Instead of focusing 7 times the troops in Iraq that they have in Afghanistan I believe I would focuse them all in Afghanistan greatly improving my plan for capturing OBL over the one used by this administration. Afghanistan would refuse to cooperate with more help and more aid? That is an alternate history. They haven't refused to cooperate with what aid they have gotten and have indicated every willingness to accept more aid. As far as Bush's plan going in, it ran out after 2 months. There were other plans put forward to Bush. They included having an Iraqi army well trained and several hundered thousand strong in existence. The plan that Bush and Rumsfeld rejected included using that already trained army as well details as minute as garbage collection, or larger scale ones such as electricity securing the infrastructure etc. That plan was thrown out before things went wrong. That plan was refused by people like Rumsfeld. And yes, you are correct that even the best laid plans will have things go wrong. And when they do go wrong, unlike Bush, I would hold people accountable. Rumsfeld, Wolfowoitz and others wouldn't be kept on or even give promotions, they would be gone.
Sorry no offense, but the administration had absolutely no plan on how to win this war. And if you believe they did you are either brain dead or not paying attention. I'm hoping for the later.
Typical. Doesn't agree with you so he must be stupid or ignorant. I just don't understand the need to insult someone just because they don't share your views.
How in the world do you get that from what I said? I can't vote for the Republicans because I can't justify a vote for either of them. Not everything is about winning and losing and wearing the shirt of the winning team. Perhaps you should grow up, man. Neither of the parties stands up for my convictions anymore. I will not vote for someone because they are the lesser of two evils.
There's this idea that all political positions are equivalent. That, just because there are two opposing viewpoints on one thing (whatever that thing may be), that the issue is automatically relative and both viewpoints are equal. Sometimes a person is just wrong. (note: I don't necessarily believe that what mcmark said was true. I'm just pointing out something that irritates me)
I'm going to agree with the earlier poster who said to either vote independent or vote your own name in - if we regularly have candidates winning office with less than half of the total vote, someone will get the message.
halfbreed, it would be easy if life, and politics, were simple. That you had good and evil, with no in between. That things were in black and white, without all those pesky "colors" getting in the way. If nuance happened to be a word in a dictionary, and didn't apply to the real world. Sadly, that isn't the case. With politics, as with nearly everything in life, you have to deal with nuance. You have to deal with a many-colored land, with a nod to Julian May. You are forced to deal with the lesser of two evils everyday. That's just how it is. I admire your idealism, in that respect, but it isn't, in my opinion, realistic. And, frankly, I like nuance. I like that things aren't just in black and white, and that we live in a world with differences. Politicians love to paint things in absolutes. Paint with your own brush, but paint. Pick what you perceive to be the lesser of two evils, or, to put it another way, what you see as the best of two poor choices. It's more meaningful than sitting at home, doing nothing, or voting for a meaningless candidate, or yourself, which would certainly be something Kramer from Seinfeld might do, but has no bearing on the kind of government you might wish to have. That's my take, anyway. I wish you well in your choice. You're a thinker, no someone who flows the crowd. I admire that. Go for what feels right, but please, vote. Voting is what makes us the country that we are. It's why we were so different from the rest of the world in the early days, and remain different than far too many today. Our ancestors paid dearly for the privilege. Don't make their work and blood be for nothing. Keep D&D Civil.
People who still vote Republican in this election show how much they value accountability in life. Zero.
Right now both parties are actually the opposite of what I would want. I could write myself in but if I ever run for office, someone will compare me to Chris Bell. I will undoubtedly lose. If my vote is going to be wasted on a throwaway write-in of myself, it won't be a protest vote as it'll just go in with all the other crazy write-in ideas. Plus, I'll probably get less votes than Mickey Mouse and that can be quite hard on one's ego. I don't think there's virtue in voting for voting's sake. I think one should only vote if they have a basic handle on the situation, issues and politics of the day and can vote with a clear conscience. I have a somewhat decent understanding of the issues but law school has cut into the amount of time I can spend getting acquainted with them. However, of what I have studied, I wouldn't feel proper pulling the lever for R, D, Green, Lib. or any other party. I now understand what Stan meant when he didn't see the point of not voting between a douche and a turd sandwich.
Yup. The rest of the Bush Doctrine is that you go in without a plan, get over 100,000 people killed, alienate the world, increase Iran's influence in the region & destabilize the region, and worlst of all, strengthen Al Queda while also hampering your own ability to fight them. That's a brilliant doctrine you support there.
Neocons turn on Bush for incompetence over Iraq war http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006110...bX5HdzMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM- indeed
Amen, brother. Liberals don't understand these economic issues. They just like to say "big deficit", and don't understand context. They also don't realize that Bush had to fix the huge mess that Clinton put us in by giving money to poor people.
Who cares about alienating the world. We are the most dominant country, the world should worry about how we feel about them, not the other way around. Iran will be dealt with in time, and we will continue to fight Al Queda. Removing Saddam was a good thing no matter how you people try to spin it.
So I guess you support the growth of Al Queda based on this? Amazing that someone who lives in a democracy doesn't understand the value of public opinion and how it affects our own prosperity and safety. Our alienating the world got or is soon to get pro-US-policy governments in England, Italy, and Spain (our 3 biggest supporters in Europe) kicked out and replaced by less-friendly governments. You don't think that affects our influence and ability to guide policy in world affairs? You literally seem to have no clue how the world works.
There aren't many people who look at the economy under Clinton and call it a huge mess, that aren't in a mental institution.
