I’m sure it’s not the way they hoped the news would be reported, but US and Iraqi forces captured one of the leaders of the insurgency who has been using Iranian armor-piercing EFP (explosively formed projectiles) to kill Americans. Looks like he’s a member of Iran’s Special Forces (or at the very least working with them).
On that same day, Iranian diplomats confirmed that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is personally coming to Baghdad. That’ll be quite the scene given the bad blood leftover from the Iran/Iraq war and the 1-2million people who died in it. One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Steve manages to ignore 3 full pages of things done in 01
“…not able to do much in summer of 01…”
typical. Glad I didn’t post the other 3/4 of what was done.
I also liked how he completely ignored and gave a free pass to any impact or effect at all that the historically documented, political gamesmanship by Democrats had on that summer. Then he’s got the audacity to accuse others of giving free passes?
The word twit seems more appropriate than troll
Yes…at most, 98% of it, is.
Yes Steve, I blame 98% of the war and previous multiple Islamic terror attacks targeting us and our allies (and even the Russians, Chinese, etc) to radical militant Islamists bent on restoring a Caliphate and destroying us infidels (including you) in “Dar al Hab”.
In the mind of poser-liberal types, it’s always more the fault of those charged with protecting than it is the actual killers.
Re: “Steve manages to ignore 3 full pages of things done in 01
“…not able to do much in summer of 01…”
typical. Glad I didn’t post the other 3/4 of what was done.”
I didn’t ignore it. Didn’t you read my post? I was agreeing with you. George w. Bush is not accountable for anything. Nothing is his fault. It’s all someone else’s fault (Bill Clinton). George W. Bush is never accountable. Someone else always is.
No Steve. That wasn’t my point. GWB IS accountable, and I’ve said it many times as have others, but America is not a new nation every time there’s a new party in the WH. It’s AMERICAN history, and American history will mention the D or the R next to each President’s name 10, 20, 50yrs from now, but more than anything history books will (and are) recording that there were 8years of increasingly asinine mistakes-mostly politically driven-followed by 8 months of simply not doing enough; it’s not a matter of Clinton’s fault or Bush’s fault. When you see conservatives or Republicans talking about how Clinton didn’t do enough to get UBL, it’s not that they’re trying to excuse GWB and/or put all the blame on Clinton…just a fair share, and in contrast poser-liberals who aren’t really open-minded or progressive at all seek to completely disavow any and all shortcomings or failures of the 1990’s and at every opportunity focus on BDS as if he’s up for re-election or something. He’s not. Bush is effectively out of power. Bill Clinton is out of power. I say-as do a quickly rising number of Democrats-that we should look at AMERICA’S failures and shortcomings, and in almost every case, these shortcomings (Iraq, AQ, UBL, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending)…these cross party lines, but too many nimrods have been deliberately ignoring any and all effects anyone with a D next to their name has had just so they could bash Bush as if that does one iota of good, and while I don’t fault all Democrats with that patriotic sin of omission…I do specifically accuse you of it with ample evidence on every single thread you post to support the claim. To that end, I challenge you, dare you, double dog dare you to step up and give equal credit of blame to where it is due, but given your repeated acknowledgment of even pure historical fact I suppose you lack the intestinal fortitude.
Your point was well made, to the point and, since it was willing to hold George W. Bush accountable, an opening for me to state something similar.
President Clinton was almost entirely focused on American issues of a domestic nature (“It’s the economy, stupid”). As a result we did, in my opinion, achieve quite a lot of good in some domestic areas during his term. I know that some of President Clinton’s “accomplishments” in my eyes are failure in yours. But then I do value a balanced federal budget, even if it means a tax hike: Which was achieved. The percentage of Americans falling below the poverty line did drop, to about 23% in his term. Not perfection, but an accomplishment.
On the negative side, President Clinton’s failure to take any strong actions internationally allowed problems to fester. For example the presence of American troops on Saudi soil was one of the chief reasons Osama bin laden gave for his September 11 attacks. Had President Clinton realized what an affront many Muslims took to non-Muslims troops stationed in the home of Mecca, he might (or might not) have taken the political heat for solving that problem. President Bush did address that problem when his Administration announced the closing of the formal base in 2002, removing one of the “sticks” in the eyes of Muslims.
