Latest Dem plans on Iraq: rename 'cut and run'

from JoeUser Forums
If you can't get support for your plans, or worse yet, if you are getting hammered by the other side, just change the name of the plan, change the wording just a little, or in a stroke of Clinton-esqe genius just change or challenge the meanings of some of the wording you are you using and claim that what you are proposing isn't what it is at all.

That seems to be the latest "plan" by the Democrats. Those same Democrats that have hammered President Bush over not having a plan, not setting a date certain, not drawing down troops, not handing off to the Iraqis and just leaving that country.

News cycles today (via Washington Post radio as an example) note that a few Senators, including Carl Levin, are proposing new plans that would get us out of Iraq and force the President to to let them stand on their own. They claim we need to take away the security blanket so that the Iraqis quit relying on us and stand for themselves. Nice claims. Sounds reasonable. They even continue on to say their plan isn't "cut and run" and that we wouldn't be "abandoning the Iraqis and surrendering to the terrorists."

Well I say if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, etc....

Nice try Democrats (and other liberals that want us to abandon the effort and accept a partial victory, which is also in fact a partial defeat). Hopefully the other side will continue to nail you for supporting what is, in fact, a CUT AND RUN plan.
politics
3,757 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
New job proposal for Congressional Democrats: dictionary editors.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Goes perfect with this.

https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=121226
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they are starting to learn from Clinton, then there is a possibility they may have a fighting chance in the next election.  If they can marginalize their kooks.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they are starting to learn from Clinton, then there is a possibility they may have a fighting chance in the next election. If they can marginalize their kooks.


The loons are their base. They would never "marginalize" them.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
hey it's a step up from there would famous OSTRICH MANUEVER
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
hey it's a step up from there would famous OSTRICH MANUEVER


MM, Ostrichs stick their head in the sand, not up their.........ooops.....

See how they don't compare to democrats.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Grant you are correct, Dems are tlaking about a cut and run, but what's exactly wrong with a cut and run where we get or men and women out of harms way?
** Iraq will never be stable. **

Just how long do our people have to stay there?
Is it until we get a "W" on our score card?

Correct me if I am wrong but we never got one of those "W"'s in Vietnam.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Correct me if I am wrong but we never got one of those "W"'s in Vietnam.

We did in Germany, Italy and Japan.  Not every country starts with V and ends with run.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
We did in Germany, Italy and Japan. Not every country starts with V and ends with run.
There you again! I've reminded you repeatedly Iraq and its questionable strategy cannot be compared to WWII.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see how we're ever gonna see anything that even resembles a partial victory if we let the doves and utter wimps in the Congress decide our foreign policy and military policy for us.

Not that George W. Bush is a genius, hell many would say he's far from it, but the one thing he's doing properly is letting the military leaders decide the best strategy to use. He's put smart people into positions of leadership, he's given them what they've asked for, and he's letting them do their jobs.

Yes, I know there are dissidents in the military, or formerly in the military, that don't agree with whats been done. I know there are doves out there, I know there are those that have suffered losses and legitimately don't want to see anyone else suffer them, but none of them are leaders, or at least are not leaders in this area. They might be the leaders for a complete and utter retreat and surrender. They might be the first to go running and screaming in a disaster, but they aren't leaders.

They are worse than Monday morning quarterbacks, and yet they feel that they may be able to score political points by continuing to preach doom and gloom and continuing to put forth ideas that we should abandon the path we're on, abandon the people we should be working with as allies, and just leave Iraq and Afghanistan to carry on internal battles until the next Saddam comes into power, and until the next Taliban takes over.

Not a great idea.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

There you again! I've reminded you repeatedly Iraq and its questionable strategy cannot be compared to WWII.

I served with Ronald Reagan.  I worked with Ronald Reagan.  And you sir, are not Ronald Reagan! (with appologies to Lloyd Bentsen).