If, by some constitutional magic, Bush could be elected to a third term, would you rather bring the troops home now, w/ W guaranteed to be in office until January 2013, or have Bush leave office on schedule in 2009, with no end to the war in sight?
The calculation is neither the date the troops are brought home or whether or not GWB is in office until what year - the question is whether or not we are using sound logic, research, understanding and thougfulness in making decisions for the country. Its not like i have such an obsession for anything - w's downfall or whatever - that I would sacrifice one life of one person for my personal agenda. Unfortunately, his administration apparently would, though. So the answer to your rhestorical question is: I have no idea what you are talking about.
It's perfectly clear what he's asking. Which means more to you libs: Bush being out of office, or bringing the troops home?
It's just a stupid question. It's like asking conservatives if they would have accepted an eight year Presidential run from Al Gore if they were guaranteed 9/11 would never have happened. If they pick Al Gore then conservatives are compromising their belief systems and ideology, ie sell outs who don't believe in anything. If they pick to have Bush then they're unpatriotic selfish bastards who care more about politics than the welfare of the nation. Blah blah blah...
Well I'm not sure if I am a "you lib" but I believe it is more important to bring the troops home. Every day another life is lost in Iraq is a wasted day. That being said, Bush's daily quest to inflame our enemies, erode our civil rights, widen the gap between rich and poor, and quash dissent is of GREAT concern to me. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to the false choice that you have presented.
But its a dumb question that doesn't address any real issue. The idea isn't just to bring troops home for the sake of it. It's to fix the Iraq problem. Just bringing them home by itself doesn't do that. Neither does Bush staying in office. Very few people in the either party have ever advocated just "bringing the troops home" without anything else. Anyone who actually pays attention to the debate knows that. The only people that try to make it look otherwise are people who are interested in nothing more than scoring political points, rather than actually addressing any issues or solving any problems. Sadly, that type of leadership is exactly why people want Bush out of office as well.
I agree, it is a dumb question. I was just responding to CBFanClub's post. He said it was a rhetorical question, (it isn't), he said that it is hard to undersatnd, (it isn't). Furthermore, if I had to choose between Gore for 8 years or 9/11, I'd choose Gore for 8 years. Are you insane? Thousands of civilians deaths from a terrorist attack isn't equitable for a president who doesn't share your beliefs.
Basso: you and I have debated on this sort of thing before - my point is, i think that you are putting things into back and white and trying to suss out "the heart" of what "libs" want - to see where our "gut" is. Like yours, my views are not binary, and this to me feels like a false choice. I actually do not want to "bring the troops home now" because I think it would be irresponsible and Iraq would collapse. Should we have gone there in the first place like we did? No. But that does not mean we should just split and not salvage what we can. Leadership is important, though, and if Bush were replaced by his brother - crap, honestly I'd take W. over Jeb, because Jeb actually believes that crap. McCain i'd take over Bush, Guilani over Bush under McCain... whatever. The point is - this is not magic, this is not rhetorical. This is real. What is going on now is real. You want to know where my heart is? it is in the details. Are we honest? Are we stratgic? Are we fiscally responsible? Do we treat our veterans with care? Do we use science and technology to better our world? Do we understand, really understand, what is up with our planet? Do we respect the differences between each other in an institutional way? That is where the debate it, not "do you want Bush out bad enough to kill troops." that is not a question suitable for understanding your opponents, if in fact that is what you are interested. I mean all of that respectfully. thanks cbfc
the problem is, several prominent democrats have advocated exactly this, set a date, and bring the troops home, or just start the draw down now, events in iraq be damned. i believe this is exactly what the kossacks want, and they're a very powerful, or at least vocal, part of the party now.
I don't think Bush is solely capable of making bad decisions, but his advisers certainly are and unfortunately his advisers have too much say in the government.
unfortunately, no one is really interested in having a real debate (and this criticism is valid across the political spectrum), here or in the larger body politic. they're interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points, proving that bush is a criminal, iraq is vietnam, or the ridiculous plame kerfuffle is watergate. the latter has generated over 1000 posts, and the three year investigation, one that has cost millions of dollars, has so far "exposed" one "crime", and that happened, if at all, after the investigation started. a real debate, bring it on!
Bonus points for the use of the word kerfuffle. I agree with the post 100% until you resort to making the same cheap rhetorical points which you so succinctly denounce in the first part of the post.
CBFC made a great post I agree with. Now you reply that no one here is really interested in a real debate on the issues, regardless of where they stand. With all due respect, I think that is bull****. Several of us have attempted to have real debate and discussion about Iraq, the Bush Administration, and a host of other things. And where are you? You're dismissive, you crack "jokes," you're sarcastic. If you made an honest attempt to do what you just accused the rest of us of not doing, perhaps you'd be pleasantly surprised by the response. Perhaps you should try it, basso. Keep D&D Civil.
please, very few here are in fact interested in having a debate, least of all you, mark and batman, who are among the worst offenders in the "worst president in history" name calling sweepstakes. drop that, and perhaps we can engae, meaningfully.