My ire at Conservatives is when they defend George W. Bush with “mistakes were made’ comments, as though a botched occupation that is costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was excusable. My level of rhetoric rises with the level of equanimity displayed by those on the other side.
Your willingness to acknowledge the cost of the botched occupation encouraged me to acknowledge that “Saint Bill” was certainly less that I had hoped, and much less than someone of his political skills should have been.
Enjoy your weekend.
Good comments Steve, but there are some flaws.
The war in Iraq has not cost trillions-that number (as is the case with any number vaunted by an opponent of the war) is a combination of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terror ops around the world, and if one looks specifically at the costs in the supplemental costs bills you can see that a great deal of those funds are for rebuilding programs and systems that had been cut in the so-called “peace dividend” in the 1990’s.
Re the idea of a military debacle in Iraq. Please point me to a military defeat in Iraq, and lacking one…there is no military debacle. If one wants to argue that the diplomatic effort could have been done better than please explain how that happens.
Botched occupation. You still declare that with no real understanding of what botched means. Botched means a Dunkirk, a Kasserine Pass, a Tet Offensive with millions of enemy popping up unexpectedly, or something like the Blackhawk Down incident, or the failed Tomahawk strikes that were targeted against Bin Laden in the 90’s, or how about the hundreds of assassination/rebellion/coup attempts done in the 90’s against Saddam? Those are examples of botched operations; military failures.
Re: “The war in Iraq has not cost trillions-that number (as is the case with any number vaunted by an opponent of the war) is a combination of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terror ops around the world, ”
A reasonable point, and I don’t want my overall evaluation of the occupation (as opposed to the military invasion and current military activities) to be hampered on how many dollars have been spent here or there. Let it be said, for my part, that a great deal of the money and lives being spent now are not being spent on improving the situation in Iraq, but essentially making up for previous political blunders after the initial invasion was successful. (Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule).
Re: “Re the idea of a military debacle in Iraq. Please point me to a military defeat in Iraq, and lacking one…there is no military debacle. ”
Agreed. The debacle was entirely political. On that point we agree completely.
Re: “Botched occupation. You still declare that with no real understanding of what botched means”
“Botched” means plane loads of currency, $ billions worth, shipped to Baghdad. All of it disappears after the planes land and no one can account for where it was even dispersed after the planes were unloaded (and I’m not talking about the money spent in the streets to pay for work done in cash. We would at least see the money sent to various military or reconstruction units. The money just “vanished”).
That, in my mind, constitutes “Botched”. But neither you, nor any other Conservative I have ever read, will even admit it happened, let alone that anything was wrong with it. Most of the time Conservatives just shrug and say, “oh well…” and defend it.
If you cannot admit that results such as that constitute “botched”, then you still agree with Dick Cheney that Donald Rumsfeld was the greatest Secretary of Defense in history.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06312951
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
If you read the Reuters story, it is apparent that we may have actually financed our own insurgency. Does that sound “botched” to you?
(excerpt)
“Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll.
“I have no knowledge of monies being diverted. I would certainly be concerned if I thought they were,” Bremer said. He pointed out that the problem of fake names on the payroll existed before the U.S.-led invasion.”
When I read alibis for this kind of incompetence (especially Bremmer using the legalese “I have no knowledge…” line), and recall that Medals of Freedom were handed out for this sort of “management”, then I do become irate. My only question is why aren’t you? Soldiers are now earning other medals… sometimes posthumously, to undo the damage these incompetents created.
On the military side, recall that many of the soldiers who might have helped secure the weapons depots that were left unguarded after the occupation of Baghdad, were sitting on ships off the coast of Turkey: All because the Bush Administration forgot to get Turkey’s permission for them to cross Turkish soil, before the war began. Remember when President Bush, at the last minute, promised Turkey $20 billion for them to cross, and was turned down because his team had not bothered to lay the diplomatic groundwork? Was that just another “oops”?
If a Democratic President had presided over this, Conservatives would be screaming. But as far as I can see, criticism is muted. Limited to “political mistakes were made”. Why aren’t you jumping up and down, demanding Donald Rumsfeld’s head on a pike, the way you would if a Democratic Secretary of Defense had presided over these types of political decisions?
Oh Steve…still can’t open those eyes.
