W's objective(s) in Iraq

[crunch]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Right now, that's the best I have. I'm open, change my mind QC.

Let me give it a shot CJ...

The economy, fueled by his tax cuts.

I'm still trying to come up with the other side of the coin, something he did wrong, beside his "Bushisms".

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

As I see it, he has two options--fundamentally redefine what "victory" means, or create a major distraction, like launching an air attack on Iran.

He'd better hurry - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons..."

 

[crunch]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

I've been working on a new thread on just that subject... stay tuned.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

OK, a couple of my biotches with W are:

1) Immigration. I don't agree with almost any of his stance although I do believe that some type of amnesty is required (I just don't see us packing up people in planes, trains and automobiles). We do NOT need guest-workers at all and we do not need a fence. We need to aggressively enforce the laws already on the books. Period.

2) (with the benefit of hindsight, and ongoing) I am disgusted that he has not taken his detractors within the Government and Internationally head on. It makes no sense to me. I do not see what risk there ever was to calling out people that have openly called him a liar. The only thing that makes any sense is not stooping to their level, but the fact is silence only made their words stronger.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

QC, I think if you had a little time and a list of accomplishments/decisions, you could find many more things that make him a disappointment.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Well Pointer the challenge was for one, and I did list "a couple". There are more . . .

He still gets the highest praise from me for making a stand in the Middle East. Something had to give. Our interests are threatened, and setting an example to other nations as to the line we will not allow rogue nations to cross these days is extremely valuable. I am more of a big picture kinda guy. That's what I want from our President too.

 

[technostingray]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Hey QC, what's the haps? See I am back on your S list. More lyrics: If you can't please everyone, you got to please you'self....

 

[PW2]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Quote>

The guy can't win no matter what he does, it all about hating President Bush, plain as day.

quote off>

This I don't understand at all. It is not about hating Bush at all. It is about hating his policies.

And more specifically, re Iraq at least, hating the disasterous and bankrupt neo-con idealogy that has brought us to the place we are, of which Bush seems to be a proponent.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

PW2,

Could you define "neo-con idealogy" please? Not rhetorical, I honestly don't know what it includes . . .

techno,

Check PM. I don't keep an "S" list, although I am probably on some . . .

 

[POINTER94]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

QC,

Don't get me wrong, I think that President Bush has done an oK job, but missed so many opportunities for greatness. The liberals have shown themselves to be the wild eyed Kool-aid drinkers based in hatred and inflexiblity. Bush lied- people died. What a disgusting group. Troops called Nazi's, terrorists, etc. Their true colors came out and it was definately enlightening. This is their idea of supporting our troops in wartime.

Bush should have conducted this operation like a war. Not a police action. Where are the new twin towers? I would have used those as a rallying point with news updates weekly on their progress. Rally the country. Remind the country what happened before left wing radicals rewrite the history books. Once he realized that the MSM was more sypathetic with the enemy than our own troops, get them out of there. There is no freedom of the press in a war zone during ongoing manuevers. What the press has done during this conflict makes me physically ill.

He has been a good democrat president to date, not a very good conservative one. With one exception, supreme court nominees. I haven't heard anyone able to smear these good men, even with the willing accomplices in the msm.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

supreme court nominees. I haven't heard anyone able to smear these good men, even with the willing accomplices in the msm

This may be the most powerful privilege of the President's. I recall that they actually tried to besmirch Roberts which was laughable. That guy is so squeaky clean it is almost scary. The perfect appointee if you ask me and he will prove to be a great Chief.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

QC, you must have missed it. I watched the news during the hearings for each appointee and it really is the power of the senate to approve appointees, so it is really their power. Open up the history books it is time to rewrite again.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Here is a listing of the "No" votes for Roberts. I think this should haunt them. Politically and/or stupidity driven. I don't believe they understand the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It is to rule on the legality or Constitutionality of an issue. It is not about personal beliefs . . .

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

 

[crunch]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

I don't believe they understand the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It is to rule on the legality or Constitutionality of an issue. It is not about personal beliefs . .

They are often quizzed only about their beliefs, and maybe this is a good thing... beliefs have a tendency to color the way a person will perceive a question of legality or how the Constitution should be interpreted.

 

[crunch]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

BTW, back to the subject of this thread.... "W" has gotten agreement from the Iraqi Government to political, economic and military benchmarks... Probably be the leading headline tomorrow in The New York Times.

Saw this coming when Maliki instituted his drive to "re-take Bagdad" starting yesterday after a 2 hour phone call from Bush Thursday.

From all reports, US and Coalition forces are only "on call" if the Iraqi Army runs into something they can't handle... I think Maliki got the message.