Will Democrats ever be happy?

[MaC]

Now a lot of you this may not apply to, and some of it may apply to, but I ask of those who this does, namely the more partisan (Scoonie, MissCatholic, and jfern for example)

Now, granted there's an Iraq War right now that you guys disagree with (of course I speak all things in general terms).  You guys don't like the war, and you don't like the guy who started it--George W. Bush.  You spend time after time telling us bad stuff about Bush, and love hating him it seems.

Now let's give two scenarios
1. Bush apologises for using false pretexts to go to war, and sets a pullout timeline to bring the troops home from the war.  He shamefully admits that he's wrong.

2.Bush follows his current path and only time will tell how long the war will go on.

I figure, either way, you guys are not going to be happy, because with the following situations:

1.You'll still say Bush was wrong because he knew these were false pretenses and went to war, and thus got many people in Iraq killed, plus you'll call him a flip-flopper.

2. You'll hate Bush the same as you do today.

Now I know that once again, I am generalizing, but following this, is there any real way to make you guys happy?

[Alcon]

I doubt Bush would ever apologize for much of anything.  It's not really in his nature.

Apologies are nice and all, but I would not be happy until he acted on the apology.  Otherwise it is just words.

[Max Power]

1. I'd be happy for his appology, as long as it wasn't fake.
2. I'd still dislike him.

[dazzleman]

1. Bush has nothing to apologize for.  There were many reasons to invade Iraq, and only simpletons boil it down to one thing.  A little observations I have made is that when people continuously chant out slogans that rhyme, they have no understanding of the issues.  There's no absolute right or wrong here, only degrees of right and wrong, and we won't know the ultimate effect for a long time.

2. If for some foolish reason Bush apologized, it would only embolden his enemies in the US as well as the terrorists.  It wouldn't do any good, even if he were correct to apologize (which he would not be) and it were sincere.

So no, the Democrats will never be happy in any case.  Their real problem is not with Bush; it's with the fact that they don't hold the oval office or congress.  They are going crazy with frustration and desperation.  And the Democratic party is generally the party for malcontented "hound dogs" who sit on their asses and howl when they're not happy, rather than going and doing something to change their circumstances.  They will never be happy.

[MaC]

well this post was generally mmeant for the Democrats that are more blindly partisan dazzleman.  The point wasn't whether Bush was or wasn't right to go to war.  The point is that no matter what he does, it seems somepeople will never be happy.  As you can see Max Power and Alcon said option 1 would be acceptable, but I really wan't digging for answers from them in that they are the more reasonable Democrats on this forum.  My point is the posters like Scoonie and jfern, are going to bitch about what ever he does, nomatter what he does, even if he does what they want, because those types of Democrats are less reasonable.

Heck if option 1 happened, I'd be happy.  If Bush was truly sorry and admitted he made a mistake, I'd see him in a better light, and I think that it would definitely add to the world's opinion of our country.  I realize there's about a snowflake's chance of this but still...

[RJ]

(Pulling hair out as he writes)What is done in Iraq is done. Bush is a wreckless fool who governs with his "strong will and core values" rather than looking at actual data and listening to people with more extensive knowledge. THAT is what makes me dislike him, along with his budget disasters and his foolish insistance that the economy is strong.

No apology would make me happy. If someone did something horrible to you that caused permanant damage to your life or well being would an apology make you happy? If Ken Lay or that Scruchi(sp?) character from Health South apologized for their ineptitude at their respective corporations and directly(or indirectly) causing all those people to lose everything they worked hard for, would that make the shareholders happy or would they still dislike them and consider them crooks and liars?

There are a select few limited things that I actually agree with Bush on believe it or not. Iraq isn't one of them and it's just unforgivable. I bet there were a lot of Republicans who said the same thing about Johnson in the 60's.

[dazzleman]

well this post was generally mmeant for the Democrats that are more blindly partisan dazzleman.  The point wasn't whether Bush was or wasn't right to go to war.  The point is that no matter what he does, it seems somepeople will never be happy.  As you can see Max Power and Alcon said option 1 would be acceptable, but I really wan't digging for answers from them in that they are the more reasonable Democrats on this forum.  My point is the posters like Scoonie and jfern, are going to bitch about what ever he does, nomatter what he does, even if he does what they want, because those types of Democrats are less reasonable.

