Davebo Says:

April 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I thought we were discussing the war in Iraq? But if we must sway off topic.

Each of the democrats running in the primary offer their plans to combat terror. Many in great detail.

Sorry, Davebo, been there, done that……both a couple of days ago when I posted on it and again today.

Iraq- one paragraph from each Clinton and Obama which, at little risk of oversummarizing, is…….need timetable and talk.

Terrorism-Obama (authored Lugar-Obama initiative back in ‘05)
Clinton-nothing

Gee, I guess I might as well declare my candidacy as well!

Could you provide links to those polls? We were referring to prewar sentiment.

Here is your fringe 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[1]

The rest of those antiwar chaps are reasonable people who just oppose war. I have no problems with them. Its the incessant lying or distortions of the truth and name calling I oppose. Always have and always will.

Public attitudes toward France, Russia and Germany have eroded sharply. More than two in three Americans say France is being unreasonable in its opposition to a resolution that could lead to war. More than half say France is “stabbing the U.S. in the back.”

Polls said Bush lost both Elections too. Polls, Polls, Polls. Havent you folks figured out that polls are no longer that accurate.

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[1]

For every poll you roll out I can roll out my own polls.

But this is pointless. Everyone knows that France and Russia are opposed to the war and were from day one.

Square that with statements by Vladimir Putin that Russia is a Muslim Country and France being in bed with the middle east since the 60’s and its not hard to conclude that both France and Russia would allow terrorists to attack the United States at will while actively working to prevent the USA from exerting any more influence in the region then they already had.

They would never have allowed us another resolution. Never. That would have been like demanding Saddam Hussein sign a confession.

I’ve been asking over and over what is the plan. What plan do the democrats have on the war on terror.

I thought we were discussing the war in Iraq? But if we must sway off topic.

Each of the democrats running in the primary offer their plans to combat terror. Many in great detail.

You might try their campaign websites, or even Google.

In defense of Nobody I’ll remind everyone that all but a fringe believed Hussein was a threat, and even if they were not delighted at the prospect, they saw this war as a dirty job that needed to be done, if not now, then later, and supported the war.

Define “fringe” for us?

By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they’re ready for such an invasion “in the next week or two.”

But that support drops off if the U.N. backing being sought by the United States, Britain and Spain Monday is not obtained. If the U.N. Security Council rejects a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favor a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration does not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war drops to 47%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

Note the date of that poll. In what world does 47% represent “all but a fringe”?

No one knows.

No one cares.

It will be over for us. And save a cool 2.8 billion or so a week and 10 US kids dead.

I guess you’d prefer to continue the carnage and costs but for the life of me I can’t figure out why.

I’d rather see you drag the best and brightest from the anti-”War against Terrorism” camp into the center ring and get them to “give us the plan from here”….which you have correctly pointed out several times before….seems to be lacking.

You will then be debating from at least an even standpoint, if not an advantaged standpoint.

I should have said Im opposed to the ANTIWAR not the left. This time my apologies to the left.

Surprised. You shouldnt be if you actually read what I have posted here for the last few weeks.

Im opposed to the mindless lies of the left and their ill conceived notion that the war will be over if we just come home.

It is only beginning.

Well thats a curious deflection. Lets see there are Democrats and Republicans. The voters voted in the Democrats and now the Democrats are trying to force us out of Iraq. But its not the Democrats fault its the voters fault.

So now the lefts new plan is to either blame the Republicans, Neocons or the Voters for anything that goes wrong in Iraq?

Gosh those Democrats are saints. I must admit.

To point to a few Conservatives and say they are opposed to the war is about as helpful as pointing to Democrats who were critical of Clinton or Jimmy Carter and say that proves their policies are wrong. Many on the left were opposed to going into Somalia but we did. Going into Bosnia and we did. Going in as peace keepers but we did. Many on the left were demanding Carter attack Iran and he didnt.

This is the same argument you make for the Intelligence. Some people came forward and said the intell was wrong so that means Bush Lied. Yet country after country told us their intell suggests he had wmds. Our own intell suggests they did. But because a few were critical of it then that proves your point?

Because Bill Buckley, Brent Scowcroft and others have been critical is a slam dunk? If that were the case politics would get nothing done, because you never do anything by absolute consensus.

As for comparing Attacking China vs. Attacking Afghanistan or Iraq. The mandate was there. Lie about it, deny it, Scream we were duped. Whatever. The mandate was there from not only the American people but a 15-0 vote in the UN Security council along with a whole bunch of other Resolutions.

Preemptive my anus canal. The world demanded it after 911. Hesitantly to be sure, but never the less. A coalition larger then was used in the first gulf war was assembled and the war was begun.

Now because it did not go smooth its cut and run and blame the neocons.

The elections, they said, made it clear that voters didn’t have the patience to wait for Iraqis to take the lead.

The issue, then, isn’t Democratic control of congress, but the public sentiment that control represents.

Democrats, therefore, are not causing the strategy change, though as I said, I’d have no problem were that true. Strategy is being changed because the American public clearly desires it to be so. that’s what happens in a democracy.

I also note that, Among everyday Iraqis, some said they didn’t trust their forces, saying they were sectarian and easily susceptible to corruption. only re-inforces my assertion about the partisan nature of the ISF.

My disagreement isn’t with the article, but with your mischaracterization of its contents.

McPeak also added: “It’s not a question of whether we’re going to leave Iraq — it’s a question of when.”

But I’m guessing Nobody has 9 stars on his epilet.

Even Scowcroft, Poppie Bush’s security adviser, calls out the Bush 43 ME policies as a failure. Is Scowcroft a raving Liberal. I believe Bill Buckley is even critical of W, is he another raving Liberal. Many paleoconservatives have been against the war from the start, more raving Liberals?