Leiberman defeated...maybe

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tobra
They don't think so, I have never seen a quote from any military member who felt they were there "for nothing". Just because you say it, does not make it so.

When deciding on a redeployment from an overseas military adventure, the last person I'm interested in hearing from is a soldier in the field in theater whose ego is completely wrapped up in being successful.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I think they'd be less worried about their ego being wrapped up in it than their mortal ass being wrapped up in it. . . It sounds a lot like you're attacking the troops. Although there's a SMALL amount of culpability there, let's keep the real blame for this quagmire right squarely where it belongs - on the policymakers and illusionists that created the spectre of Iraqi WMDs and phantom links to Al Qaeda. Remember who said "grave and gathering danger". That'll point you in the right direction of who the ghosts of all those dead soldiers should haunt.

The soldiers are following orders and short of EXTREME situations (spelled out in the UCMJ) they are expected to follow them to the letter under penalty of court-marshal.

Three words: Chain Of Command.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Tobra
***Okay my friend, where is the financial and material support coming from for these insurgents(Iran, yeah they are sending people too), why are the Persians so hot for the Iraqui government to fail

Iran is not "hot" for the Iraqi government to fail. Iraq is Iran's biggest ally in the region. Most of the people running Iraq lived in iran for the past twenty years. the insurgents have money not from iran, their arch enemy, but from years of Bath Party rule. You are clueless. You really have no idea of who's who.

***The Iranians are behind most of the trouble in that part of the world, they stir up lots of problems, let the US, along with the Brits, Aussies and Israelis chase around putting out fires and stay occupied.

Iran stirs up trouble in Iraq with Shiite death squads, which operate alonside Iraq's Shiite death squads. They are killing Sinnis so that when they kick America out on its arse, there are no pesky Sunnis to bohter them. Iran wants America to stay in Iraq, just like you. Does that concern you at all, that you have adopted the enemy's position on where America's military force should be deployed?

If we can get some semblance of stability in Iraq, it puts us in a much better position.

Iran is stable. How does that help America? If Iran was suffering from internal strife, would you send U.S. trops to stabilize the country for them?

Then why would you send U.S. troops to stabilize its sister country and ally, Iraq?

***Do you honestly believe that if we just bail it is going to make the situation in Iraq better?

Better in that we will no longer be devoting our resources to helping the enemy consolidate power, yes. Better for the Sunnis and Kurds? No. Better for America? Yes.

***I don't think you are a coward, you are an educated moron

Because I took the time to learn who's who in Iraq? Because when I hear "finish the job" I want to know what exactly the job is?

Don't be so casual with other people's lives, and my money. And with America's military readiness. Learn what the "course" is before you attack anyone that wants to change it.

Most of all, learn who it is you continue to lobby American soldiers to die for.

[hytem]

The Democrats these days are a more flexible party than the Republicans--which I think is a problem for the country.Lieberman just reflects that. The Republicans have become too rigid and lock-step in the Congress.

The primary system has fostered control of both major parties by minority left and right interests--to the exclusion of the centrists,who used to control both parties. Still, it is the centrists--now largely independent--who control the final elections. Despite this, the media tends to see things largely in terms of those fringe interests in both parties--to the exclusion of centrist views that still control elections. A disturbing paradox.

Lieberman is trying to take advantage of this by running as an independent--and portraying his opponents as "extremists." McCain may well have been elected President a while back running as an Independent. He chose to remain a loyal Republican. I suspect Lieberman will ultimately rethink his decision, after talking to a few of his Democratic party friends.
No sense in hurting the Party that has been very generous to him,having given him the opportunity to run for Vice President.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by hytem


Lieberman is trying to take advantage of this by running as an independent--and portraying his opponents as "extremists." McCain may well have been elected President a while back running as an Independent. He chose to remain a loyal Republican. I suspect Lieberman will ultimately rethink his decision, after talking to a few of his Democratic party friends.
No sense in hurting the Party that has been very generous to him,having given him the opportunity to run for Vice President.

I have a different take on Lieberman. When he says people are 'on the terrorists' side' for wanting to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that puts him at the extreme end of the Republican party on the political spectrum. I expect he will run as an independent and make a decent showing. But I think he will hurt the Republican candidate more than he will hurt Lamont.