Heck if option 1 happened, I'd be happy.  If Bush was truly sorry and admitted he made a mistake, I'd see him in a better light, and I think that it would definitely add to the world's opinion of our country.  I realize there's about a snowflake's chance of this but still...

I think it would be proposterous for him to apologize while troops are still there.  It would undermine the whole goal, however elusive it may be, of setting up some type of stable Iraqi government so that we can leave without it immediately becoming another Afghanistan.  Even many Democrats agree that to leave now would be a major mistake, and that we have to finish the job, which is something that Americans are not so good at doing.

Plus, a president never apologizes for policy decisions.  He may change policy, but to establish a precedent of apologizing for a policy decisions that many considered the best decision at the time would be setting a ruinous precedent.  Thanks to Bush's esteemed predecessor, our political culture has been Oprahized and Dr. Phil-ed excessively, to our overall detriment.  Bad enough to do all this apologizing (and insincerely, I might add) when your transgression is lying about banging your intern on the semen-stained oval office floor, but to apologize for policies takes it to a new and dangerous level.

The only course is to stick it out, and adjust policy as our perception of circumstances changes.  An apology from Bush, which is not warranted in any case, would disspirit his supporters and embolden his enemies.  His enemies know this, which is why they're the only people pushing this line.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The war was based upon lies from the beginning, and is only one of many major scandals. I won't be happy until this government isn't 100% controlled by right-wing crooks.

[RJ]

Bad enough to do all this apologizing (and insincerely, I might add) when your transgression is lying about banging your intern on the semen-stained oval office floor, but to apologize for policies takes it to a new and dangerous level.

I'll agree that it would be a mistake to pull out all together. I'd like to see some kind of different action/plan than what's going on right now since what's happening is barely working. I might even be encouraged if something would change over there. But please, don't compare starting a war under the most procurious circumstances and habitually changing your objective about it while armed conflict is still going on to banging an intern.

[Speed of Sound]

Now let's give two scenarios
1. Bush apologises for using false pretexts to go to war, and sets a pullout timeline to bring the troops home from the war.  He shamefully admits that he's wrong.

thats like Hitler pulling out of all countries half way through WWII and apologizing. Would you all of the sudden be happy with him? of course not! This is a scenario where sorry isnt enough IMO

[MaC]

Honestly, I don't think it would be impossible for anyone to suddenly get a change of heart and change their ways.  However, if Bush did this it would be a great political stress for him, and even if he felt he'd make a mistake, he'd never apologize anyways because the media would make him look like a flip flopper and turn even more people off of his support. 
My point is that if he did do this however and started an exit strategy for Iraq, the country could put Iraq behind us and move on.  It would look stupid now, but 40 years from now it would look a lot better.  Kinda like Ford pardoning Nixon.
Like you said about the Democrats, it would be a mistake to leave now, and I agree.  We have a "you break it, you bought it" foreign policy when it comes to intervention.  However there should be some kind of an exit strategy and a back up plan (at least one back-up plan) to show that there actually will be an end to this war.

[opebo]

I think you misunderstand the source of 'happiness' relative to Bush, Milk.  I suspect his admissions or apologies would be irrelevant (though of course he would never make any. However if he were to - for example - get cancer, there would be much glee among those who hate him.

[dazzleman]

Honestly, I don't think it would be impossible for anyone to suddenly get a change of heart and change their ways.  However, if Bush did this it would be a great political stress for him, and even if he felt he'd make a mistake, he'd never apologize anyways because the media would make him look like a flip flopper and turn even more people off of his support. 
My point is that if he did do this however and started an exit strategy for Iraq, the country could put Iraq behind us and move on.  It would look stupid now, but 40 years from now it would look a lot better.  Kinda like Ford pardoning Nixon.
Like you said about the Democrats, it would be a mistake to leave now, and I agree.  We have a "you break it, you bought it" foreign policy when it comes to intervention.  However there should be some kind of an exit strategy and a back up plan (at least one back-up plan) to show that there actually will be an end to this war.

