How do you know when things have jumped ugly at Hardball? When host Chris Matthews himself has to jump in to separate the warring parties, even warning a Dem consultant to lay off the ad hominems.
Bob Shrum is always spoiling for a fight. In contrast, Ron Christie is normally mild-mannered and affable. But the former aide to Pres. Bush and VP Cheney had definitely eaten his Wheaties this afternoon.
The video portrays things beyond my poor power of description, but the fur began to fly when Shrum accused Christie of using talking points. Things went downhill from there.
I'd say Christie landed the single most-telling blow of the evening. Shrum gave him an opening, calling for the cut-off of funding for the Iraq war at a date certain, claiming "this is how we've always ended wars. We honored Gerald Ford last week for helping to end the war in Vietnam. And that's how it was ended - the funding was cut off."
Christie pounced: "Now you're going to tell me that's how we end wars? We actually end wars when we achieve our objectives that we've set militarily."
Precisely. And what does it say that Shrum holds up as his model the most stinging defeat in the history of the United States?
View an edited clip of the best blows of the bout here.
If anyone was using a line that smacked of a talking point, or at least of being as canned as Chicken of the Sea, it was Shrum himself when he managed to work in "after the surge, the lights always go out." Good one, Bob.
After a subsequent, testy exchange, Matthews got between the combatants: "Bob, cool it on the ad hominems, OK? I don't know whether you have talking points or he does, you have no way of knowing that. He has no notes in front of him, I assure you that."
And later: "Bob, my concern in this discussion is you don't accuse your adversary of coming in here with talking points. I've never seen Ron Christie use talking points."
Christie: "Because he doesn't."
Introducing another segment with the two, Matthews alluded to the feistiness in the air this way: "Welcome back to Hardball. We're back with Hardball. And I mean Hardball!"
I'll say.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Wheaties are good for you.
January 5, 2007 - 19:22 ET by kevcadWheaties are good for you. Have a big bowl every morning.
My gawd, Shrum and the libera
January 5, 2007 - 19:22 ET by SMGalbraithMy gawd, Shrum and the liberals believe that the war in Iraq will simply end if we leave! As if the Iranians and the Syrians will just stop supporting their groups and cease trying to overthrow the democratically-elected government. Not to mention Sunni and Shi'a inter-sectarian violence which will increase with the removal of US forces since the Iraqi army cannot withstand at this time such a withdrawal of assistance.
There isn't a problem in the world that the liberals don't think can't be solved simply by having the US leave.
Of course, if that were to happen, they'd just blame Bush. They wouldn't take responsibility for the carnage; they'd blame Bush. Bush, Bush, Bush.
Furthermore, Gerald Ford became the first president in history to go to Congress literally and ask for continued funding for the Vietnam War. He didn't support cutting of funding; he asked for more funding to help the South Vietnamese fend off the North's violation of the Paris Peace accords.
Like just about everything else he claims, Shrum's little history lesson this evening is full of flapdoodle.
Taking the funding away from
January 5, 2007 - 19:30 ET by kathleenirishTaking the funding away from the war effort in Vietnam was so, so wrong and the saddest, most horrible results were rendered because of that. Five million people died in Southeast Asia as a result of that 'cut your nose off to spite your face' kind of thinking. The utter devastation and long-lasting results are still resonating today. Turning your back on your ally and going back on your promises, that's what the Democrats did in the seventies. (Seems like their motto in general today, as well. How's it going, Joe Lieberman?). I can't believe that jerk makes it out to be sound policy, never mind this democratic/liberal undermining of our real and current objectives that our country is striving for!!
Liberal democrats are all traitors to this country's interests, as far as I can see.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Peace Through Non-Funding?
January 5, 2007 - 19:30 ET by acumenAll one need do is see who is smiling at the end of the clip to know who won this debate. Kudos to Matthews for playing it straight on this one - of course this is post-election.....
Thanks for the laughs Mark.
We honored Gerald Ford last w
January 5, 2007 - 19:43 ET by SMGalbraithWe honored Gerald Ford last week for helping to end the war in Vietnam. And that's how it was ended - the funding was cut off."
I have to respond again to this garbage. Gerald Ford was the first and only president ever to physically go to Congress to request that funding not be cut off. Ford didn't support cutting off funding; he pled for continued funding for the South Vietnamese to prevent the South from being overrun by the North Vietnamese.
