http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html
ANALYSIS: An immediate and dramatic change in Bush's tone
My, how his attitude has changed now that he is a double lame duck and sank his party.
Bush 'open to any idea' on Iraq
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html
ANALYSIS: An immediate and dramatic change in Bush's tone
My, how his attitude has changed now that he is a double lame duck and sank his party.
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
I think he has been Bush'd whipped!
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
His "staying the course" finally hit a brick wall! (the american public)
He started out his Presidency like this. It was the Democrats who through that good will into his face. Need I remind you of "No Child Left Behind" that was written along side Ted Kennedy?
And he also made comments similar to that after EVERY election since 2000.
History didn't start yesterday, perhaps some of you guys should read up and acquire a background in this stuff before posting so much.
And he also made comments similar to that after EVERY election since 2000.
History didn't start yesterday, perhaps some of you guys should read up and acquire a background in this stuff before posting so much.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Don't hold your breath. Remember, some of these guys still think Rove was the leaker, all proof to the contrary.
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
Hey fossten is that your pic on the resume payday website?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
pbslmo said:
Yep.
*******************************************************
Here's an idea - send in the 1st Armored Division and 200,000 more troops and lock up the Syrian and Iranian borders. Send a CG into the Strait of Hormuz and tell the Iranians if they so much as turn on a fire control radar we'll take over all their oil fields. Then lock down Baghdad and the other problem cities with overwhelming force and martial law. Declare all mosques fair game for bombing with the promise that they will be rebuilt when the US leaves.
The war would be over in 6 months.
Who's with me?
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's a suggeston, Mr. President; nuke the country, then salt the Earth it once stood on...
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
Didn't Bush'd get the past secretary of states together for a "think tank" on Iraq? From Weinberger to Powell, wasn't there any bright idea to have come out of this meeting, or was its just for show?
BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition. And I say that in a nice way.
BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition. And I say that in a nice way.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
pbslmo said:
IMHO, won't bring anything of substance. Bush's flaw is he's too worried about looking mean and nasty, so he's fighting the war in a politically correct, minimalist fashion. If I was in charge we'd have been done a year ago. And I don't mean that in an egotistical way, I just know that I would have treated this like a war, not like a skirmish.
That's very kind of you. We should all post pics of ourselves and then maybe we'll all lighten up a bit.pbslmo said:BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition. And I say that in a nice way.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
"BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition."
Why do you think guys like me, Fossten and Calabrio are on the Right! We prefer to leave the lights on.
Why do you think guys like me, Fossten and Calabrio are on the Right! We prefer to leave the lights on.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
And this is what I think of the new bi-partisanship btw!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
LOL
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
fossten said:
As a Navy Veteran (Iran hostage crisis), I have to agree with you on this. We needed to have had a quick strike, with minimal loss of life to either side. I cry a little inside everytime I hear or read of another of our active forces is lost to this mess we are in.
I'm not for "cutting and running", but a solution for a way out that ends the blood bath.
pbslmo said:As a Navy Veteran (Iran hostage crisis), I have to agree with you on this. We needed to have had a quick strike, with minimal loss of life to either side. I cry a little inside everytime I hear or read of another of our active forces is lost to this mess we are in.
Ive been convinced since the beginning, the answer is more troops. Lots of them. Another 100k - 150k at least -
The first Iraq war was simple. Put enough troops in that there is no question it can be handled decisively regardless of what happens.
That is the attitude that should have happened here. It wasnt. I dont know why precisely, but I suspect GW feared he would get too much flack for sending 300k+ troops. But I believe it would have got the job done much smoother. We cant protect our flanks there, or the borders. We just move around putting out fires to have them rekindle when we move on to the next hotspot.
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
Monstermark said:
To make sure your getting screwed by the "right" party? LOL, Your too funny!
Love the pics.
Last edited by a moderator:
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
Joeychgo said:
Well put! GW was afraid to put too many troops in there, because he spoke of being the "Great Crusader". He used those words at the beginning of the "invasion" and the Arabs don't like those words. More troops at that time would have cause the Arabs to unit against us. But now is a perfect time to bring them in. Flex a little muscle!
pbslmo said:
I think we should hav ebeen decisive from the get go. Arab countries wouldnt have done anything but maybe bitch a little, because they want to sell their oil.
We had a good rep ant the end of the first Iraq war. We went in very strong, kicked ass, and got the hell out. The arab countries should have seen something like that again. The only real, long lasting "Shock and Awe" was that we didnt roll in heavy. The same issue is in Afgahnistan. The Taliban got away cause we didnt go in strong enough. Numbers ensure victory.
Ok, so here we are. That is still the only answer as far as I can see. Just dump troops everywhere. Make the other countries in the region realize, we have the strength and are willing to use it. Lets see how Iran responds to us having 300k troops on on border and 50k on the other.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
I agree. However, if Bush had gone after the mosques, the Arabs would have taken advantage of our media's penchant for criticizing the President and complained loudly. The media would have accused Bush of religious profiling, and of indiscriminately attacking muslims and their religious beliefs. They would have trotted out masses of civilians (which they would have made sure were locked in the mosques) and called Bush a butcher. He knew this and I have no doubt his spirit buckled at the thought.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
pbslmo said:
Show me the quote or link where he said he was the "Great Crusader." Just curious.
fossten said:
Maybe - but thats where I would want the tough talking cowboy to be our president. Thats where you say:
We wont intentionally attack the Mosques PROVIDING they are not used as shelter for combatants or weapons. If they are used as such, or we have cause to believe a Mosque is being used as such a shelter, they also will be attacked. But as long as they remain non combatant, then we will not intentionally harm them.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
Yeah, that's what we do now. Except we don't DESTROY those mosques. I think we should flatten any of them if there's a terrorist taking potshots at our guys from there. As of now we're only allowed to shoot back with bullets and then only AT the terrorist. We still can't touch the mosques.
fossten said:
On this one, we agree. Once they are used as a shelter or base, they should be treated like a machine gun pillbox...