The administration appears to have gone into Iraq without a reasonable exit strategy.  Now they have to come up with one, and fast.  We can't stay there forever, and we can't just be in this apparently passive mode, taking casualties.  It's beginning to sound like Vietnam, where the apparent goal was to stay there and take casualties forever.

Bush needs to tell the American people what proactive steps are being taken to make it possible for us to leave within a reasonable period of time.  Iraq is not going to be a Jeffersonian democracy, but we can settle for a reasonable government there that can control the country, keep it together, and not be dominated by terrorists.

Bush also needs to explain to the American people that this is part of a strategy of smoking out the terrorists.  Make them come out of hiding so we can kill them there, rather than at home.  The more energy they are putting into fighting us in Iraq, the less time they have to plan terrorist strikes in the west.

The administration needs to start explaining its strategy, and convincing people that it will make, and in fact make it work.  Some people will never be satisfied; they hate the president so much that they'd rather see the terrorists defeat us.  This is reprehensible.  I think a lot of people simply don't want to face up to the terrorist threat, and they hate Bush because he forces them to.  They'd rather focus their anger on something they have some control over, rather than admit that they can be hurt by forces beyond their control that they're too weak to acknowledge.

But a better explained and thought out policy will win the support of a majority of the American people, and that is what Bush needs now.

[Jake]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

2) Secure Iraq - Succeeding

3) Transfer Power - Done

4) Hold Elections - Done

5) Write Constitution - Almost Done

6) Hold Elections - Planned

7) Wear down Insurgency - Succeeding

8 ) Train Iraqi Soldiers - Succeeding

9) Remove most soldiers - Planned

[dazzleman]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

2) Secure Iraq - Succeeding

3) Transfer Power - Done

4) Hold Elections - Done

5) Write Constitution - Almost Done

6) Hold Elections - Planned

7) Wear down Insurgency - Succeeding

8 ) Train Iraqi Soldiers - Succeeding

9) Remove most soldiers - Planned

For the ones that are succeeding, people need to be shown how and why they are succeeding.  I don't think it's apparent that training Iraqi soldiers, as an example, is succeeding, when we only hear about how they can't operate on their own without American support.

Jake, as you know, I support the president, but it's essential for him to sell his policies rather than appear to be hiding from them.

[MaC]

yes, Jake, those seem like the objectives, but some would like some hard facts as to when they're getting out.  What exactly is the current progress, and what else are our failings.  Yeah, people get blown up all the time, but that's the only failure they're willing to tell us.

Thing is about this war (as with any other war) there's the political side (which we hear about) and there's the real side (which mainly the Secretary of Defense, generals, and some military elites know about).  I wish I knew more about the situation, but to understand it, I'd have to go to Iraq myself.  Being that I have not the option to fly to Iraq, and I would fear getting blown up there, I guess I'll never know how we are  really doing.

[RJ]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

2) Secure Iraq - Succeeding

3) Transfer Power - Done

4) Hold Elections - Done

5) Write Constitution - Almost Done

6) Hold Elections - Planned

7) Wear down Insurgency - Succeeding

8 ) Train Iraqi Soldiers - Succeeding

9) Remove most soldiers - Planned

Are the borders in Iraq secure? Judging from the fact that most insurgients are coming from other countries, I'd say no and we're not succeeding. How many Iraqi security forces are trained? Judging from the fact that we never hear anything from this administration on this issue and that they have exagerated the facts about it in the past, I'd say no to that one as well.  If American troops left, all out civil war would break out and the Security forces trained there would collapse instantly. Withdrawl troops? There will always be a military presence in Iraq the same as there was in Germany and Japan after WWII and Korea after the Korean war. When you say "wear down insurgency," not to personally attack you but Cheney said the same thing a couple months ago and several commanders over there say otherwise. The insurgency is as strong as its been and what people don't realize is that the war is recruiting new insurgients and potential Al-Quaida operatives in great proportions. The war in Iraq isn't detering terrorism; it's encouraging it!