“If a Democratic President had presided over this, Conservatives would be screaming.” You’re right. Myself, Iwouldn’t be screaming, but you’re right…many conservatives would scream and ignore the big picture just as you do.
:re the Turkey bit, you’re wrong. Turkey had just had an election (as had Germany btw) where anti-American politicians rose to power and prominence based on the same rhetoric as Democrats and terrorists. As a result, they balked at letting the 4th Inf Div enter Turkey. Time passed (it does that ya know), and the decision was made to ship the 4th ID not to Jordan (who had offered permission), but all the way to Kuwait to serve as a followup force. Only after the ships were moving and then gone did Turkey make any concessions, and they did so in full knowledge that it was too late. Want the dates and timeline?
re: the Medals of Freedom, I beg of you to show me how conservatives were thrilled with this? I say they were not, and are not. I know I was/am still ticked about it and made my displeasure with Dir Tenet published in Dec 2003 as well as throughout several books in 2004.
Planeloads of cash MIA? Yep. It happens. You might note that even MORE planeloads of cash were flown to Afghanistan and dispensed without receipts. Damn warlord accountants! Seriously man, that’s just the way it is in many places on this planet. It’s not like you walk up to Gen Dostum, offer him $5-10bn in pallets of cash to attack the Taliban, and then get a receipt. In Iraq, bribery was/is key to the entire system over there and has been for thousands of years=few receipts. I’m not happy about it, and it is another failure of Colin Powell’s State Department, but I do understand it. Curious, ya think President Clinton’s invasion of Haiti was peaceful because of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy, the presence of the 82nd airborne in the air with USMC on the coast, or a planeload of money sans receipt?
Re: “Curious, ya think President Clinton’s invasion of Haiti was peaceful because of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy, the presence of the 82nd airborne in the air with USMC on the coast, or a planeload of money sans receipt?”
How many American soldiers died in Haiti this week?
I’m not trying to paint any kind of perfection picture of Democratic presidents or their actions. That appears to be the standard Conservative alibi for George W. Bush: That if any Democrat, any time, any where, did anything wrong, then George W. Bush gets a free pass because at least one Democrat was worse. Is that the Conservative standard? That President Bush be no worse in any area that the worst somewhere else? OK. I’ll concede that George W. Bush is only the second-worst president at most (but not all) of the initiatves of his Presidency. Does that get him off the hook and a place on Mount Rushmore?
I still assert that the occupation (not the invasion) of Iraq was mismanaged for political (not military) purposes. If Conservatives want to let President Bush’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld off the hook by saying it was all President Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell’s fault, then go ahead. But who is the person who is, in his own words, “The Decider”? And, when someone stands up and claims that responsibility, does one not also claim accountability? Or as I see repeatedly here, is it always “someone else’s fault” (whether the CIA is the alibi, or the State Department is the alibi, or the US Congress’s, that passed the resolutions and funding, fault. I always hear why it is “someone else’s fault”.
As an analogy:
When the raid on David Koresh’s compound went south in the first months of Bill Clinton’s presidency, even though the process had begun during George H. W. Bush’s presidency, Janet Reno “took responsiblity”. But Conservatives everywhere (and we will see their posts after this comment) to this day also blame Bill Clinton. Why do those same Conservatives always support George W. “The Decider” Bush’s passing the buck to his subordinates on the occupation of Iraq?
And ,please don’t post any of those “Bush Derangement Syndrome” claims against my comments. When a Conservative is capable of saying Hillary Clinton’s name without literally frothing at the mouth, then those “pots” can make accusations against my “kettle”.
We are spending thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a dozen places. From my liberal favorites to conservative favorites (we could build another “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska every two or three days for what we are now spending). Had the Bush Administration (whereever the buck lands) just listened to those who warned against not going in cheap, we might actually have achieved Donald Rumsfeld’s six months heavy involvement, with reduced presence now (long the lines of the Balkans). But we did go in cheap, which was not a decision made by Liberals. It was made by the Bush Administration. And we are spending billions and Americans are now giving their lives to make up for those decisions.
