junior's stumbling speech

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 10 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]373902[/snapback]</div>

How anyone can admire this idiot is just amazing...

 

I thought it was a good speech. Now if he'd just made it in 2004 it would have been a GREAT speech!

I agree, though, that Bush has managed to do the impossible - make Clinton look good!

 

And scarier still, he's still following the PNAC playbook and got his eyes on Iran and Syria.

 

The thing about this country is that we always seemed to have leadership people in power during our greatest challenges. I guess the odds caught up with us this time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 11 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]374099[/snapback]</div>

I think that congress should enact a law that states we can not go to war unless at least 25% of the congress's children of military serving age serves in the military during that war.

 

With everybody piling on I seek some insight from those currently in a horizontal position...

Given the current situation in the Middle East, what would be your solution? And what are your perceived upside and downside risks with your plan. You are now President - what say you? And if you can why?

 

Yes, this is Bush's war. Yes, he started it. Yes, he pushed us into a position we can't back out of. Yes, there is no clear exit strategy. But most of that is all history. Lets focus on now and the future:

Does he have some sort of plan? yes, send in more troops.
Is it a good plan? most people seem to think not.

What can he do if his power is limited by those democratic leaders? Not much.

Your analogy of the kid, sister, and lamp is a little off. Bush started the war, everyone knows that. up until this point his party was in control, and created the mess we're in. It seems to me that ample blame has been given and accepted for the past. Moving forward into the future is like what the kid does after the lamp is broken. he asks for money to buy a replacement. denied. he asks for super glue to fix it with. denied. he gets desperate and asks for tape. denied. at what point do you say "yes, i take full responsibility for breaking it, but you won't give me the tools to fix it. So fix it yourself."

Simply denying a request for more troops is the first step. is it enough that the democratic leaders should be expected to have some other solution? Probably not. however, if he keeps having his ideas, propositions, and strategies blocked and denied, at what point do we demand answers from those blocking him?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]374127[/snapback]</div>

Sure you're seeking "insight".

Given your history of dismissing rational arguments by saying "too much hate" or that you "have a simple mind and can't understand it", why should anyone bother responding to your request?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 11 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]374131[/snapback]</div>

Bush did not start this war - in as much as FDR started WWII or Kennedy started Vietnam.

If the Dems want to put their plan into effect -whatever it may be - lets say "redeployment" - then they should cut off funding for the war. The Dems DO need a plan and they need to state what it is and what the upside and downsides are - the same way I asked you to give us your plan. Simply just flapping their lips is not enough - they need to step up - ignoring it and taking their "ball" and leaving is not acceptable for grownups who have been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting us.

So what is your plan and why?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jan 11 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]374132[/snapback]</div>

Cute, but now try giving me an answer if you can.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 11 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]374131[/snapback]</div>

It's a win-win for Bush, almost any way it plays out. Get the "surge" troops, and keep the status quo until a Democtratic president is elected in '08 and then they get to have to clean up the clusterphuck, and are tagged with "losing". More troops denied, blame the Democratic Congress for "losing" since we would have "won" if congress had supported our President in a Time of War.

Or we could just bring the troops home now, and let the country sort itself out. Oops, that would be a big lose though, they might decide to sell their oil for Euros or something, or ally with Iran against Israel...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]374138[/snapback]</div>

What would you do and why and what would be the risks and benefits to your plan?

 

I sure don't have the answers ... but I know it sure is easy to over-simply the issue(s)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]374136[/snapback]</div>

Oh I can give an answer. But why should I? Seriously, I'd like to know. If you can give me a rational reason why I should answer your question, especially when I'm pretty certain it will be dismissed out-of-hand, then I'll consider it.

If you're truly interested in hearing a different viewpoint, surely you can do that much.

 

Note that i never said i have a plan, and i didn't talk out against any plan - instead, i am against those who shoot down a plan without making a counter-proposal. In this, i think we're actually on the same side.

WWII - The war was going nice and strong well before we were attacked. We were also attacked by a fleet directly controlled by Japan's military and government. This counters the Iraq war in that the government and military of Iraq didn't attack us. terrorists did.

Vietnam - There was one proven open hostility towards US forces prior to our involvement. However, similar to the Iraq war, the people were lied to in order to get into the war with the falsified claim of a second attack. In the Iraq war, the connection between Iraq and al-Queda was blown out of proportion, and claims of WMDs were abound, with no evidence supporting those claims.

FDR did not start WWI (as everyone knows), while Johnson pushed us into an open involvement in a conflict that was already escalating (the north versus south had already started before we entered the war). but in Iraq, we openly attacked a country which, while harboring known terrorists and possibly supporting them, had not launched an attack on us itself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Jan 11 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]374146[/snapback]</div>

Yes it is - obviously

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jan 11 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]374147[/snapback]</div>

Go for it... I am all ears or should I say all eyes?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 11 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]374148[/snapback]</div>

WWII - agree and disagree but do not want to go off topic here. We declared war on germany too - they did not attack us, did they?
Vietnam - we were not attacked, were we?
But lets stay on topic - your plan for the current middle east situation please.

 

Bring the troops home now. Saddam's dead. His WMD's are destroyed. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!



What's your plan?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]374154[/snapback]</div>

What downside do you see to your plan?