I noticed too that Sen. Hagel made the comment that he thought the President should take the time to talk to Cindy. Like he said, what harm can it do to invite her on up to the ranch and just have a 'sit down' with her. Maybe nobody's mind will be changed but at least she will have had the opportunity to talk to the man she holds responsible for her son's death.
The problem right now is there are so many things we need to keep focus on that it's hard to keep our eye's on all the balls. There's Iraqnam, Rovegate, Roberts nomination , and we best not forget SS either. Because it wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary for Bush to do it like he did Bolton and slip it in via the back door. The man is capable of anything. There is so much we must be vigilant of. It's almost exhausting. And we have so very little help from the MSM. It seems the bloggers are fighting this battle against the evil that has infected our country.
And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.
I always thought this made about as much sense as the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" defense.
If our announcing a timetable would cause them to just sit it out until we left, then why don't they just sit it out until we leave?
If we were gonna do what we said we were gonna do in the first place, we shoulda carpet-bombed the crap outta the terrorist strongholds for a while and THEN send the troops to clean up the mess.
That's the way modern warfare is SUPPOSED to work, anyway.
If our announcing a timetable would cause them to just sit it out until we left, then why don't they just sit it out until we leave? Ickabod.
They don't because there are thousands of Iraqi's who are volunteering to serve in the police and army, who don't want the insurgents there telling them how to live and what to do. The longer we are there, the better equipped and trained they become. This makes them ever more able to effectively deal with the terrorists. So, the terrorists can't just wait us out, they have to try to force our hand in leaving. They need us gone, before the Iraqi police and army get up to full capability, and can not only effectively counter the terrorists but eliminate them as a threat, smashing them like the cockroaches they are. Why do you think the terrorists keep killing fellow Muslims at the police stations?
C.
Iraq a quagmire? For whom? My money goes with the terrorists being bogged down in a mucky mess. For instance, where is their base of operations? Answer: They have none. They are constantly on the run and have no way of getting a stronghold anywhere. Also, they are unpopular with the vast majority of the people in that area of the world, not vice versa. In addition, these "attacks" by the terrorists are only meant to instill fear into Iraqis, et. al., and Americans. The only results are gory videos and small pockets of destruction. But these acts have been going on for years, so it is nothing new. In other words, these clowns haven't advanced much, nor will they. They simply can't survive or outlast America or the Iraqis (once their military can stand on its own). They are trying to dig their heels into the ground, but they are only finding quicksand.
WF -
But these acts have been going on for years, so it is nothing new. In other words, these clowns haven't advanced much, nor will they.
Are you implying that there were insurgent attacks that killed innocent civilians inside Iraq before we got there?
YES!
O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, all of them have savagely attacked this grieving mother for daring to question the administration's rationale for war.
Yeah right. And James Carville is just a regular guy speaking his mind!
Sheehan is a liar, no matter how you cut it. For the news to point this out is hardly a savage attack!
C.
So, the terrorists can't just wait us out, they have to try to force our hand in leaving. They need us gone, before the Iraqi police and army get up to full capability, and can not only effectively counter the terrorists but eliminate them as a threat, smashing them like the cockroaches they are. Why do you think the terrorists keep killing fellow Muslims at the police stations?
You totally missed my point, which is probably my fault because i wasn't very clear.
I'm not sure i can be any more clear here, but i'll try.
What does the phrase "they'll just wait us out" imply? It implies their true agenda has nothing to do with our being there. Rather, their true agenda is one that can only be carried out once we leave. Or can more easily be carried out once we leave. Therefore, they need us gone, not as their agenda, but in order to carry out their agenda.
So, if that's the case, the best, easiest, and quickest way for them to get us to leave is to actually end the insurgency. Allow peace to settle in. Stop the car bombs, stop setting IED devices, go home, take a nap, and let it appear the Iraqi's are handling themselves. Then, when we leave, start it all up again.
Unless Bush is lying, we'd have been out of there a year and a half ago if there was no insurgency. Or maybe they know something we don't - or that about 27 people in this country still don't - that Bush is a liar and we don't ever plan on leaving.
So my ultimate point is this. Either their sole agenda is to get us to leave, which renders Bush's rationale for not setting a timetable as moot......or they aren't so desperate for us to leave that announcing a timetable would make any difference - thereby rendering his rationale as moot. Either way, it's no more a legitimate rationale than the "fight them there" rationale is.
Three things, Chris.
1. Show me proof that the insurgent attacks were taking place in Iraq before we invaded.
2. I've never endorsed James Carville's M.O. Your logic here is the equivalent of two wrongs make a right. Just because someone else has done it too, does not mean that it is right.
3. Sheehan is a liar? Prove it. No speculation, just fact.
But Kissfan, two wrongs do make a right. Right? Or should I say "wrong wrong"?
No. That can't be right. Must be wrong. So that would make it half right. Or something.
