Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com /national/inbeltway.htm</a> >>On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason. "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' " "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000." Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said. The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism. Unfortunately for the new House intelligence chief, this is his second (some would argue his third) major blunder in the space of one month. When asked by Congressional Quarterly reporter Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shi'ite organization, he answered: "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite." As Mr. Stein wrote later: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al Qaeda clubhouse, they'd slice his head off and use it for a soccer ball." The reporter added: "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?" In the same interview, Mr. Stein had asked Mr. Reyes about the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. His now-infamous reply: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?" <<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What this shows is that Reyes (sadly) doesn't know what he's talking about with Iraq any more than Bush does.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line I think it shows the Democrats are against anything Bush does regardless the cost. There are countless examples of this regarding the war. How can anyone take theses people serious if they are on tape saying the exact opposite thing within a 3 month time span? At this point it is clear the Democrats want the USA to lose the war because that will benefit their party. To hope for failure to make political gains is beyond belief, but that is exactly where the Democrats find themselves with their anti war, anti Bush obsession. If I am wrong, tell me the Democrat plan to win? Just try and ask any of them, or many of you on here for that matter, how they expect us to win the war on radical Islamic terror by calling for a pullout from Iraq, when that is exactly what the terrorists are also pushing for. The Democrats need to understand that losing the war on terror will hurt them as much as it hurts those " evil neocons ". Dead is dead.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If I am wrong, tell me the Democrat plan to win?" What's wrong with the Iraq Study Group's proposals?
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line -- What's wrong with the Iraq Study Group's proposals? -- What did the group say? If they had a good plan to protect the country that would be great! I'm just saying the Democrats are not interested in winning because they know winning would hurt them politically. Think about it. If we have massive progress in Iraq, if we see a Democracy starting to take root and terrorists on the run, that would make Bush look like a brilliant leader with vision. That would also help the next Republican running for president win the 08 election because the Republican " tough on terror " approach would be deemed a winner by America. Throw in no terror attacks since 9-11 on American soil ( I hope! ), the Republicans would have the high ground on keeping the country and the world safe while the Democrats will look like obstuctionists with no plan. BUT, show Bush as a massive failure and ignore every piece of good news and declare him to be a total fool who lost the war, the Democrats would have a shot to win the White House and congress in 08, or so they think. Personally, I would rather win the war and support the troops than do things to hurt the country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If we have massive progress in Iraq, if we see a Democracy starting to take root and terrorists on the run, that would make Bush look like a brilliant leader with vision.<< I hope it happens. Seriously. But what if it doesn't a year from now? Will it finally be considered fair, by even this president's stanchest supporters at that point, to blame this administration for making a real mess? Or will that still be considered "not supporting the troops" or un-American or what-have-you to do so? No question the politician in post #1 is engaing in doubletalk. Just like the president does (dumping Rumsfeld days after he said he had no intention of doing so, which he later admitted was already in the works even as he said it) (see also: It's never been a stay the course strategy) and on and on.
Originally Posted By DAR You mean a politician in DC is engaging in double talk. Nooooooo get out of here. And in other news grass is still green.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If they had a good plan to protect the country that would be great! I'm just saying the Democrats are not interested in winning because they know winning would hurt them politically." Complete bullcrap. It's about the partisan hacks of the world stop with this "Democrats want to lose the war" idiocy. This war should never have been fought to begin with. This Administration should have had a beginning, middle and end written to this war before it ever started. It was sheer lunacy to have failed to prepare. And now the Administration sycophants are whining that the Democrats don't know how to finish a war they started. Talk about treasonous activity.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Complete bullcrap.-- Excuse me, but who are you to talk like this? Especially when what I said is the truth. You show me where the Democrats want to win, and I will say you have a point. But we all know they are doing everything in their power to secure defeat all so they can gain the white house. In fact, I saw a poll today where over 50% of the Democrats polled in America do not want the latest troop surge to work! Over 50%. As far as you opinion that the war should never have been fought to begin with, I guess that means you think Saddam should still be there as we sit here. You also need to explain why so many Democrats voted for the war and why Bill Clinton said regime change in Iraq was our national policy. While you are at it, can you show me a war that ever had a beginning, middle and end ( as you stated ) written that actually played out according to plan? You might want to study the history of war before making statements like you just did. Otherwise tell me the war. While you are at it, tell me, do you want us to win now that we are in Iraq?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Excuse me, but who are you to talk like this?" Who the hell are you? "Especially when what I said is the truth." Not bloodly likely. "You show me where the Democrats want to win, and I will say you have a point. But we all know they are doing everything in their power to secure defeat all so they can gain the white house." Utter horsecrap. Your kind and especially the argument are now out of vogue. Find a new mantra.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "While you are at it, can you show me a war that ever had a beginning, middle and end ( as you stated ) written that actually played out according to plan? You might want to study the history of war before making statements like you just did. Otherwise tell me the war." Not much for strategy then are ya? You know, it's people like you that lose wars and elections.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You also need to explain why so many Democrats voted for the war and why Bill Clinton said regime change in Iraq was our national policy. << Aren't these the same democrats that you accuse ... >> But we all know they are doing everything in their power to secure defeat all so they can gain the white house. << So which is it? The dems that voted for the war and made regime change a national policy, or the "dems that are doing everything they can to secure defeat"? >> In fact, I saw a poll today where over 50% of the Democrats polled in America do not want the latest troop surge to work! Over 50%. << A link to that poll would be helpful. Perhaps the poll is asking if americans EXPECT the 'surge' to work. >> I guess that means you think Saddam should still be there as we sit here. << And what do you care? Now that he's gone, what other brutal dictators and regimes are you concerned about? >> can you show me a war that ever had a beginning, middle and end ( as you stated ) written that actually played out according to plan? << The bosnian war in the 1990s. How's that?
