If you expect me to change my opinion of this President, who is the worst I've experienced during my life, then we aren't going to have any meaningful discussions. If you could ever find fault in him, as I have found fault in so many Democrats running for national office, or holding seats in Congress, and have a meaningful disgussion about Bush and his policies, then perhaps we can engage, meaningfully. I would like nothing better. Keep D&D Civil.
This whole war is based on rhetoric. Here you want real debate and you start by framing a question in such a manner that either answer benefits your agenda and you actually expect people to take it seriously.
translation..."progressives" hate america and want iraq to fail just so that bush will continue to look bad.
I haven't made up my mind whether the troops should come back sooner or later. I can see huge negatives with either strategy and not many positives with either stategy. The biggest thing though I would need to know is what sort of "constitutional magic" would happen to give GW Bush a third term. That part I find the most unsettling not because it gives GW Bush in particular a third term but because that would mean that something seriously must have happened to throw out the 22nd Ammendment. I guess I would need more information before I could answer the question.
a well timed terrorist attack on "the homeland" in early 08 would probably do the trick...goodbye elections, hello martial law!!!
Not a chance. We had elections in '44 during the worst war in modern history. A truly global war, with the entire country mobilized and on a war footing. We have elections. It's what we do. If that ever ended, so would the United States of America. The whole notion as part of an opening question, as basso put it, is simply rediculous. I'm sure he had something in mind, but I think he could have worded it better. Hell, I wish Bill Clinton could run for President in '08. At least he's a Democrat who can make a speech. Keep D&D Civil.
i've found, and expressed fault, with many of bush's policies- i have yet to see you find fault with anything a democrat has said, done, advocated, particularly if it conflicts with a position of GWB. given your ground rules, it's hard to imagine how we could have any meaningful debate, which is why i find it so ironic that you miss the "old" basso.
But there's no correlation between the two. In the question you posed, Bush caused the war you're referring to. So the options you provided are: Would you rather (1) solve the symptom but leave the problem to cause a potential larger symptom? (2) get rid of the problem? (symptom = Iraq war; problem = Bush) There's no logical reason why there couldn't be another President who conducts the extreme unilateral withdrawal you reference (more on this in my next post).
The one-line quote suggests that, I'm sure. But I would suspect if you ask them for a more detailed explanation, it would be pretty clear that they propose that as a necessary part of getting Iraq on track. Everyone agrees that letter Iraq going to hell isn't in our best interests - the question is how to solve that, and whether US troops' being there helps or hurts. I don't think we're ready for a pullout yet, but if you believe the insurgency gains fuel from the "occupation", then I understand the argument. I don't think anyone proposes just abandoning the whole project tomorrow. Conservatives try to paint it that way all the time (Murtha, for example), but it just isn't the case.
I would like Bush to be out but the war effort to continue. A new president may be more or less aligned to my ideology than Bush, but I know that an immediate pullout from Iraq is not something I support. Whew, that was tough.
I probably wouldn't hate Bush so much if it wasn't for the war. If we could have our troops home and guaranteed that we won't attack another country, unless they attack us first (and I mean really attack us, not have some foggy images that could be WMD's). Otherwise, I am personally benefitting from Bush's policies, but I don't like benefitting knowing that other Americans are dying for a pointless war. I'd also like congress to be whatever party the president is not. I think we've proven over the last few years that one-party control over the legislative and executive branches is a recipe for disaster.
Basso, the Democrats who have proposed setting a deadline, aren't advocating bringing the troops home, NOW. Your questions is absurd and doesn't refelct the wishes or policy suggestions of any of the major players in congress or on this board. The whole Plame Kerfluffle, has done considerably more than you have mentioned. It exposed that a woman was indeed under classified status, and she was indeed working on issues of national security such as Iran's nuclear program, and that members of the Bush administration did target her as revenge for Joseph Wilson's written piece. Whether the pieces fall into place for it to be worthwhile and who exactly prosecute for those offenses, is a seperate issue. For you to pretend like our national security wasn't damaged, and nothing wrong happened, is willful blindness. In Victorian England nobody was ever charged in the case of Jack the Ripper. Do you think no crimes happened?