You bet I’m mad about those lives being spent because Donald Rumsfeld was so arrogant. You bet I want to see him keel hauled in every public forum for this. He is, at least, still alive and has all his limbs and body parts. A lot of people do not, solely because of him. And “The Decider” took no action to remove this man until the day after election day 2006. For three-and-a-half years we heard “we are turning the corner” spin. For keeping that blatantly incompetent Secretary in place, at the cost of thousands of lives, I hold George W. Bush accountable. Don’t you?
Lemme get this straight Steve, you agree that the post invasion difficulties are political/diplomatic not military, so you blame military (SecDef) instead of the political/diplomatic Secretary of State?
Wow. No convenient manipulation to support a political ideal there. Nope.
LOL!
Steve,
The frothing at the mouth I see is mostly from you. It was not Bush Sr that violated Posse Commatatus and ordered US tanks to Waco. President Bush has ever ordered me to fire on my own people.
Again, your style of writing is akin to the “so have you stopped beating your wife yet”.
I do not hate Hillary Clinton, but do not wish to see her or Obama President. It would be nice if you on the left would corrall your “anti-war” activist so we unarmed Soldiers and Service Members will not be attacked in recruiting stations and our own driveways. It would also be nice if universities protected conservative points of view like they protect leftist and not allow leftists to ‘crash’ conservative events.
You are right, I will not vote for Bush either. I do hold him accountable for not emptying out the DOS of Clinton appointees and underlings one of whom, even in 2007 in front of myself and two other officers at MNSTC-I HQ, Camp Phoenix, gleefully stated his “mission” was to sabotage all of our efforts. And you sound JUST like him.
As for your idiotic “conservative favorites” BS, I am sure you in your blind hate, failed to see the outrage from the right. That is also one of the issues we had with President Bush. Not only did he allow many leftist expansions of government through (even assisted in creating them), he also did not rally the republicans to drastically reduce spending and pork. Conservatives did not vote for congressmen in 2006, yet voted on conservative issues in their states. The issues, for the most part, won handily. Maybe the RNC has not learned that lesson, but I do not wish to teach them it with a Socialist Democrat in power.
My “conservative favorites” includes slashing civilain government, a “no pork” law (fat chance), implementing true immigration reform (we can even pattern ours off Mexico’s laws) and NOT amnesty, expanding our natural resource drilling/mining and refining capabilities while working to move forward technologically, ending welfare through better education and a change of culture from an entitlement/slave/dependent mentality to a producer/rights/responsibility mentality, and defending our nation both culturally and physically.
Re: “Lemme get this straight Steve, you agree that the post invasion difficulties are political/diplomatic not military, so you military (SecDef) instead of the political/diplomatic Secretary of State?
Wow. No convenient manipulation to support a political ideal there. Nope.”
Those are word games. You know, as well as I do, that the occupation of Iraq was placed under the main control of the Defense Department when Donald Rumsfled pulled an end run on his rival Colin Powell at State. So the major occupation decisions were made in the Pentagon, not Foggy Bottom. That has been documented and you know it.
Re: “You are right, I will not vote for Bush either.”
But, were he to announce, Constitution or not, I guarantee that you would vote for him. And do anything in your power to make sure he stayed in office, no matter what.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102115.html
Re: “I do hold him [Bush] accountable for not emptying out the DOS of Clinton appointees and underlings one of whom, even in 2007 in front of myself and two other officers at MNSTC-I HQ, Camp Phoenix, gleefully stated his “mission” was to sabotage all of our efforts. And you sound JUST like him.”
Back to that again. Bush is off the hook because it is all Bill Clinton’s fault.
What was that “sabateur’s” name? Such an action appears to be very serious and the person should be exposed for what he/she has done. What is the name?
Gosh Steve, I guess Paul Bremer was just window dressing then? Nope. If it was a military failure (defeat), then blame the military. If the failure was state, then blame state. They’re the ones dragging their feet-not the soldiers, Marines, etc.
You are parsing words again: Something the Bush White house does all the time. Donald Rumsfeld was a political appointee. His political decisions are not the fault of the soldiers who were ordered to carry them out (go in light). Political decisions made in the Pentagon (not securing the Iraqi weapons depots) were not the fault of the State department.
You are continuing the Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office far past the time his disasterous decisions were evident. As always, it is always “someone else’s fault”. Again, all the political decisions made, whether you want to attribute them to Donald Rumsfeld or Coling Powell to The Decider. But, of course, he must never beheld accountable, since everything is Bill Clinton’s fault, isn’t it?