Congress - led by Ted Kennedy - rebuffed Ford. Funding was stopped, the North Vietnamese rolled into South Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese wound up dead. Either killed by the communists directly or having died in rickety ships in the South China Sea. Not to mention the millions killed in Kampuchea by the Khmer Rouge.
This will happen, as we all know, if we pull out of Iraq. The war there will not stop. It will continue and most likely increase in its ferocity.
And when that happens, will liberals take responsibility for the deaths? Hell no, they'll blame Bush.
Geez, what a world we live in.
You have to hand it to the me
January 5, 2007 - 19:52 ET by kathleenirishYou have to hand it to the media, they have fostered some incredible myths that are held onto as truths by the American people. Ones like the Vietnam War was Nixon's fault. And, not telling the truth about the real results of the cut-off of funding. Good ole Walter Cronkite, 'we're losing'=he said it,must be true. Our troops were blood-thirsty monsters. God, the media truly suck.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Shrum looks and thinks like M
January 5, 2007 - 20:08 ET by Right Wing Attack DogShrum looks and thinks like Michael Moore cleaned up, with a shave, no dirty cap, in a suit, looking for a democrat candidate [loser] to work for in the 2008 Presidential election.
First you have to have milita
January 5, 2007 - 20:22 ET by crsheddFirst you have to have military objectives. Making Iraq able to defend itself, yada yada, are not military objectives. Those are nation building objectives.
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. " George Bush, 2000 Presidential Debate
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
Ok, how is this for military
January 5, 2007 - 20:46 ET by BobbyDOk, how is this for military objectives? Ensuring security. Killing terrorist thugs that blow up innocent Iraqis and Americans?
Don't you find it odd that the quote you use is pre-9/11?
The only 'War Aim' I remember
January 5, 2007 - 20:53 ET by crsheddThe only 'War Aim' I remember GW stating before the invasion was to remove Saddam from power. That was the 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op.
I guess you did not listen to
January 5, 2007 - 21:03 ET by BobbyDI guess you did not listen to all the reasons that were given, and just cherry picked what supports your agenda. Thats typical from your side.
I know, WMD, best buds with O
January 5, 2007 - 21:09 ET by crsheddI know, WMD, best buds with Osama, etc. Those are the so-called reasons. Those are not War Aims.
War Aims, or military objectives, are tangible. We will take Hill 223. We will remove Saddam. We will, etc, etc, etc.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor yet that was not one of our War Aims. It was the REASON we went to war.
We will defeat the terrorist
January 5, 2007 - 21:12 ET by BobbyDWe will defeat the terrorist thugs that continue to butcher innocent Iraqis and Americans. How's that?
Here is an example of REAL wa
January 5, 2007 - 21:29 ET by crsheddHere is an example of REAL war aims from the Seven Years War.
'Britain's war aims were to destroy the French navy and merchant fleet, seize its colonies, and eliminate France as a commercial rival.'
http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007300
War Aims are the goals to obtain. Naturally, you have to fight someone (terrorists in your example) to attain those goals. The actual fighting is not a war aim in and of itself.
Ok, destroy terrorist network
January 5, 2007 - 21:33 ET by BobbyDOk, destroy terrorist networks, their weapons, governments that harbor them, not giving them a safe haven. Take your pick.
Our aim has always been to he
January 7, 2007 - 07:31 ET by Andrew H.Our aim has always been to help the Iraqi people establish a democracy.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
The only 'War Aim' I remember
January 5, 2007 - 21:24 ET by SMGalbraithThe only 'War Aim' I remember GW stating before the invasion was to remove Saddam from power.
Your memory is failing you big time. Although I suspect it's a convenient lapse.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
That is the CONGRESSIONAL AU
January 5, 2007 - 21:35 ET by crsheddThat is the CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION to use force. Congress, not being the Commander-in-Chief, does not dictate the war aims.
War Aim
January 5, 2007 - 21:38 ET by JimboSo if the President believes a war aim is to surge troops in an effort to stop the insurgency, that is his business and no business of Congress? Right?
You are confusing him Jimbo.
January 5, 2007 - 21:40 ET by BobbyDYou are confusing him Jimbo.
That is the CONGRESSIONAL AU
January 5, 2007 - 21:59 ET by SMGalbraithThat is the CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION to use force.
