Sorry Steve, but the 2006 election was a referendum on Congress; a moment of accountability for the Republican Congress which had failed on many levels. The American people held them accountable for those failures, and elected Democrats. When Congressional Democrats (who have accomplished nothing) are held to account in 2008, they too will be removed from power.

However, if you want to pretend that the 2006 election was a referendum on Iraq, then you must concede that equally the 2008 election will be a moment of accountability for which Congressional Democrats will have to face the music: they failed to end the war, to clean up corruption, to end earmarking, to impeach the President, to balance the budget, and on every other issue as well. That is…unless Democrats don’t really care about those issues, and only care about the letter D next to a persons name (thus making them political partisans rather than patriots). Moreover, if the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, then it should be noted that the President-NOT THE DEMOCRATS’ CONGRESS too action. The President immediately hired a new SecDef, a new commander in Iraq, and changed course in Iraq by ordering more troops as well as a change in strategy from training and show of force to counterinsurgency ops. To that end, the President’s actions post 2006 election have brought both military success and political success (polls in support of the war show that more people prefer a victory-then-withdraw policy rather than the cut and run strategy advocated by Democrats). Thus, if you’re correct that the 2006 election was a referendum on the President’s handling of the Iraq War, the stats shown above in the initial post to this thread demonstrate that he took the correct action while the Democrats’ Congress took NO action (non-binding resolution is an oxymoron since resolve is either resolute, or it is non-binding).

btw, I searched this entire thread and never found a single quote from any “conservative” saying, “George W. Bush is perfection incarnate when it comes to his management of the Iraqi occupation. ” Quite the opposite.

However, I do think that your claims he was impotent, ignorant, and/or lazy in preparing for the occupation are questionable, and debatable. Effective counter insurgency ops couldn’t really begin until AQ had burned its bridges. A larger initial occupation force (advocated by Gen Shinseki) could just as well have sparked and exacerbated the insurgency as it could have combat it. More troops less insurgency (see also Russian experience in Afghanistan, and US experience in Vietnam). Counter insurgency strategy is a different animal, and your understanding of military strategies is demonstrated by its apparent limit to: more troops=more success. You need more than just numbers. The other occupation debate point is that it was wrong to dismiss Saddam’s army. I’ve heard experts in European warfare argue that point, and some Clinton Admin people as well, but if the US had just kept Saddam’s Sunni-led Baathists in place, then in reality the regime change needed in Iraq wouldn’t have been a regime change. It would have been a big raid leaving the same power structure and same regime in place sans a few leaders. Locking up Saddam’s Army would have been an interesting option.

It seems you just want to finger point at GWB rather than fix a problem; as if replacing GWB with ABB would have been better. Welp, that’s not an option anymore. Neither is just dropping all the gear and running for the border (ie “redeploy”. An orderly withdrawal is taking place, and it’s happening in the wake of accomplishments made by American servicemen and women-accomplishments that are historic and deserve recognition not dismissal and deliberate ignorance (certainly not insult as some Dems are doing). Those accomplishments took place as the result of orders from their commander in chief who took action after the 2006 election. The Democrats’ Congress did not. In fact, they openly, strongly, and repeatedly opposed the actions that have brought down violence and facilitated the ongoing withdrawal from Iraq.

Lastly, I have not once seen you or any other Bush hater express a similar desire to hold President Clinton and other Democrats accountable for their failures re Iraq, intelligence gathering, and 911. In fact, I haven’t even seen you identify them. Instead, it’s pure Bush bashing hate and unwarranted as well as unfounded claims about conservatives (ie, anyone who disagrees with you or the modern day communists).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anything but face the fact that we are winning hunh Steve?

But this transparent psychological transference of yours regarding accountability is the best sypmtom yet of your disease.

You’d be happier if we lost.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “He was held to account for the 2003 invasion and the 2003/2004 occupation in the 2004 election.”

And in the 2006 election, when the magnitude of President Bush’s incompetence became fully apparent and the US populace tired of hearing “we are turning the corner in Iraq” every six month.

Conever Conservatives, ever loyal, must still insist the George W. Bush is perfection incarnate when it comes to his management of the Iraqi occupation. I have yet to hear one single Conservative here admit who is ultimately accountable for the incompetent occupation of Iraq: They all “pass the buck” to lower levels or pretend that mistakes fell from the sky. As long as that White House dictated front is maintained, I will remind Conservatives about those who are dying in Iraq not for the cause of Nation Building, but because George W. Bush was willfully ignorant and lazy in preparing for the aftermath of his invasoin of Iraq.

