or elsewhere during the initial weeks of the invasion. But you know what? Before I get started with all this crap, I'm going to get out of here. Just know it is all much more complicated than the simple buzz words flying around the politicals.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I want Tom to please answer a question from early on in this thread. Exactly what evidence or intel did Bush have that these other Senators not have.. or so they claim?? What could Bush possibly have in his posession that would have swayed the dems who voted for the war to not vote for the war if they had seen this top secret special intel? Fact is, the dems voted for the war because it was the popular thing to do at the time. Now they are trying to have us lose and assume we all have amnesia. Face it, the dems are spinless when it comes to defending the country and are willing to have us lose a war and risk national security all so they can hurt Bush, the guy who beat them twice.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's give them a few years on their own to see how successful this experiment at nation building has been.> That's an excellent idea Tom. Maybe the Democrats can stop lying about the run up to the war, and stop saying we need to pull our troops out, and let out guys finish the job they started. <Just so long as you get your tax cut, right Douglas?> I haven't made enough money to get a tax cut since President Bush took office. I'm not for extending the tax cuts for personal reasons; I think the tax cuts are a good idea for everyone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are they still fighting there?> Currently, I don't think were conducting major combat operations anywhere on the globe.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Currently, I don't think were conducting major combat operations anywhere on the globe." No, we ended them in Iraq, patted the President on the back when he pulled his testosterone-laden stunt on the Aircraft carrier, and now real men and real heroes are still dying everyday. You know, the ones who actually went into the service, instead of defending Arkansas from Texas and Louisiana?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You know, the ones who actually went into the service, instead of defending Arkansas from Texas and Louisiana?> There are lots of ways to serve, and none of them should be looked down on. Lots of National Guard served in Vietnam, and many are serving now in Iraq.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'll do you the favor of answering your question, Beau, in hopes that one day you'll return the favor when I ask you a similar question. >>Exactly what evidence or intel did Bush have that these other Senators not have<< According to reports I've read, what was missing was any indication that intelligence agencies didn't wholly support some of the claims in the NIE presented to the Senators. That there was a significant amount of doubt on some key points that the administration was using in support of military action. >>Face it, the dems are spinless when it comes to defending the country<< LOL - I agree.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I FINALLY get why " spinless " is so funny.. DOH!!!! Spineless.... that's better.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<According to reports I've read, what was missing was any indication that intelligence agencies didn't wholly support some of the claims in the NIE presented to the Senators. That there was a significant amount of doubt on some key points that the administration was using in support of military action.>> If this is the case, they need to prove it. They can't however, and even if they could it doesn't matter to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't it time to win the war instead of making the terrorists feel like they can do to us what the Viet Cong did to us?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Isn't it time to win the war instead of making the terrorists feel like they can do to us what the Viet Cong did to us?<< And how do we do that?
Originally Posted By ecdc "And how do we do that?" Good question. Beau and the other usual suspects like to bluster on about how Democrats have no plan for Iraq. We've heard one from Congressman Murtha. John Kerry was on Hardball yesterday, and he offered a plan that has us out of Iraq in 18 or so months. It's fine if the GOP doesn't agree with these plans, but they have to quit lying about how their are no plans out there. What's the current administration's plan? Stay the course? You know, one of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. Apparently that's Bush's grand scheme.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We've heard one from Congressman Murtha.> Yes, let's surrender. Bravely tuck our tails and run. <John Kerry was on Hardball yesterday, and he offered a plan that has us out of Iraq in 18 or so months.> Isn't that the same plan he tried to sell us on last November? It seems like his plan was the same as the President's, only he claimed he could do it faster by some miraculous means. <What's the current administration's plan?> Support the troops until the mission is done. <You know, one of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.> We're not doing the same things over and over. We're making progress in Iraq - we're rebuilding infrastructure, we're empowering Iraqis to take control of their country, and we're squeezing the insurgents - taking territory from them and stopping supply lines.
