Grave and Deteriorating

[eleanor]

Iraq situation is "grave and deteriorating".

"President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday."

It appears the Iraq Study Group has come to the very same conclusions the Democratic Party (esp J. Murtha) had come to some months ago. In fact, many of their recommendations are the same as those suggested by Dems (for which they were called "traitors")

Please discuss -- if you wish.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Iraq situation is "grave and deteriorating".

I didn't need a study to tell me that.

[Son of Norway]

So the obvious question is: Now what?

[cjive134]

Originally Posted by PackerfanXD

I didn't need a study to tell me that.

I think the President did though. Now he can put his plan for "victory" to bed for good.

[Blackwater]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

So the obvious question is: Now what?

And the obvious answer is: Wait for the Democrats to save the day!
Only problem with that is, they won't really propose anything new or different, because then they'll have to look in the mirror when they really just want to point fingers.

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Iraq Study Group has come to the very same conclusions the Democratic Party (esp J. Murtha) had come to some months ago. In fact, many of their recommendations are the same as those suggested by Dems (for which they were called "traitors")

Let me start by saying don't flame me.

I'm not going to say that I do or do not support the current president, or the war in Iraq...I'm going to leave my own political believes completely out of this topic because they belong elsewhere...but information like this needs more substance to make it viable.

First of all what defines a "grave and deteriorating" situation. How much worse is this war now than it was at the start of the war? How bad is this conflict in relation to other conflicts the United States has been involved in? Don't use abstract terms, give me numbers...I don't need anyone spoon feeding me their perception of a situation...give me the facts I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.

Second...who are the "Iraq Study Group"...a congressional oversight committe? a group of private investors and industrialists? a group of third grade students from Mrs. Fark's class? What qualifies them to make this conjecture? Do they have a monetary, social, or political agenda?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

And the obvious answer is: Wait for the Democrats to save the day!
Only problem with that is, they won't really propose anything new or different, because then they'll have to look in the mirror when they really just want to point fingers.

Why do you think that they refused to answer questions about what their plan for Iraq was before the elections???

I watched democrat after democrat (including Howard Dean) being asked what the party's plan was, and they would dance around the question and refuse to give a direct answer. Why? Because if they really told people what they wanted to do, they would lose support.

Why do you think the democrats won majorities in the house and senate? It is because there were so many conservative democrats running. You've got Jim Webb, former Navy Secretary under Reagan, who is pro-gun and a former republican. You've got the newly elected Senator from Penn., Bob Casey, who is anti-abortion. Harold Ford even said during his campain that he was a "pro-gun, pro-jesus democrat" (in his case his campain failed). The list goes on and on. Why do you think so many democrats went out of their way to talk about how conservative they are? Why do you think Pelois and Schumer went out of their way to recruit conservative democrats (dubbed blue-dog democrats by the media) to run? It is because they know that the country as a whole still leans to the right on domestic issues and they know they won't win if they don't recruit conservative democrats. Same thing applies with Iraq--don't tell the American people what your plan is because if they know about it, they won't vote for you. It must suck to run a political party that way by never telling anyone how you really feel because you might lose support. It's called playing politics folks. The Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and they aren't going to tell you what they really think. They would rather stay out of it and hope it gets worse so that they can blame Bush. If they stay out of it, then it can't ever come back to be partially their fault.

But let's not mischaracterize the ISG.

Originally Posted by eleanor

Iraq situation is "grave and deteriorating"

"President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday."

It appears the Iraq Study Group has come to the very same conclusions the Democratic Party (esp J. Murtha) had come to some months ago. In fact, many of their recommendations are the same as those suggested by Dems (for which they were called "traitors")

Please discuss -- if you wish.

Well that sounds good, let's "chery-pick" the information in the news about the ISG and only post the negative information in the forums as a start to a "fair" debate.

In order to be fair and balanced, lets include some information that eleanor "forgot" to post:

"But commissioners said they agree that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq is the one set forth by President Bush: an Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself."

"The group said U.S. forces should not pull out precipitously, since that could cause a 'blood bath.'"

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."

They call for "broad sustained consensus," and say the aim of the report is to move the country in that direction.

Sandra Day O'Connor said that the Iraq Study Group supports President Bush's goal in Iraq.

The Democrats were called "traitors" by some because they were advocating a "cut and run" strategy (interesting that they quieted this rherotic down shortly before the elections). The ISG calls for nothing of the sort, and even says specifically that a pullout would cause a bloodbath.

Like the liberal media, sometimes we try to focus on the negative too much.

