or banishment. ;) :D

"getting out" *is* a solution and a plan whether you want to call it that or not. Whether it is a good solution is another question.

Your right to complain about the President and the schedule of Congress are two very different things.

Unless of course you are a Congressman...in which case I would say "Get off PPOT and get back to work!"

or make him a mod

oh, the humanity! :eek:

You don't want that.....muwahahahahaahaha. ;)

One shot, one troll.

DaveE posted :I just love the perspective, "Don't bash me for sending us up the creek without a paddle unless you have a plan for getting us out".

For some reason you are under the impression that Bush sent military forces into Iraq all by himself. I have no idea where you got that notion.
Remember that little vote they had where congress approved and authorized going into Iraq with military force? you know, the one where a whole bunch of democrats on congress and the senate said "heck yes, let's do it. It's a good idea".

It sure is easy for them (and you) to blame the other guy for something they helped make happen. CS.

I do seem to recall so much public support for war at the time that a "No" vote was probably political suicide for the caster.

I seem to have noticed virtually ALL of that public support has waned now. So if WE can change our minds, how come the people that govern us can't?

They should stay wed to a sinking ship just as a matter of principle?

I don't think so. It's time to leave Iraq or move into Kurdistan and call it a day.

WMD
OBL was Saddam's love child, too.

:D

"I was for it before I was against it" :D

This isn't about just changing their minds, which according to your post are just thoughtless mush that goes along with every public opinion whim.
It has to do with blaming the other guy for something they helped do.

Lots of Dems out there pretend the Iraq war is all Bush's fault. They have to grow some balls and admit that they voted for it too. And stop being stupid puppets who will say and do whatever is popular that day. How could anyone support someone like that?

If we're talking about "forgetting something" how about "forgetting" that the stated reasons for going into Iraq in the first place WERE NEVER THERE! No prob, only 3000 soldiers dead.

By the way, this whole concept of leaving before the "job is done" kinda riles me. Did ANYONE actually ever think (besides W) that we were going to knock out Saddam and then the populace would unite in a show of brotherhood singing Kumbaya and have a democratic system of government? Wasn't that just his little wet dream? Does that EVER happen in the Middle East? Do people within ANY country in the Middle East NOT fight each other tooth and nail over just about anything unless they are under a depots rule? I'm not advocating despots, I'm just asking if it was ever a realistic goal to have expected our involvemtn would somehow settle a couple thousand years enmity among people?

Damn, beat me to it!

Congress didn't send the troops over there. They authorized him to do it if he felt it necessary. At that point the decision was his. Do you want me to go way out on a limb and say Congress at the time was as stupid as him? I'll tell you what. I'll go so far as to say they were MORE stupid than him, if that is possible. Certainly more afraid of their jobs, in any case.

Sammy: The War is all the government's fault, and it's time to put an end to it.

I'd prefer to see Iraq partitioned and us stick our flag in Kurdistan and declare victory, but at this point even that is a long shot, and very few are even talking about that sort of strategy.

Just more of this "Stay the course" nonsense. "Staying the course" in the absence of a coherent strategy is just another name for "quagmire." And while the press was CLEARLY wrong when they called Iraq a quagmire during the initial invasion, they'd be completely correct if they called Iraq a quagmire now.

Hell, "quagmire" is probably an overly-optimistic appraisal.

And of course like Jim said, "WMD."

The lack of WMD changed things immensely for a huge chunk of the population.

Now, IMO the reason the Dems have not outright called for us to up and leave, or simply cut off the money, is because even they know how stupid it would be to just run home in obvious defeat.
So they are "Strategeryizing" themselves up some kind of plan that will let us save face at least a little while at the same time getting our boys home.

I'm prepared to give them some time, lord knows i gave GW enough rope to hang himself a hundred times. :(

I understand your point of wanting to see through something you started, but....

It's time to leave Iraq.

+1

1. The Executive branch sets policy

2. Congress authorizes funds

3. If the Executive branch performs poorly, Congress has the duty to determine what can be done fiscally to rectify the problem

4. If the Executive branch fails in its mission, and since Congress does not set policy, why should congress suggest other courses of action in order to save the Administration's bacon? Although this sounds callous, how many of you would deliberately step in to rescue some who, despite warnings to the contrary, acted impulsively and foolishly, and sought no outside advice? Yes, I know...the humane thing to do is to step in and save the individual from himself and perhaps that is what should be done now.

But how? It is obvious that there is very little compromise possible on the administration side, and blaming Congress at this juncture is an exercise in trying to transfer onus to the "new guys on the block". Even at that, recommendations across the aisle seem to be that timelines must be set, Iraq must step up to the plate and stop holding our coats while we do the dirty work and that diplomacy rather than sabre rattling should be employed. That sounds like an alternative plan to me.

Let's not even get into the "Everybody voted for it" mantra. Based on the information supplied and emotional mindset at the time, I might have been tempted as well. The past is past, and continually rehashing it ain't gonna change a thing. Where do we go from here is the relevant question, not the political "blame game" and name calling.

Am I wrong? If so, please elaborate.

+1

Unfortunately it seems the Democrats and their supporters who were lambasting the Republicans for inaction and "stay the course" can't seem to find enough time in between bashing the administration for decisions made years ago to actually form a plan...

Hence we are still "staying the course".

Rick, did Ann Coulter write that for you? ;)

We're 'staying the course' because it's Bush's course, not because the Dems have no plan. You know how it works.