Screw it!

[MJZiggy]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

[SkinBasket]

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

I'm sure Barack sent a letter to a colleague detailing the imminent threat the Taliban posed last April. So now they engage in some criminal activity which pales in comparison to what happens in Chicago every week and it's a pandemic.

[sheepshead]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

Democrat talking points garbage. I love this, I want to end a war just to start another one. The amazing thing is people are really buying this trash.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: Screw it!

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.

Now you're just making things up. I never mentioned his Grandmother's illness.

You said they were hiding him away....exactly when he is visiting his grandma. What else are we to infer from your statement.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.

[hoosier]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

[MJZiggy]

Democrat talking points garbage. I love this, I want to end a war just to start another one. The amazing thing is people are really buying this trash.

No, dip. The distinction is that you end a war BEFORE we START another one--particularly one that could have waited. There was nothing out there that said that Saddam had to be attacked immediately. And before you say it, that crap had been going on for 30 years and no one even considered it among the reasons to immediately go in. There was business to be taken care of first.

Didn't your mama ever tell you to finish playing with one toy before you take out another?

[mraynrand]

Re: Screw it!

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.

Now you're just making things up. I never mentioned his Grandmother's illness.

You said they were hiding him away....exactly when he is visiting his grandma. What else are we to infer from your statement.

I was talking about Biden. They hid him (Biden) after he said that Obama was going to face a crisis.

[texaspackerbacker]

Afghanistan: Things started turning to shit when we put more reliance on the damn Europeans to actually shoulder some of the real military burden. Predictably, they weren't up to it. Secondarily, things got worse there as they got better in Iraq, as the terrorist enemy withdrew forces from Iraq where they were getting their asses kicked.

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

[MJZiggy]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

[swede]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

...of terrorists...and people surreptitiously communicating with terrorists.

How do you happen to miss that distinction? Why do you want to protect them and not us? Do you really loathe America that much?

[MJZiggy]

I only missed that distinction because George didn't make it. I don't want to protect anybody, but the assertion that the left is the only one who wants increased government power and ignores George's whole presidency which has been nothing but a play for more power be it in fighting terror or whatever other reason he can make up is being a bit ungracious, no?

[mraynrand]

I only missed that distinction because George didn't make it. I don't want to protect anybody, but the assertion that the left is the only one who wants increased government power and ignores George's whole presidency which has been nothing but a play for more power be it in fighting terror or whatever other reason he can make up is being a bit ungracious, no?

no.

[MJZiggy]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

[mraynrand]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

Yes, interesting and true - except for the 8 year power grab. If Bush had simply want to consolidate republican power, he could have done tons of things differently. Zig, it's not an insult, but the truth is that you're just naive about a great many things. For example, ask yourself whether the State Department and CIA are in line with what most think of as Bush policies (the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' which includes unilateralism, the right to attack nations harboring terrorists, and the policy of attacking before being attacked, if attack is considered eminent, and the policy of supporting democracies, by forcefully removing corrupt governments if necessary). Do you know the answer? Has Condi Rice been promoting the 'Bush Doctrine?'