typical overreacting hippy response. ...and throwing out neo-con...jesus when did that become such a buzz word for far leaning lefties? i always give DD a hard time about vspan...its in pure fun. sorry if you're too uptight to see that.
Isn't it amazing how war supporters will either ignore facts you post to them or refuse to post in threads that make them uncomfortable?
No embarassment taken..., Keith and Michael have had articles in which they criticized the tactics and deliberations of the Iraq War, as well as this relating to the administration...you can do a search to see so yourself... from 5 years ago:... Thanks to Washington's own missed opportunities and others' shameful cynicism, there are no longer any good policy options toward Iraq. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020301faessay7970/kenneth-m-pollack/next-stop-baghdad.html
are republican leaders putting their parties aside when they call for more terrorist attacks on america so people will support bush again?
ive posted this several times - surprised you missed it... http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php "When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent." i ask again, do you think new yorker is being open minded when he says the war is "a failed cause"? how do you feel about prominent republicans publicly wishing for more terrorist attacks on us so we will support bush again?
That was Dec. 2006,..What is it now? I thought you had information pertaining to now ...Interesting that they state: The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole. ...Interesting that Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. (otherwise 34 percent have not been deployed there)
Uh, here are the paragraphs surrounding that quote... just for a little context... It was written before the war and was discussing pre-war options... that statement had nothing to do with the war itself... except of course, that Pollack advocates it at the end of this passage. Really, there's not a much better example you could have posted to make my point for me...
The statement clearly proclaims that there are no longer any good policy options toward Iraq at the time of the writing... He obviously critics Washington's own missed opportunities and others' shameful cynicism...That is not rah-rah...I take it he rather not see the issue being where it's at now... ...And where the situation was at 5 years ago was the left hand holding containment, and the right hand holding action... He made a case of "containment" not being the better of two ugly hands...It seems he chose (albeit reluctantly)... He clearly states The Iraq War is not a "good" policy option, but the right one with what was in front... This is a great example of criticism of the tactics and deliberations of the Iraq War...
do you honestly believe that the #'s are going the other way? there should be another poll done this year. we shall see. again, showing your lack of reading comprehension. par for the course, i suppose. are troops who have not been deployed not serving in the military? is their service not as good to you as those who have been sent out? again, is new yorker being open minded when he says the war is "a failed cause"? still waiting for you to comment on prominent republicans wishing for more terrorist attacks and american deaths so that people will support bush again. and basso, donkeymagic/new yorker, trader jorge/bigtexx...feel free to chime in too. do you care that your party leaders want more terrorist attacks so that people will support bush? you spend all this time making baseless accusations about opponents of the war wishing for failure just to make bush look bad. can you find anyone actually saying that they want more troop deaths so that bush will look bad? i can find republicans saying they want more terrorist attacks to make bush look good.
What are you talking about? Read the thread. The two have always been rah rah for the Iraq war. That is what makes their presentation so disingenuous. They are trying to act like they've been harsh critics of the war. Their has been ample evidence to show that since the very beginning they were cheerleaders for the war, and have continued to paint the war as succeeding all along the way.
I disagree, they have criticized the failings that had to come to deciding on whether containment or action was the better choice. During the Iraqi war they have made some criticism of the tactics and some supportive wordings known...
Sure they have booed some particulars. Everyone has done that. But they were never opposed to the war, or never even once hinted that it failing, and not winnable. Yet they are being portrayed as anti-war scholars, who have recently come to see the light, and realize that the surge will carry us to victory. It is phony.
I think they have seen the light due to their background and first-hand accounts...Almost a month ago, Michael hinted in a failing which disputes the stance by the Bush administration... On July 9, 2007, O'Hanlon said during a panel discussion in Washington that a "soft partition" of Iraq is already occurring that would break the country up into three autonomous regions - Kurdistan, "Shi'astan" and "Sunnistan." "Iraq is being ethnically segregated. Ethnic cleansing is on its way, it's happening, and at least a couple million people have been displaced. It's becoming Bosnia in some ways,' he added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O'Hanlon Surely this resonates as thinking along the lines of failure as it may appear...The great news is that because of events involving their recent trip, they reported what they saw and they now see things better than nearly a month ago before the trip...Thanks to Gen. Patraeus with the better leadership... I understand any good news involving the Iraq war is a threat to your democratic party and this new light does not bode well, but please put America first... Let freedom ring...
That doesn't hint at failing. It hints with a disagreement with a particular part of the war. The war itself was always supported, and OHanlon has always been a cheerleader for it, and unrealistically optimistic. The fact that they were there and were shown hand selected elements of IRaq doesn't really add credibility. In other bad news dealing with Iraq, the Sunni contingent pulled out of the govt. today. The Iraqis ability to govern themselves is far more important to stabilizing the nation than anything our military is doing, or can do. This latest event just shows that it isn't working out well in Iraq. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73B20040-C171-4C31-A0D3-2480CCF2EF18.htm
I'm sorry to go back to an earlier point in the thread. This is where I last left it. I think if you were taking this request for time in isolation you would have a legitimate point. Unfortunately, there have been several instances when we were told 'just give it a couple of months' and we would see progress. On those previous occasions we were disappointed. It is my belief based on experience that the plea for time is a delaying tactic, nothing more. As deadlines approach, they will claim that some extremely limited progress, well short of the original milestones (see the recent White House spin on the failure with the 18 benchmarks in the recent White House interm report to see how this is done) and say that it proves we need to give it more time. We have been told since 2004 that victory is just over the horizon and we just need to give it a few more months. The first few times I was inclined to take a position similar to you. Now, requests for a couple of months before we can make a "definitive judgment" just ring hollow. I predict that in September they will invent some milestones that fall well short of the original promises in order to claim 'proof', demand that they need another 6 months to let this 'progress' take hold and try to paint people who want hold them to their original word as traitors who just want to see Bush fail. It is the classic case of the boy who cried wolf. When people claim victory is just over the horizon, they have no credibility because of the numerous times that they have said the same thing in the past only to be proven wrong. If you need documentation, Sam Fisher did a good job of locating basso's numerous claims of imminent victory in recent years in an earlier post in this thread.
I read the article and I think there's some credibility to it in the way it's written. It doesn't paint a rosy picture, but does suggest that there is some reasons for optimism. Now, I thought the war was a complete disaster, but I'm willing to change my mind. After all we have sacraficed, I think it's worth seeing if the situation has any salvagable elements. Time will bear out the situation, and things don't change for the better over night. While I remain skeptical, I think I'm willing to wait a couple of more months before deciding. The Republican party has asked for as much, and I don't see it has an unreasonable request. So let's see what comes back in the report, and we'll need to see some real results. If there are there, then I think we need to continue to build on that strategy. If they are not, then it's likely time to start planing for our withdrawal. It appears to me that this path is distasteful to the liberals on this board. Which is not surprising, because success in Iraq now may save face for Bush and result in a rise in his poll numbers. As much as I dislike the idiot in the white house, I really don't care for him enough that his failure takes precedence over what's good for the country. I suggest liberals start thinking about that.