Eleanor, judging from your posts, would it be wrong to conclude that you are against the war and want us to leave? If this is true, why are you using a report that is intended by its authors to bring us together by calling for us NOT to pull out, to achieve a common goal, to help Iraq, to finish the job, WIN THE WAR, etc, etc, etc as a defense for your anti-war position? Doesn't make sense to me.

I think you saw the words "grave", "deteriorating", and "Bush failed" and started frothing at the mouth.

Frank

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by robinsre

Let me start by saying don't flame me.

I'm not going to say that I do or do not support the current president, or the war in Iraq...I'm going to leave my own political believes completely out of this topic because they belong elsewhere...but information like this needs more substance to make it viable.

First of all what defines a "grave and deteriorating" situation. How much worse is this war now than it was at the start of the war? How bad is this conflict in relation to other conflicts the United States has been involved in? Don't use abstract terms, give me numbers...I don't need anyone spoon feeding me their perception of a situation...give me the facts I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.

Second...who are the "Iraq Study Group"...a congressional oversight committe? a group of private investors and industrialists? a group of third grade students from Mrs. Fark's class? What qualifies them to make this conjecture? Do they have a monetary, social, or political agenda?

Well, since I politely requested a discussion, I guess your best bet would be to read a newspaper, check out TV news, do a little independent research.

I really do not think it's my place to lead the class, do the research, assign the reading -- we are out of high school (I hope), and beyond undergrad. years (in age). It's O.K. if you don't care, aren't interested, think it foolish. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Of those many will vote based on the ABSOLUTE FACTS fed them by either left (or what passes for left these days) or right.

Discuss or not -- it matters not to me. It was just a passing thought.

[JakeUSA]

OUCH! Thanks Frank.

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Why do you think that they refused to answer questions about what their plan for Iraq was before the elections???

I watched democrat after democrat (including Howard Dean) being asked what the party's plan was, and they would dance around the question and refuse to give a direct answer. Why? Because if they really told people what they wanted to do, they would lose support.

Why do you think the democrats won majorities in the house and senate? It is because there were so many conservative democrats running. You've got Jim Webb, former Navy Secretary under Reagan, who is pro-gun and a former republican. You've got the newly elected Senator from Penn., Bob Casey, who is anti-abortion. Harold Ford even said during his campain that he was a "pro-gun, pro-jesus democrat" (in his case his campain failed). The list goes on and on. Why do you think so many democrats went out of their way to talk about how conservative they are? Why do you think Pelois and Schumer went out of their way to recruit conservative democrats (dubbed blue-dog democrats by the media) to run? It is because they know that the country as a whole still leans to the right on domestic issues and they know they won't win if they don't recruit conservative democrats. Same thing applies with Iraq--don't tell the American people what your plan is because if they know about it, they won't vote for you. It must suck to run a political party that way by never telling anyone how you really feel because you might lose support. It's called playing politics folks. The Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and they aren't going to tell you what they really think. They would rather stay out of it and hope it gets worse so that they can blame Bush. If they stay out of it, then it can't ever come back to be partially their fault.

But let's not mischaracterize the ISG.



Well that sounds good, let's "chery-pick" the information in the news about the ISG and only post the negative information in the forums as a start to a "fair" debate.

In order to be fair and balanced, lets include some information that eleanor "forgot" to post:

"But commissioners said they agree that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq is the one set forth by President Bush: an Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself."

"The group said U.S. forces should not pull out precipitously, since that could cause a 'blood bath.'"

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."

They call for "broad sustained consensus," and say the aim of the report is to move the country in that direction.

Sandra Day O'Connor said that the Iraq Study Group supports President Bush's goal in Iraq.

The Democrats were called "traitors" by some because they were advocating a "cut and run" strategy (interesting that they quieted this rherotic down shortly before the elections). The ISG calls for nothing of the sort, and even says specifically that a pullout would cause a bloodbath.

Like the liberal media, sometimes we try to focus on the negative too much.

Eleanor, judging from your posts, would it be wrong to conclude that you are against the war and want us to leave? If this is true, why are you using a report that is intended by its authors to bring us together by calling for us NOT to pull out, to achieve a common goal, to help Iraq, to finish the job, WIN THE WAR, etc, etc, etc as a defense for your anti-war position? Doesn't make sense to me.

I think you saw the words "grave", "deteriorating", and "Bush failed" and started frothing at the mouth.

Frank

Oh Dear. I ask for a discussion, and all I get is accusation. This is not about me. I'm not even going to take part. I posted two QUOTES from "The News", gave a little opinion -- and, I'm now the focus. My opinion doesn't matter -- I'm not going to change your mind -- you will not change mine. I started what I thought might be a discussion. I WILL STAY OUT OF IT.

Have at it guys.