Huh? The White House had no input into the legislation? This was all done by Congress by itself?
The reasons for the need to remove the Iraq regime in the resolution were the ones cited by Bush in dozens of speeches leading up to the war.
You think Congress just made these up without Administration input and with no consultation with/from the White House?
We're going in circles here. You've limited military objectives and war aims to simply blowing things up and capturing land. I view those objectives as including much more than just that.
Don't think we're going to reach any agreement if we have such a basic difference of the type of conflict we're engaged in. This isn't the Battle of the Ardennes we're fighting.
There is a stratgey for Iraq.
January 6, 2007 - 02:42 ET by NL207There is a stratgey for Iraq. There has always been a strategy for Iraq. Perhaps this will help you to come to grips with this fact.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Making Iraq able to defend it
January 5, 2007 - 20:48 ET by SMGalbraithMaking Iraq able to defend itself, yada yada, are not military objectives.
Of course it is. This would be so even if the only mission we were engaged in was building Iraqi security forces. But we're doing more than just training the Iraqi army.
By making the Iraqis capable of defeating terrorists themselves, we can then divert more of our military resources to other objectives and dangers. Iraq, under Sadaam, was a terrorist-supporting state. Without Saddam, it will be a terrorist-opposing state.
A military objective, in other words, in Iraq is to create a pro-American government and army that will assist us in our operations against anti-American Islamists in the region.
And really, quoting people's views on the world prior to 9/11 is a pretty meaningless exercise, don't you think?
Creating a pro-American gover
January 5, 2007 - 20:59 ET by crsheddCreating a pro-American government is a political objective, not a military one.
This particular pre 9/11 quote isn't a meaningless exercise. GW was right. Nation building is not a military job. They are not trained to handle political situations. They are trained to eliminate the enemy. The military is, by law, to submit to civilian (political) authority. Nation building is a diplomatic situation.
George Washington said that?&
January 5, 2007 - 21:03 ET by BlondeGeorge Washington said that?
<sarc/off>
I was going to go on a real l
January 5, 2007 - 21:16 ET by crsheddI was going to go on a real long tirade. I finally got it. Good one, Blonde!
They are eliminating an enemy
January 5, 2007 - 21:07 ET by BobbyDThey are eliminating an enemy. The same enemy that punch us in the nose on 9/11. Or the same enemy that plants IEDs to kill American soldiers.
Creating a pro-American gover
January 5, 2007 - 21:33 ET by SMGalbraithCreating a pro-American government is a political objective, not a military one
But that's not the only mission or goal we're after. And it seems to me to be short-sighted not to see the connection between political goals and military ones. The two are inter-related in Iraq. E.g., a stable, self-sufficient Iraqi government means a weaker military opponent for us.
We're also creating a pro-American military that will help us achieve other military goals.
Apparently, you think that military objectives consist only of blowing up things or capturing hills.
Analogy: When we liberated France in 1944, we not only defeated the German army that was there, we were able to use France's resources in our military objective of defeating the entire Wehrmacht and liberating the rest of Europe.
The liberation of France was
January 5, 2007 - 21:43 ET by crsheddThe liberation of France was a war aim but, being their own army was not. We set up martial-law until France was pacified then handed it over to them.
Using your analogy we should have martial law in place. Once Iraq is pacified THEN we allow the legitimate government to take office (with great oversight, of course).
There is a connection between military and political goals. However, they are seperate phases. First the military attains their goals, then the political goals kick in. We are seeing right now in Iraq trying to do both just does not work.
The liberation of Iraq was a
January 5, 2007 - 21:45 ET by BobbyDThe liberation of Iraq was a war aim too. Operation Iraqi Freedom, ring a bell?
Unfortunately, a civil war wa
January 5, 2007 - 21:48 ET by crsheddUnfortunately, a civil war was not a war aim.
OOOPS! Sorry, conservatives get really mad when you call it a civil war.
Give me a break. Baghdad an
January 5, 2007 - 21:52 ET by BobbyDGive me a break. Baghdad and Anbar are violent, the rest is not. The economy is growing by leaps and bounds. If there was a civil war, the whole country would not function. That is clearly not happening.