Make them come out of hiding so we can kill them there, rather than at home. The more energy they are putting into fighting us in Iraq, the less time they have to plan terrorist strikes in the west.

The notion that fighting the terrorists in Iraq means that we won't have to face them on the homeland is specious reasoning. By using this logic, I could say my computer keeps me safe from mad cow disease. It doesn't, but I don't have mad cow disease, do I? What about the terrorist attacks in England? What about the terror cells in uncovered in California? Just because they're fighting there doesn't mean they can't do anything here.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Honestly, I don't think it would be impossible for anyone to suddenly get a change of heart and change their ways.  However, if Bush did this it would be a great political stress for him, and even if he felt he'd make a mistake, he'd never apologize anyways because the media would make him look like a flip flopper and turn even more people off of his support. 
My point is that if he did do this however and started an exit strategy for Iraq, the country could put Iraq behind us and move on.  It would look stupid now, but 40 years from now it would look a lot better.  Kinda like Ford pardoning Nixon.
Like you said about the Democrats, it would be a mistake to leave now, and I agree.  We have a "you break it, you bought it" foreign policy when it comes to intervention.  However there should be some kind of an exit strategy and a back up plan (at least one back-up plan) to show that there actually will be an end to this war.

The administration appears to have gone into Iraq without a reasonable exit strategy.  Now they have to come up with one, and fast.  We can't stay there forever, and we can't just be in this apparently passive mode, taking casualties.  It's beginning to sound like Vietnam, where the apparent goal was to stay there and take casualties forever.

Bush needs to tell the American people what proactive steps are being taken to make it possible for us to leave within a reasonable period of time.  Iraq is not going to be a Jeffersonian democracy, but we can settle for a reasonable government there that can control the country, keep it together, and not be dominated by terrorists.

Bush also needs to explain to the American people that this is part of a strategy of smoking out the terrorists.  Make them come out of hiding so we can kill them there, rather than at home.  The more energy they are putting into fighting us in Iraq, the less time they have to plan terrorist strikes in the west.

The administration needs to start explaining its strategy, and convincing people that it will make, and in fact make it work.  Some people will never be satisfied; they hate the president so much that they'd rather see the terrorists defeat us.  This is reprehensible.  I think a lot of people simply don't want to face up to the terrorist threat, and they hate Bush because he forces them to.  They'd rather focus their anger on something they have some control over, rather than admit that they can be hurt by forces beyond their control that they're too weak to acknowledge.

But a better explained and thought out policy will win the support of a majority of the American people, and that is what Bush needs now.

Enemies of america have noted that we have two weaknesses, a reluctance to fight a protracted war and an extreme aversion to casualties.

Their stratedgy is to draw out the conflict and continue to inflict casualties no matter how many they suffer themselves (america's enemies have little value of their peoples lives).

The point is that we can stay the course with a will to suceed and defeat the terrorists, or retreat and thereby invite them to continue the conflict in safety.

I suggest you review a book by Sam Griffin on Guerilla War.

Sam was a Marine (he led a battalion at Guadalcanal) and an intellectual (his is the definitive translation of The Art of War by Sun Tzu).  His book (published by Stackpole).

Although the media paints a picture of inevitable American loss, the truth is that the terrorists are losing (and they know it), which is why they are pulling out all the stops right now.

[dazzleman]

Enemies of america have noted that we have two weaknesses, a reluctance to fight a protracted war and an extreme aversion to casualties.

Their stratedgy is to draw out the conflict and continue to inflict casualties no matter how many they suffer themselves (america's enemies have little value of their peoples lives).

The point is that we can stay the course with a will to suceed and defeat the terrorists, or retreat and thereby invite them to continue the conflict in safety.

I suggest you review a book by Sam Griffin on Guerilla War.

Sam was a Marine (he led a battalion at Guadalcanal) and an intellectual (his is the definitive translation of The Art of War by Sun Tzu).  His book (published by Stackpole).