Re: “My “conservative favorites” includes slashing civilian government,”
Would you like to reduce it so zero? And have an entirely military government?
No Steve, I am not a socialist. Really, your statement there was asinine even for your typical drivel. I would like government greatly reduced to the minimum needed for the nation. Also, if the government was reduced to “zero” there would BE no military as our Constitution puts the military under civilian control. All there would be is armed civilian militias and armed individuals (per the 2nd Ammendment) not under government control.
Again, that outlandish asinine statement was idiotic even for you.
Why isn’t it that, “You are continuing the liberal blame gaming armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacking?” This goes back to Scott’s repeated challenge to you:
I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
Steve continues to dodge and distract rather than hold anyone accountable regardless of political orientation. He seeks individual facts and half truths to support his position rather than seeking a position supported the big picture and the larger truth.
The thing is, there have been criticism from our side. As in all cases in life, things could always have been done better. Even within this blog and in this post, President Bush has received criticism, yet Philly Steve still insists on making sweeping, grandiose statements about “conservatives think this”, “conservatives think that”. Somehow, because we don’t see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time something doesn’t turn out right, it means we reject all criticism. By Philly Steve’s standards, if he were to be honest with himself, we’d be firing every general, every politician, every leader, every day for many bad decisions, and for decisions that weren’t bad, but had negative results because of enemies who actually use their brains and come up with counter plans and strategies.
The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.
Re: “Steve continues to dodge and distract rather than hold anyone accountable regardless of political orientation.”
No.
This Conservative demand that I put the occupation of Iraq into some sort of “historical context” that is acceptable to Conservatives is nothing more than a red herring argument, meant to imply that somehow, the Bush Administation’s management of the occupation of Iraq was some sort of brilliant operation and in exactly in line with what should have been expected.
America occupied Japan and Germany after WW II, with an insurgency in Germany (the “Werewolves”) that lasted only weeks. But that example was not good enough for Conservatives.
America occupied the Dominican Republic in the 1960’s. But that was in this hemisphere, and not good enough for Conservatives.
America invaded and occupied Grenada in the 1980’s. But that was not good enough either.
There is no example of an occupation that Conservatives will agree meets their “historical context” because all of the examples I gave were examples where the occupation was actually planned, rather than assumed. That enables Conservatives to let the Bush Administration (whichever cabinet secretary they choose as their “fall guy”) off the hook.
And that, I assert, is the real objective of Conservatives: to make sure that the Bush Administration does not run out of alibis, until January 2009, when George W. Bush will “get out of Dodge” and let someone else (whether named Obama, Hillary or John) to clean up his mess.
Re: “The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.”
??????
I recall posts on this very site from Conservatives excoriating John McCain, and promoting everyone EXCEPT John McCain for president. However, now that Senator McCain has sufficient votes to be the nominee, every single Conservative here has fallen in line and loves John McCain as their candidate for President (another prediction I made, which was greeted with mountains of denials and derision)
Re: “As in all cases in life, things could always have been done better.”
No.
Again, it is the kind of gentle criticism that echoed Donald Rumsfeld’s own words about “stuff happens” when the looting of Baghdad took place that irritates me. The looting went beyond the antiquities of the Iraqi museam. It went to weapons depots that were unsecured, enabling an insurgency made up of fired soldiers to have the werewithal to establish the insurgency to begin with. But Conservatrives insistance that this was just a minor “oops”, as though men and women of the aremd forces were not dying, to this day, for such a blunder (going in light and unprepared, against which Donald Rumsfeld was warned and fired the man who warned him against doing it).
I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.
Re: “I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.”
That, FIVE YEARS LATER, American troops would not still be getting killed by enemy troops on those very same beaches, as they were today in Baghdad.
Oh Steve, no one said it was “Brilliant.” You’re the only one making declarations of that scale. I wonder if you even see the irony in those defacto declarations of yours, your half truths, misquotes, half quotes, and pinhole-perspective-ravings when you typed, “I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.”
Probably not. Till you do, the joke is clearly on you.
You have serious, serious reading comprehension issues if you think support of McCain for the general election, now that the Republican primaries have decided the GOP nominee, equates to falling in love with McCain.
Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.