From our own Civil War:'The w
January 5, 2007 - 21:57 ET by crsheddFrom our own Civil War:
'The war in the West was fought undercover. Aside from a single engagement in Arizona and several in New Mexico, uniformed troops of the Blue and the Gray did not meet on the battlefield. But there was a war all the same, a war of rumor and rallies, politics and pettiness.'
http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html
The rest of the United States functioned quite well.
The United States was the Nor
January 5, 2007 - 22:00 ET by BobbyDThe United States was the North and South. Manufacturing in North. Agriculture in the South. That was all toward the war effort. In the South of Iraq, the ports are booming, and cities are growing. Same with the north.
Sorry to confuse you. Califor
January 5, 2007 - 22:13 ET by crsheddSorry to confuse you. California was admitted as a state on August 13, 1850. The Civil War was 1861-1865. California did send troops to fight in the East (on the Union side), they just didn't have any battles out west. This allowed the west to continue their economic, political and social growth.
I could look up several other states in the west that were part of the United States during the Civil War if you like.
You should probably look up
January 5, 2007 - 22:17 ET by JimboYou should probably look up "State of Confusion".
Try doing some research befor
January 5, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberTry doing some research before posting, please.
California in the Civil War.
The Confederates occupied Alburqurque and Sante Fe and fighting was as far west as Tuscon. Arizona was actually a Confederate territory.
It's amazing what five minutes of not using Wiki as a source can accomplish.
By crshedd's standards, Spain and U.K. are lost causes!
January 6, 2007 - 01:35 ET by UnsaneBy your standard, we should abandon our allies in Spain and the U.K., as they have been in civil war since the late 1960s.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
That damn martial law. Couldn't have any political aim in it.
January 5, 2007 - 21:46 ET by acaiguanaThat damn martial law. Couldn't have any political aim in it.
crshedd, I suggest you take a pad of paper, write down your points; write down your justification next to the point.
Take hammer.
Hit self in head.
Do it again.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
I believe martial law is orde
January 5, 2007 - 21:52 ET by crsheddI believe martial law is orderd to restore and maintain civil disturbances.
Although, it is also often used during coups. So, yes, I guess there is a political aspect to it.
Feel's good when you put that hammer down, doesn't it?
January 5, 2007 - 21:56 ET by acaiguanaFeel's good when you put that hammer down, doesn't it?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
?
January 5, 2007 - 21:57 ET by crshedd?
What a surprise.
January 5, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Free StinkerWhat a surprise.
crsheddUh-OhYou put that hamm
January 5, 2007 - 22:02 ET by bigtimercrshedd
Uh-Oh
You put that hammer down too late.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Use of military force is the
January 5, 2007 - 23:36 ET by kubob21Use of military force is the final resort of any political/diplomatic effort. Read Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Mahan, etc. Those that try to seperate military from political objectives are ignorant of history, and live in an alternate reality.
In crshedd's happy Kantian world
January 6, 2007 - 01:39 ET by UnsaneIn crshedd's happy world, we are so advanced, peaceful, and beyond such little things as human nature, that we no longer need a military.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - von Clausewitz, from On War
"The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice." - Alfred Thayer Mahan
Obviously you have never read
January 6, 2007 - 02:25 ET by NL207Obviously you have never read Clausewitz. He said "War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means." in "On War".
The erection of a functional Iraqi police and military may be in part nation building, but it also creates a force with both the capability and self interest to capture or kill the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighters Al Qaeda claims to have on the ground in Iraq. And as I recall, the one of the MILITARY objectives of the war on terror is the elimination of the terrorists themselves by any means.
I don't even have to read the
January 5, 2007 - 20:39 ET by winston smithI don't even have to read the article and I can bet my last dollar that Shrum is behaving like a feeble old punk again. Truly one of the most loathsome, disrespectful political pundits ever to sit before a camera and he's become a decrepit 'ol coot too.
When you vote for any politic
January 5, 2007 - 21:08 ET by JimboWhen you vote for any political candidate for any political office, it is a serious proposition. Never more so than when voting for the President of the United States. When casting a ballot for a presidential candidate, you are in effect, agreeing to cede certain responsibilities to the person who will hold that office. A big part of that responsibility is how the military of this great nation will be wielded and deployed.
The President, as the Commander in Chief (note to libs - it’s not just a cliché – it really means something) has ultimate responsibility of our military.