You are aware that Rove contacted Lieberman and may assist in his campaign? If so, watch for Lamont to get slimed.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by techweenie
You are aware that Rove contacted Lieberman and may assist in his campaign? If so, watch for Lamont to get slimed.

You said that already. I bet Lamont is slimy enough on his own...

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
You said that already. I bet Lamont is slimy enough on his own...

How much are you betting?

[Rodeo]

Lamont reminds me of Mitt Romney more than anyone else. He's a successful businessman from a long line of successful businessmen, well spoken, and someone that has not made his living off the public dole. he meets a payroll every week and he knows the pressures facing business people today.

He's certainly not "loony left," as the Roves of this world will not doubt portray him. He just realizes that we had our clock cleaned in Iraq, and it's time to call it a day. that's not "left," it's realistic and smart.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rodeo
He's certainly not "loony left," as the Roves of this world will not doubt portray him. He just realizes that we had our clock cleaned in Iraq, and it's time to call it a day. that's not "left," it's realistic and smart.

He's more of a Republican moderate in fact. He just feels the Republican party abandoned its moderates in the late 80s/early 90s.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by techweenie
You are aware that Rove contacted Lieberman and may assist in his campaign?

First I have heard of this.....................what did he tell him?

[speeder]

Lieberman represents everything that is dead wrong in US policy for the last 6 years, and I'd be happy for him to fade into oblivian w/ his tail between his legs. HTF can he still think that Iraq was a smart/right thing to do? Jesus...

I can never remember a time when US politics were so hopeless; if Dems win control of congress we will have an absolute BS immigration policy that fails to address the 12 million(?) Mexicans squatting in the U.S. right now, and assures that life will continue to get more crowded, polluted and expensive here. If you think that life sucks now when you pay your property taxes to build schools for the "new Americans", just wait and see what your kids will be paying. And getting a hand full of empty peanut shells in return.

If repubs hold control, it will just empower the neocon crooks to continue their looting and killing, and we still probably won't deal w/ illegal immigration, which is a more serious problem than the ME, IMO. It's truly a nightmare.

[Nathans_Dad]

Oh yeah, a juicy tidbit I heard on NPR last night on the way home from work. I'm ashamed that this is happening in Texas (soon to be Tejas), but here goes:

The El Paso city council is considering a law that would limit the ability of their police to enforce immigration law. Basically the chief of police has decided to get tough on immigration and is reporting illegals to the INS after traffic stops. Illegal gets stopped for speeding, asked for license and registration, has none, then gets reported to the INS and detained until the INS arrives. So far, they have sent about 900 illegals back home.

The city council and the local hispanic groups are crying foul because they say it is making the illegals scared to work or leave the house...

[RoninLB]

Liberman's defeat defined the Dems as the anti-war party. The Dems surely have a secret plan to defeat terror that will be explained before this next election?

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

[Rodeo]

Funny, I didn't see the word "warrantless" in that quote.

[RoninLB]

anyone see an ACLU member or supporter around here ?

[Moneyguy1]

The mention of ACLU is always interesting. Favorable feelings for it depend on which side of your argument they are on. I have hated them on occasions and loved them (admittedly not very often) on others.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by RoninLB

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

Which terror plot was that? Because this week's British airliner plot was foiled because Muslims came forward about suspicious activities by their neighbors.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Liberman's defeat defined the Dems as the anti-war party. The Dems surely have a secret plan to defeat terror that will be explained before this next election?

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

You are trying to make people believe that Bush critics don't like, for some unknown reason, watching bad guys. That's the clear implication of your post. I know that you are too smart to actually believe that, and that you are fully aware of the warrant/no warrant distinction.

So next time you post something like that, at least give some small nod to honesty. Karl wouldn't like it, but I'm sure your fellow Pelicans would.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by techweenie
Which terror plot was that? Because this week's British airliner plot was foiled because Muslims came forward about suspicious activities by their neighbors.

that may have opened the door but according to newspapers and TV

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

[techweenie]

Originally posted by RoninLB
that may have opened the door but according to newspapers and TV

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

Um, yeah, and the reason they were under surveillance was because their Muslim neighbors turned them in.