How can anyone take you seriously?! If you don’t want G.W.B. to leave the next Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess'”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.
The fact is, events in life don’t operate on a timeline with an expiration date, based conveniently upon when U.S. elections are scheduled to take place. There’s never any neat, tidy ending, simply because one Administration leaves office. Succeeding Administrations pick up where its predecessors left off. We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration, and every Administration that’s ever been; they’ve all led us to where we stand, in this moment in history. Grow up.
“persons“. Go pick up and read Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors”. I bet you won’t. And so you’ll just remain stuck like a frog at the bottom of a well.
Re: “Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.”
I have never called for the death of anyone. To even imply so is to be a liar.
Re: “We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration”
Convenient that you are not willing to admit that we might be dealing with any aftermaths of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Does that have anything to do with the (R) after their names?
Re: “Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.”
Something I beleive every single Conservative here would do in a heartbeat, solely for the sake of retaining George W. Bush in office.
Oh, that is just too rich! My God, man! Let’s look back at what I was responding to:
You are presupposing what conservatives think. Would it do your hurt feelings better, if I flipped your comment around and said “Since Donald Rumsfeld has an “R” after his name, liberals (not Philly Steve) are screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.”?
Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations. You don’t just start with a clean slate and bill of goods, on day one of a new president’s tenure. You don’t start over. It’s important to have a certain “consistency” in how we conduct ourselves and honor past agreements. It matters that the succeeding Administration can recognize where we are at in the world today, and then go from there, responsibly. Not simply ignore the last 7-8 years and what’s occurred. You build upon what has come before. If you wish to change the direction of the country, you do so responsibly.
The Bush Administration didn’t just drum up “regime change” from scratch. They built upon prior history, under the Clinton Administration.
My point, Steve, is that life is one continuous flow. Simply because a U.S. presidential Administration’s tenure comes to an end, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the world stops; that everything comes to a nice, neat, tidy end. I’m sure Jimmy Carter would have liked to have resolved the hostage crisis, under his watch. But he did not have that luxury of time. Administrations have expiration dates. Life’s constant flow doesn’t pay attention to that. The war we find ourselves in will end when it ends, and not a day sooner. Perhaps, in future wars, you would prefer we announce a timetable before it begins? We can say, “We’ll go to war with our enemies for 6 months. You soldiers have 6 months to win this thing, after which time, irregardless of whether we have the enemy on the ropes or are getting our butts kicked, we will pack it in, and go home.”
Essentially, that is the logic you are taking, Steve. And it is a completely accurate characterization.
You are sooooooo predictable with your sweeping statements and grandiose generalities. ALL conservatives this, ALL conservatives that.
Revisiting Philly Steve’s periodic piping about President Bush leaving the next president to “clean up his mess” as if wars are waged with expiration dates attached to them, here’s a juicy tidbit from the 2002 SotU Address:
Re: “You are presupposing what conservatives think.”
I was not calling for his death, which is what you lied about when you accused me of wishing so.
Re: “Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations.”
I was commenting ont he fac that we had Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (R), Reagan (R) and Bush I (R), and you chose, for some “unknown” reaso to choose the single (D) in that series.
No, Steve. I was using YOUR WORDS, not mine; just turning them around on you, to point out the ridiculousness of your constant sweeping, broad generalizations and caricatures of “conservatives according to the fantasy world of Philly Steve”.
You fail to comprehend the substance of the rebuttals to your original argument and do nothing but fish for ways to “save face”, Steve.
Carter (R)????
No wonder the gentleman hates Republicans. I first thought it a typo but he refers to the single (D) in the series. I guess Hitler (R) and Stalin (R) account for some of his sweeping condemnations as well? Good thing Lincoln (D) stood up to those nasty Republicans in the South.
My bad, I did not read back enough. My apologies as it seems it was a typo.
I get a bit annoyed when people make sweeping generalizations about what I think or would do and I let it goad me. I am a Republican who is not too disappointed with the party because I have rarely had much respect for the party. When they fell in behind Reagan or Newt I was with them as I am strongly conservative but the Republican leadership rarely is. When Reagan was elected I thought it a disaster, but the speed with with he restored America from the Carter debacle showed what a great man he was. He was the first politician to earn my personal admiration and respect for his intelligence and character.