As such, Nancy Pelosi sending a letter to president Bush ‘warning’ him not to deploy a troop surge is wrong, ignorant, and yet further undermines our effort to win this war. Telling him not to do it before he actually announces it tells me this woman believes she has far more power than she really has, which will be her swift undoing.
Additionally, wars should not be ended by cutting off funding, as the libs are suggesting. Wars should end either by winning them, as Christie mentions, or when the Commander in Chief says its over.
Don’t like how our Commander in Chief is handling this? Tough. He is our duly elected Commander in Chief. A Commander in Chief that was elected.
Twice.
Conservatives have been sayin
January 5, 2007 - 21:20 ET by crsheddConservatives have been saying for 2 years Democrats don't have a plan. When they state their position, conservatives say stay out of this, your not the commander-in-chief. Can't have it both ways.
As far as cutting funds:
“We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734
Its called a plan FOR Iraq, n
January 5, 2007 - 21:24 ET by BobbyDIts called a plan FOR Iraq, not leaving Iraq. Leaving makes the situation worse, you, I, and everyone else who is intellectually honest will admit that. The Libs come up with that solution and thats it. If they have a solution, I urge them to come forward with it, but they have not.
Surrender Monkeys
January 5, 2007 - 21:35 ET by JimboYour quoted article is over a month old. Nancy changes her mind by the day, forget about by the month.
Here’s a link to the letter she and her co-conspirator Reid sent the President today. For your sound bite predference, here’s a piece –
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
Note to Nancy – thanks for documenting your preference for surrender for the enemy.
Note to crshedd – Pelosi, Reid, and Rangel will be climbing over themselves to cut off funding once the President makes his announcement next week. Count on it. Thankfully, you can also count on our Commander in Chief to continue to do what he thinks is right for the country, and not what the MSM polls or the surrender monkeys want.
Jimbo,As to all you posted bu
January 5, 2007 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerJimbo,
As to all you posted but your last words especially....
Thank the Good Lord and President Bush's determinitation and belief in what he is doing, and to our fine brave military and the cost to us if we quit...let alone the Iraqi's.
This war is far bigger than just Iraq, I wished people would realize this.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Sorry - I forgot to inlcude
January 5, 2007 - 21:47 ET by JimboSorry - I forgot to inlcude the link to the Surrender Monkey Letter.
Sorry again - but I'm really
January 5, 2007 - 21:53 ET by JimboSorry again - but I'm really getting worked up over this one -
The letter from Pelosi and Reid is 2 pages, 675 words, and 17 paragraphs detailing how the President's plan will not work. Keep in mind that they are criticizing a plan he has yet to release yet, and are acting on an article in the New York Times quoting an anonymous source.
Not one page, word, paragraph or character is a new idea for success. Every sucker who voted for them on the platform of change should take notice of this.
My head may very well be moments away from exploding.
Naw, Jimbo, don't explode. The Left is imploding in front of us
January 5, 2007 - 22:03 ET by acaiguanaNaw, Jimbo, don't explode. The Left is imploding in front of us.
Just sit back and watch and giggle.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
We want to do everything we c
January 5, 2007 - 22:17 ET by Archibald CoxWe want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
Yes, it's downright evil of Pelosi to be suggesting that we not put more of our soldiers at risk. And I can't believe she'd suggest that we try to help Iraq succeed in helping itself. What can she be thinking? And, my God, she's only Speaker of the House. Where does she get off offering suggestions to the Commander in Chief? Why, you'd think she was second in line to the presidency or something.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official. - Theodore Roosevelt
The President already has Adv
January 5, 2007 - 22:19 ET by Free StinkerThe President already has Advisors. Congress just funds the Military.
(update) - You left out the rest of TR's quote.
official . . . except to the extentt that they themselves stand by the country.
Liberals - Misquoting for their own advantage since at least the 1960's
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Hey, thanks for pointing that
January 5, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Archibald CoxHey, thanks for pointing that out about the TR quote, Free - really. Just came across that quote today and didn't know about the rest of it. I stand corrected.
Guess you won't be using it a
January 5, 2007 - 22:47 ET by JimboGuess you won't be using it any more!