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line -- Utter horsecrap. Your kind and especially the argument are now out of vogue. Find a new mantra. -- You sure have an attitude don't ya? I was hoping you would at least answer the question. Maybe I should ask you again SingleParkPassholder. What are some examples of the Democrats trying to win the war in Iraq? You really don't think " redeployment " of the troops is a win do you? The terrorists are pushing for that very thing. Sadly, the Democrats also are pushing for the exact same thing so they can hang a failed war on Bush and the military. This is their big plan to win back the White House and keep control of Congress. It's plain as day and easy to see. It's not some mantra, it's simply the truth regarding the Democrats today. So it's up to you to prove this not to be true since you keep saying it's " utter horsecrap"
Originally Posted By Jetlag Just an advise to posters with new names: It is easier not be identified with your former self if you at least try to eliminate former Beau-isms: Quotes are made like "this" and not like " this ".
Originally Posted By onlyme -Utter crapola -Utter horse dropping I really have no reason to be saying this; it just felt good. Anyway, I am NOT saying that certain individuals(I don't feel like using the devisive 'Liberal' term, it's just a turn-off to most) want the war to fail. That would mean years and years of this never-ending story with thousands more dead. I can't imagine anyone being this 'hard'. However, I will say that I have a feeling that there are some/many who hope that Bush continues to look silly and, for lack of a better term, fails at everything he tries. Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth...probably.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This general area has been covered ad nauseum. But giving the "new poster" the benefit of the doubt, here we go again, and I'll try to be brief. Ha. -No one wants us to lose. Talk like that attempts to avoid the real, glaring issue after almost four years- the failing of this Administration to properly plan. Talk like that is crap. -What about the last four years gives anyone pause to think we are on the verge of success? There's now no denying it's a morass, a quagmire, a big fat cesspool. -We found there were no WMDs and Hussein is dead and buried. At the onset of the war, the big issue was WMDs. Whoops, we goofed. Then, the strategy shifted to eliminating Hussein. Done. Now what? That's a much bigger question than it appears, and one Bush I couldn't answer in 1991, which we all keep coming back to visit. Sure, we can get rid of the guy, but then what? We'd be strangers in a strange land. It isn't as if we invaded Quebec and we're surrounded by shiftless Canadians on all sides. We're in Iraq, surrounded on all sides by countries who don't exactly send us Christmas cards, literally and figuratively. Bush I had no easy answer for this problem, Bush II chose to cavalierly ignore it, and THAT has been the problem. -Which leads us to one of the biggies-what about over 1500 years of sectarian violence didn't Bush II and friends understand? The ignorance and arrogance that we'd be greeted as "liberators" has been stunning. Hussein was a ruthless dictator for a reason. It was the only way to have any semblance of order in a country where the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis all want each other dead. They.Will.Never.Fix.That.Ever. -This is the U.S.'s first preemptive war, which means there had to be a beginning, middle and end planned before the first plane was sent aloft. A plan for what happens, if everything went right, one for if everything went wrong, and a bunch for everything inbetween. We absolutely had that luxury before this started, and we did not do that. We barely scraped together a beginning, and after four years, Bush II is still clueless. However, others are not. They commissioned an Iraq study group and then rejected the findings, even though THEY ASKED FOR THEM. That group wasn't formed to rubber stamp incompetency. And since this was our first war, it has forever affected how we're seen in the world. That fact cannot be ignored. -We are past the point of "winning" this war. If a "win" is so important, chalk up a victory by virtue of the fact Hussein is gone. But there will always be infighting in Iraq, and it is time to make them deal with it on their own. We need to be getting out. While we didn't create sectarian strife, we certainly gave it a bigger platform, and we're just going to have to live with that. Even if we left a peaceful country, it would be torn apart the minute we left because they just can't help it, and the sooner we admit that out loud the better. We blew it by going in, and we continue to make it worse the longer we stay. Period.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line ---No one wants us to lose. Talk like that attempts to avoid the real, glaring issue after almost four years- the failing of this Administration to properly plan. Talk like that is crap.-- I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about this. I don't know if you want us to lose, but I know for a fact many on the left want us to lose. To deny this is to live in a fantasy land. I’ve believed from the beginning that a large % of Democrats have NEVER wanted us to succeed in Iraq or the larger War on Terror for this simple reason: - success in the war means success for Bush - success for Bush means success for Republicans - success for Republicans means more Republicans elected to Congress - more Republicans elected to Congress means more Republican policies being enacted, more conservative judges confirmed, etc, etc. So for many of them, their opposition to the war really has nothing to do with the war itself. It’s about abortion, taxes, spending, environment, etc. In short, they believe getting their way on those issues is more important than defeating terrorism. They want terrorism defeated, but not at the cost of the Republicans benefiting from it. So they’ve looked at the War on Terror as just another partisan political issue from the very beginning.