Although the media paints a picture of inevitable American loss, the truth is that the terrorists are losing (and they know it), which is why they are pulling out all the stops right now.

I fully agree with you.  Just as some in the west argue that Iraq is of no consequence to the war against islamofascism, the terrorists themselves are proving them wrong.  There are some who want us to lose because it would be an embarrassment to Bush, regardless of the terrible consequences this would have on the country.  These people play up every negative sign without looking at the whole picture.

Still, the problem in the US is largely a matter of perception and public relations, selling the strategy to the public.  I think President Bush has been falling down in this area lately, and needs to come out of hiding and fight for his policies.  I think if he does that, the American people will be with him, regardless of how much the liberals carp about it.

[Jake]

On the subject of tranining troops. When Iraq fell apart, there were no more troops left. America has spent the last almost two years training, equipping, recruiting, and deploying a brand new army complete with new officers, NCOs, and average ground pounders. I doubt anyone could build such an army faster than we are with a civil war raging all around you and a country that has been torn apart. Even considering that, we've trained tens of thousands of troops, with more being trained every day. Iraq is not an "easy" job. War never is. Course, we could always follow Cindy Sheehan's exit strategy - "Pull out immediately and hope they don't start fighting each other." That'd be a hell of alot easier, right?

[opebo]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

This is what created the problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hah, what garbage.  This one is failing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, to puppets of course, but that was the plan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those were fake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This will lead to civil war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first 'elections' didn't do any good, why would these?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Succeeding how?  By getting blow up by roadside bombs?  I know you may think this tires them out, but after all it is their intent.  Presumably they feel a sense of accomplishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is doubious anyone will really fight for the puppet government of the invader.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm all for that last one, but releasing Saddam with an apology would be the correct way to go about it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could the perverted racist fascist lover please f*** off?

[Wakie]

The Exit Plan's been well defined.

1) Remove Saddam - Done

Check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're kidding me, right?  My gf's brother is over there for the third time.  He said it was the most secure AFTER the fall of Baghdad and that it has gotten progressively worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.  We've done this in name and image, but not in true authority.  Really ... who do you think is calling the shots in Iraq?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're kidding me, right?  Almost Done??  Until last week they couldn't even agree on what to CALL the country!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't this #4?  Or are you talking about a 2nd round of post Constituiton elections?  If that is the case they you can't say this is planned as the format and timeline isn't in place UNTIL the Constituition is in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a "well defined" goal.  If I go for a run am I "worn down" after 2 miles?  3 miles?  6 feet?  20 miles?

The problem here is that the "insurgency" are fueled by 2 sources.

Source #1 is the Iranian government, and frankly what they want is a friendly Islamic ally on its Western border.  The last thing they want a US-supported ally in a country they fought a brutal and bloody war with 20 years ago.  They're going to do whatever they can to prevent it.

Source #2 is a group of nut cases who believe they are doing the "will of God".  They aren't afraid to die.  They aren't afraid of their family members or comrades dying.  Frankly, they aren't going away very quickly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.  It was a major F up by this administration when they disolved the Iraqi military.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously a last step of any military withdrawal.


The major problem with any "exit" from Iraq is that it requires the Iraqi's to have (A) a functional government and (B) the military capability to handle the insurgency on their own.  How long does America want to wait for the Iraqi's to put their crap together?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

We're still in Europe.  I suppose Roosevelt was a failure too.

[MaC]

love how my topic gets diverted to something else[/sarcasm]

My point is, for those partisan hacks: If George Bush tomorrow, did a complete 180 on most everything, removed our troops from Iraq and apologized, repealed the Patriot Act, put funding into stem cell research, became pro-choice, started 35 different social programs to help the poor, college students, the elderly and city dwellers, turned the pork barrel funding to help the 'blue states', tried firing Cheney and replacing him with Russ Feingold, confiscated our guns, raised taxes on the rich, paid off the deficit with it, and tried to start a national health care system, while backing off the the Social Security issue....  Why would you still hate him?  (I know this would never happen)  But my point is, why are the attacks on him personal?  Even if he could change, you'd still hate him and not his policies.  Why?