Anyway...
Chris did you just call O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and Limbaugh "the news"? Funny how that little tidbit speaks volumes about your political leanings, isn't it?
And what does James Carville have to do with what O'Liely, Culter, Malkin and Limburger do? Just because Carville did something doesn't mean that that crowd is in the right. I don't seriously pay attention to what Carville does or says, so maybe you could actually tell me what yer talkin' aboot.
And what exactly is Sheehan lying about? That her son was killed in Iraq? Or that she wants an answer from the President?
Sheehan is a liar, check the Vacaville newspaper on June 24 2004, where she was happy and praied the President.
Jesse, I don't hid my political leanings. Sheehan says the President killed her son, which is funny because I thought she was praising the president, in the paper, and now he killed her son? I thought terrorists killed her son actually.
And again, because people in the news point out facts about Sheehan doesn't mean they are slandering her name or what ever. She is a left wing zealot, who has been found out. I don't really care about her as she will be forgotten in a month or so.
C.
Chris,
I told you before over at Wanda's site, Sheehan made those comments, but they were taken out of context. Her original statement clearly outlined her misgivings about Bush and the Iraq war.
Here's the relevant quote from the 6/24/04 article that you're referring to.
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
You may want to check out these follow up articles from the same newspaper explaining how the quotes were taken out of context and what the real meaning of them was. Check here and here.
If you read them, you'll see that Sheehan has not changed her position. The truth is that Drudge quoted her out of context to give the illusion that she changed her position.
Yes part of what she said was taken out of context, and then last night I saw video of her on FOX spouting off more extremist left views about how we have been killing people since we (White Europeans) arrived here in North America. Sheehan is an extremist in the vein of Ward Churchill, and she is being found out. So while yes part of what she said was taken out of context, she is being shown for what she is.
There is nothing commendable about what she is doing. She is exercising her right to free speech, but so what? Is it constructive? Is anything more than an attempt to make her self the center of attention? Are any of her points of view realistic? Her rhetoric is self-serving and meaningless.
People who hold her up a something to be emulated or admired are sadly mistaken. They are often willing to be associated with a person of Sheehan's ilk because of dislike and I honestly believe outright hatred of President Bush. In the end however is that constructive? An act of war was perpetrated against this country and its people, what is it someone like Sheehan expects? Does she really think the President is going to sit and ask himself "why do these people hate us, want to kill and maim us, what is the root cause? Gimme a break.
C.
An act of war was perpetrated against this country and its people...
But not by the country her son died fighting in.
So Chris, are you denying that we ("white Europeans") ever killed anyone when we came to this country? Is it an extremist view to say that? Is that what you mean, because I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at.
Also, are you saying there's nothing commendable about standing up for what you believe in? Or are you saying that there's nothing commendable about standing up for something that contradicts the president? Once again, I'm a little confused here.
"She is exercising her right to free speech, but so what?"
So what? What do you mean, so what? Everyone has the right to free speech. Cindy, Rush, you, me, everyone. You don't have to agree with her. You don't have to listen to her. Shut her off and ignore her if you don't like what she's saying but don't try to stifle it because you disagree with it.
The point I was trying to make was that Drudge misrepresented what she said. Therefore your statements about her being a liar were inaccurate. Now you're trying to change the subject to why you dislike her. Let's just stick to the fact that Drudge was wrong.
No the country that commited an act of war was not a country at all but rather a band of dirty smelly religous zealots who dream of killing you and me. However loads and loads of these filthy scumbags are in the country fighting our troops where Sheehan's son was killed.
Did white europeans come and commit genocide as implied by Sheehan? No. Where some dispicable acts committed? Yes. I am just not into revising history as so many on the left are.
I am all for standing up for what you believe in, but if I am going to do this, I am going to take a long hard look at why I am doing it. I am not going to be someone's protest monkey. I am not giong to stand up and say that the President killed my son, and we should just stop fighting evil because it suits my purpose of trying to humiliate the President. I am going to be honest enough to have a actual solution and reason for making a media spectacle of myself before doing so.
I am not trying to stiffle Sheehan, actually I am glad that she is doing it because it shows what a truck load of morons the extreme left actually is.
C.
"No the country that commited an act of war was not a country at all but rather a band of dirty smelly religous zealots who dream of killing you and me. However loads and loads of these filthy scumbags are in the country fighting our troops where Sheehan's son was killed."
Thanks to us. It's too bad we let them in.
And I don't believe that Cindy Sheehan is anybody's "protest monkey." She went there of her own accord. This is her choice and she is voicing her opinion. And she does have a solution: Bring them home. I, for one, would feel a hell of a lot safer having our troops here at home protecting us than having them halfway around the world fighting what amounts to a distraction put up by al Qaeda.
And "truckload of morons?" I'm amused that this comes from someone who belongs to the same political party as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and plenty of other raving lunatics.
Commenting by HaloScan
