Basso...I oppose this war. Very stongly. I just don't agree with the August 2008 predetermined, publicly announced withdrawal deadline.
i respect this post a lot, and if more americans could put aside their objections to how the war was begun, and focus on the task at hand, we'd actually have a much better chance of, you know, winning. at a minimum, it would improve our political discourse immeasurably. i'm not saying that all opposition to the war is politically opportunistic, but certainly the tactics used by the overwhelming majority of war opponents have been. would they could recognize the damage they're doing, both to the war, and the country. doing so does not excuse mistakes made by the admin.
My genuine impression, free from politicking, is that the White House is willing to repeat tactics that haven't worked in order to act as though there were no mistakes and the initial military plan is working. In that light, I think it is very relevant to continue to harp on the past. If the president says, “We really, really, really, screwed up. But here’s how I will learn from my mistakes”, then most of the people who are open minded might move on from the past. As long as they refuses to agree on the events that led us to this point, I don’t see how we can legitimately talk about going forward. Its like AA where you have to stand up and say, "I am an alcoholic." before you can legitimately deal with reality. I serously, honestly believe that the President & Company are in classic denial. That is why the past is so important to some of us.
^^^ excellent point! Tell you what basso, have the president voluntarily admit that he took the country to war under false pretence, volunteer to censure himself. And then maybe we can move forward as a nation and try to resolve the mess that is Iraq as a united nation. I for one would at least tone down the volume of derision and scorn and try to forgive past indiscretions. But I would be interested in how anti-war people are damaging the country.
and look what happened to him. reminds me of the u.s. military developed strains of anthrax that got sent to democratic senators daschle and leahy, two of bush's biggest opponents. i guess stuff like this makes passing the patriot act w/out even having an opportunity to read it "an offer you cant refuse". there are not too many people who have been consistent w/ their position on the war. ron paul is one - he voted against it in 2002.
Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99 "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" -Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99 "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag" -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) - THIS DUDE IS PURE LIB-QUEDA! WHAT A DEFEATIST!!! "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Nobody should forgive....and especially not forget ...past "indiscretions" of this sort. They just shouldn't let their bitterness (or opportunism) prevent them from taking the best course of action now. Maybe a deadline was in order. But that deadline should have been imposed behind closed doors -- not part of a public bill. And the anti-war public, should be very loud in voicing their disapproval. I know I'll be attending the anti-war rally's this summer with my family. It's the politicians and pundits, and shallowness of the debate I'm disappointed with.
the whole political climate, one based on "gotcha", prevents any such honest assessment. and in fact, the surge could be seen as an acknowledgment that previous strategies weren't working.
so the war opposition is just about getting back at republicans, not doing what's best for the country? and there were plenty of republicans who said just the opposite.
How about September 2008? Look at Afghanistan. The Taliban are mounting their Spring Offensive as they have evey Spring for the last 25 years. Most of them don't see any difference between the Russians dad fought and the Gi's ,Brits, French whomever they are fighting this Spring. I think there is a good chance some Americans would do the same thing if we had foreign invaders, albeit with professed good intentions.
Not you. You are too busy slandering Democrats to post anything of substance, in my humble opinion. And, of course, you dodge the hypocrisy of the same Republicans calling Democrats traitors and accusing them of aid and comfort to the enemy, while they did the very same thing during the Balkans. Go ahead and try to dodge, basso. I'm not buying it. D&D. Hypocrisy Abounds.
Not enough and I see the political problem in exactly the other way. Clinton said, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake" and he had plenty more effective years, despite all the melodrama in Congress. In fact, I think I can reasonably say that all the braying in Congress would have had more traction among the American people if he hadn't apologized. The apology would let him go forward. Actually believing it would let him go forward in a way that will result in achieving reasonable success. But I really believe that an admission of failures as part of the way forward would be the best political action that ‘W’ could take. Seriously. In any case, concerns about political capital should never be more important than the costs to soldiers of repeating the same things which haven't worked to date. (I tried to word that with as little inflammatory language as possible.) I believe that in some part of Mr. Bush’s mind, he understand all of the things that were mistakes. But words have meaning. Until he speaks those words, and everybody hears it coming out of his mouth, there is some irrational lingering element of hope or doubt that everything is really not going so much differently than planned. That is why everybody in AA has to say those words, not just tacitly acknowledge them through their actions.
it is sad that you always view things in republican vs. democrat mode, rather than doing what is best for, and what the majority of the country want. and we arent talking about just any republicans - we are talking about george w. bush calling for an exit strategy. why the double standard basso?
there's a difference between being wrong, and knowingly being wrong. you take evidence of the former as proof of the latter.
actually, i supported the balkan intervention- i think clinton didn't go far enough, or act soon enough. similiar to how i feel about darfur now.
So you think if Bush had gone to the American people and been upfront and direct and said.. "Look, we think Saddam might have been involved in 911 and we think he might have weapons that could attack us at anytime, we not sure, but we think he does so we're going to go ahead and make sure he doesn't and can't" he would have convinced America to go to war? Do you really think he could have made the case?