Archie - Since you didn't see
January 5, 2007 - 22:22 ET by JimboArchie - Since you didn't see it the first time -
____________________
When you vote for any political candidate for any political office, it is a serious proposition. Never more so than when voting for the President of the United States. When casting a ballot for a presidential candidate, you are in effect, agreeing to cede certain responsibilities to the person who will hold that office. A big part of that responsibility is how the military of this great nation will be wielded and deployed.
The President, as the Commander in Chief (note to libs - it’s not just a cliché – it really means something) has ultimate responsibility of our military.
As such, Nancy Pelosi sending a letter to president Bush ‘warning’ him not to deploy a troop surge is wrong, ignorant, and yet further undermines our effort to win this war. Telling him not to do it before he actually announces it tells me this woman believes she has far more power than she really has, which will be her swift undoing.
Additionally, wars should not be ended by cutting off funding, as the libs are suggesting. Wars should end either by winning them, as Christie mentions, or when the Commander in Chief says its over.
Don’t like how our Commander in Chief is handling this? Tough. He is our duly elected Commander in Chief. A Commander in Chief that was elected.
Twice.
__________
And by the way - when the voters elected the liberals back into office on a platform of change, I think they were expecting a little more than having her suggest that "we try to help Iraq succeed in helping itself." Sounds like another Liberal "easy button" fix to me!
That's what I was responding
January 5, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Archibald CoxThat's what I was responding to, Jimbo (in part, at least), but thanks for reiterating!
The idea of helping the Iraqis help themselves was W's. Pelosi, apparently, is agreeing with it. Actually making it happen would be a change. I'm not sure anyone has a decent plan for that, though, which is the big problem....or at least one of them.
So then we agree Pelosi has p
January 5, 2007 - 22:59 ET by JimboSo then we agree Pelosi has presented nothing new in the form of change she and the rest of the party promised the voters?
In terms of the war? No, not
January 5, 2007 - 23:18 ET by Archibald CoxIn terms of the war? No, not much. The options are fairly limited, after all - add more troops, "stay the course," or pull out, either in phases or all at once. All of those ideas have been presented at one time or another, so no, there's nothing new there. But the 100 hours agenda certainly represents some significant change. And that's just the start.
Bait and Switch
January 5, 2007 - 23:22 ET by JimboNice try, but I'm calling bait and switch on that one. The Democrats were more than clear that they were talking about change with regard to the war when they were running. Substituting the 100 hour agenda is nice, but doesn't wash.
A. Cox - Iraq Strategy
January 5, 2007 - 23:28 ET by BlondeOh, you are so wrong.
Go long, go big, or go home. That about sums up all of the dems' talking points about Iraq.
However. A new commander has been named as CENTCOM.
Lt. Gen.Petraeus. An infantry guy. With a Masters, and a Ph.D. from Princeton.
So.........
Go read up and get back to me.
I know where I think he'll take the global WOT.
It's not my job to educate you.
Our options are so "not limited" you can't even begin to fathom it. Unless you continue to feed at the trough of the MsM.
Yep, nice to see some new blo
January 5, 2007 - 23:42 ET by Archibald CoxYep, nice to see some new blood involved. But he'll be hard-pressed to implement a strategy that doesn't involve either: more troops, the same number of troops, or fewer troops. He may deploy them in different ways (more but smaller units is one possibility I've heard), but it still has to involve one of those 3 options.
Wow. Briliant analysis. /
January 5, 2007 - 23:45 ET by Free StinkerWow. Briliant analysis. /Sarcasm Off
I'm waiting for Blonde's bril
January 5, 2007 - 23:51 ET by Archibald CoxI'm waiting for Blonde's brilliant analysis - the plan that does not involve one of those 3 basic options. But of course it's not Blonde's job to educate me....I'm trying to come to grips with that harsh reality.
And I am waiting for yours.
January 5, 2007 - 23:55 ET by BlondeAnd I am waiting for yours.
I asked first. Your turn.
I never claimed to have one.
January 6, 2007 - 00:04 ET by Archibald CoxI never claimed to have one. I freely admit I have no brilliant ideas for getting us out of this God-awful mess than W got us into. I'm hoping - praying - that someone will come up with an idea that I can get behind. I guess I'm not going to find it here.
"...this God-awful mess
January 6, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Jimbo"...this God-awful mess than W got us into".
Sadaam and the terrorists had nothing to do with it you pompus, ignorant ass?
The war that all of Congress voted for?
Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Go back to whatever liberal rock you crawled out from under.