And those Conservatives who so gleefully hold President Clinton accountable for his sins (and I freely admit he did), will never hold a similar level of accountability for the lives now being given on account of George W. Bush.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

How many times can Steve be proven WRONG before he shrinks back to his hidey hole in embarrasment?

Let’s all put a check mark next to the exchange above and add it to the growing list of absolute whoppers being put forward by Steve as fact.

Interesting that when he’s exposed for a fool, he simply flips off to another round of equally flawed moonbattery.

Fools never learn do they?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Tariq Aziz wasn’t turned in 2002, and even if he was, we know from the Sen Intel Com that there was a different source inside Saddam’s inner circle that claimed there were WMD etc.

“For this incompetent occupation, Geroge W. Bush is ultimately accountable.And not one single Conservative has the integrity to admit this fact.”

He was held to account for the 2003 invasion and the 2003/2004 occupation in the 2004 election. I like how you keep claiming “conservatives” only get their info from Newsmax, Fox, etc., but what you’re ignoring is that I and many others do not, and the topic of this very thread shows that since the source isn’t one you listed, and no one on this thread has linked to partisan outlets like Fox and Newsmax except you who has linked to far left sites that have political spin as their agenda instead of news. I also like how you’ve claimed everyone who doesn’t agree with you lacks integrity. That’s a very open-minded and liberal statement very representative of today’s left. Thanks for demonstrating it in no uncertain terms.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And, had you read the referenced item, you would have know that fact. However no Conservative is permitted to actually read facts, unless they are presented to them through White House approved sources (NewsMax, The 700 Club, FoxNews, …)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Correction. It was 2002.

And George W. Bush still presided over an incompetent OCCUPATION of Iraq. As a result of which thousands have died and the US is now spoending $3 billion a week, and will continue to do so, for many years to come.

For this incompetent occupation, Geroge W. Bush is ultimately accountable.

And not one single Conservative has the integrity to admit this fact.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My favorite part was, “The Iraqi foreign minister had “turned” in 2004 and was feeddin information back to the Bush Administration (that the WMD program was a sham). this key information was not only ignored by the Bush Administration, it was NOT shared with others.”

Newsflash, the invasion was a year before that. Besides, Tariq Aziz had Iraq’s interests at heart until the invasion, then his own.

Besides, Steve’s entire house of cards collapses under three kicks:
1) post-war investigations found Iraq to be a WMD threat
2) post-war combat has more than proven that the regime had closer ties to AQ than originally feared
3) he bases all of his claims on the word of Democrats and liberals who have already proven to be liars (see also New Direction in Iraq strategy that even Dean admits never even had a pre-election brainstorm committee)

That was great… ‘we know Saddam wasn’t a WMD threat because Tariq Aziz said so a year after the invasion, and President Bush didn’t share that with anyone before the invasion.’

C’mon man, you know you’ll vote for Hillary, and there’s no way to claim that she didn’t see as much or more intel than anyone. Supposedly Bill’s her golden crutch because he-err, I mean “she” has so much experience. Well, how’d that experience work on 10/2/02, 10/4/02, or 10/12/02? She couldn’t just roll over one night and say, “Honey, is Saddam really a threat?”

Wait-I get it. Bush knew about it after he invaded, but should have said something before. The ole, for it before being against it rantings. No wonder Sen Kerry had a snowball’s chance.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Amazing, though not surprsing.

Steve has managed to ignore every counter to his moonbattery while clinging to the most slippery of arguments.

Have we had enough of Steve?

Or do lefties who exhibit a total lack of any intellectual integrity and accountability serve a purpose?

Let’s discuss that, as it’s clear even Steve can’t deny the obvious fact that the Bush policy for Iraq is a success.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “saw the same or more intel than the President”

Dead wrong.

The Iraqi foreign minister had “turned” in 2004 and was feeddin information back to the Bush Administration (that the WMD program was a sham). this key information was not only ignored by the Bush Administration, it was NOT shared with others.

Besides, as I have said numerous times, had theBush Administration been even mildly competent in the OCCUPATION of Iraq, no one would have cared about the deceit in the lead up to the invasion.

However Geroge W. Bush WAS (and IS) incompetent. And, as a result, we are now spending more than $3 billion a week and thousands hafve lost thier lives. Shifting the discussion to discussins about “intellegence everyone knew (a lie) does not change, one bit, the incompetence of the OCCUPATION, and the cost it has imposed on the US and Iraq.

Neither you, nor any Conservative anywhere is permitted to admit that George W. Bush is accountable for the debacle that ensued in the OCCUPATION of Iraq. You are only permitted to say “mistakes happen” in war, as a means of protecting President Bush from ever having to admit his arrogant incompetence led to thousands of deaths and an occupation that will extend decades longer.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0