When Prez AWOL hand fed Congr
January 6, 2007 - 00:14 ET by joe conservativeWhen Prez AWOL hand fed Congress a steady diet of half truths and out and out lies about Iraq before the war. This is why congress voted for Prez AWOL's war
Can you present these lies yo
January 6, 2007 - 00:19 ET by JimboCan you present these lies you are referring to with docuemnted fact? Don't waste our time with inuendo and other dribble. I want FACTS.
I'm waiting.
This is like shooting fish in
January 6, 2007 - 00:25 ET by joe conservativeThis is like shooting fish in a barrel. Where are the WMD? Cheney said "THERE IS NO DOUBT ", yet there was plenty of doubt; they just didn't share those doubts with the public or Congress. THEY LIED. The British press has already exposed it. Why won't ours?
Your overwhelming hatred for
January 6, 2007 - 01:45 ET by UnsaneYour overwhelming hatred for President Bush (I want concrete evidence he was ever AWOL) notwithstanding, the casus belli existed once one of our planes in the no-fly zone was illuminated by SAM radar.
Stop crying to have your nursing bottle filled. Government is NOT here to coddle and spoon-feed you.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Prez AWOL can not name any o
January 6, 2007 - 01:50 ET by joe conservativePrez AWOL can not name any of his fellow guardsmen in Alabama. Why is that? TOO much nose candy during the eighties?
Consumed and overwhelmed to the point of neurotica
January 6, 2007 - 02:57 ET by UnsaneMaybe if you spent less time stalking President Bush (in office until 20 January 2009, baby!) and performing a 23 Hour Hate every day, maybe you'd be better served actually doing something, oh, I don't know, productive for this economy. Besides, I thought drug use, serving in the Guard and things like that were no bar to the Presidency. At least that is what I was taught back in the early 1990s.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Ready for a brief history les
January 6, 2007 - 00:29 ET by joe conservativeReady for a brief history lesson. The inspectors were in Iraq and going to the places we told them they were going to find wmd. They found none. They were withdrawn because Prez AWOL was going to war. and to this day Prez AWOL still lies and says we had to invade because saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. Bush said it as recently as last summer. and almost no one in the media calls him on it.
***yawn***Joe Kerry missed th
January 6, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Blonde***yawn***
Joe Kerry missed the memo.
Bend over joe, and kiss hayse for us.
Hey Blondie, go home and chan
January 6, 2007 - 00:45 ET by joe conservativeHey Blondie, go home and change your hair color again. Here is quote from memory lane. Rice on Saddam in 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
***yawn again***who is this c
January 6, 2007 - 00:49 ET by Blonde***yawn again***
who is this child, and why is he out of his room?
Here's a prediction: If Prez
January 6, 2007 - 00:55 ET by joe conservativeHere's a prediction: If Prez AWOL comes out in the next couple of weeks with a call for more troops in Iraq, the muttering we're hearing now about impeachment is going to grow louder. At the least, it's going to drive a series of congressional investigations, and the truth that we're all aware of now will be documented and headlined.
I think it's quite possible that Prez AWOL will be driven out of office before his term ends. Can you say President Pelosi.
Explain to me why it would be
January 6, 2007 - 01:00 ET by Eric TurnerExplain to me why it would be President Pelosi.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolution
Joe Kerry
January 6, 2007 - 01:05 ET by BlondeHere's another prediction. ...to soothe your poor little liberal brain.
(btw...That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.)
I can say President Cheney. Can you say it OUT LOUD?
Quake in your boots, there Joe Kerry.
Darth Vader rules.
Nice of you to end on a humor
January 6, 2007 - 01:09 ET by joe conservativeNice of you to end on a humorous high note. President Cheney. Thanks for the yuks
And that's exactly my point.
January 6, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Eric TurnerAnd that's exactly my point. In accordance with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution the Vice President would take on the responsibilities of the office of President. He then in accordance with the 25th Amendment would appoint a new Vice President (who would be voted on by a majority of both houses).
So the real deal here is this...Can you say (not only) President Cheney (every liberal's nightmare), but also Vice President John Boehner?
-----------------------------------------------------
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolutio
A nasty surprise for Leftists?
January 6, 2007 - 03:00 ET by UnsaneAND if Bush resigned on 20 January 2007, why, we could potentially hav