58% wish the Bush presidency was simply over

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

Like I said: You wish...

[garya505 2]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

I don't understand. How will this cost them the election?

It's simple. If the Dems were to cut funding now the Reps will claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut. If the Dems are smart they will wait until after the election to cut the money. Yes, Bush-backers wil still claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut, but the Dems have their Pres in office at that point, and they have 4 years to get people to forget they cut the funding. Voters have short memories.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

I don't understand. How will this cost them the election?

It's simple. If the Dems were to cut funding now the Reps will claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut. If the Dems are smart they will wait until after the election to cut the money. Yes, Bush-backers wil still claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut, but the Dems have their Pres in office at that point, and they have 4 years to get people to forget they cut the funding. Voters have short memories.

I think it'll play out differently. Without any visible successes within the next 6-9 months, the President will have to start pulling down the troop levels. There's not a sole in Congress - except those that are not up for re-election or are tired of being a Member of Congress - that will support this quagmire beyond this summer. There won't be 150K troops in Iraq at the end of this year. And this will not require Congress to cut funding. Public pressure will build up over the next couple of months.

[garya505 2]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

I don't understand. How will this cost them the election?

It's simple. If the Dems were to cut funding now the Reps will claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut. If the Dems are smart they will wait until after the election to cut the money. Yes, Bush-backers wil still claim that the war was lost because the funding was cut, but the Dems have their Pres in office at that point, and they have 4 years to get people to forget they cut the funding. Voters have short memories.

I think it'll play out differently. Without any visible successes within the next 6-9 months, the President will have to start pulling down the troop levels. There's not a sole in Congress - except those that are not up for re-election or are tired of being a Member of Congress - that will support this quagmire beyond this summer. There won't be 150K troops in Iraq at the end of this year. And this will not require Congress to cut funding. Public pressure will build up over the next couple of months.

I think Bush knows he has to maintain troop levels, and he proposed the increase knowing full well it would probably get sabotaged but give him a chance of at least maintaining the current levels.

The Dems will play the political game with the war because they know they can win the election because the war took too long Americans have lost the will to win. Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I've only read the title, and felt the need to immediately post that I'm part of that 58%, and I'm a conservative. :sigh: Now, I'll go read the thread.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[GaryC 7]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

Sorry Steve. You really don't have a clue. There is a very real enemy. They have publicly declared war on us. They fired the first shots and killed 3000 people. They may or may not have been in Iraq at the start of the war but one thing is for sure, they are there now. If we don't deal with them in Iraq we will be dealing with them here. I really don't understand how you can't understand that simple concept. The dems will get their way. And a LOT of our people will be killed because of their cowardice. I only hope for your sake your not in the next city to be attacked.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

I had to laugh when the phrase "war on terror" became popular usage - grammatic inaccuracies aside I had a sudden vision that Stephen King might have wanted to go into hiding

Its unfortunate that the focus has moved away from a specific, identifiable enemy (as far as a terrorist organisation can be considered identifiable and specific) and became a broad morass of "middle-eastern types" most of whom follow differing religious ideologies and sectarian loyalties. Its even more unfortunate that people, unable to distinguish between those groups in what is a complex and disparate situation choose to lump them all together. It creates this bizarre illusion that there is something to be won and an enemy to be conquered. In this case, the "enemy" seems to be the entire country...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

Sorry Steve. You really don't have a clue. There is a very real enemy. They have publicly declared war on us. They fired the first shots and killed 3000 people. They may or may not have been in Iraq at the start of the war but one thing is for sure, they are there now. If we don't deal with them in Iraq we will be dealing with them here. I really don't understand how you can't understand that simple concept. The dems will get their way. And a LOT of our people will be killed because of their cowardice. I only hope for your sake your not in the next city to be attacked.

So, can you actually declare war on crime in your neighborhood? And if so, tell me how you'll know when you've won?

[GaryC 7]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

Sorry Steve. You really don't have a clue. There is a very real enemy. They have publicly declared war on us. They fired the first shots and killed 3000 people. They may or may not have been in Iraq at the start of the war but one thing is for sure, they are there now. If we don't deal with them in Iraq we will be dealing with them here. I really don't understand how you can't understand that simple concept. The dems will get their way. And a LOT of our people will be killed because of their cowardice. I only hope for your sake your not in the next city to be attacked.

So, can you actually declare war on crime in your neighborhood? And if so, tell me how you'll know when you've won?

So your saying because there is no specific country or government to fight that we should just ignore them? What kind of nonsense is this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So your saying because there is no specific country or government to fight that we should just ignore them? What kind of nonsense is this?

Your argument is a little like the boy who put his finger in the dike. Its like trying to count the grains of sand on a beach.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

I had to laugh when the phrase "war on terror" became popular usage - grammatic inaccuracies aside I had a sudden vision that Stephen King might have wanted to go into hiding

Its unfortunate that the focus has moved away from a specific, identifiable enemy (as far as a terrorist organisation can be considered identifiable and specific) and became a broad morass of "middle-eastern types" most of whom follow differing religious ideologies and sectarian loyalties. Its even more unfortunate that people, unable to distinguish between those groups in what is a complex and disparate situation choose to lump them all together. It creates this bizarre illusion that there is something to be won and an enemy to be conquered. In this case, the "enemy" seems to be the entire country...

With all the 'conservative' type think tanks that have effectively learned the power of emotion based words, it's no surprise as to the deliberate ambiguity of the phrase, "War on Terror." Prior to 9/11 and Bush's "War on Terror", I recall that we had no collective answer to the seemingly growing threat of terrorist acts throughout the world, except better intelligence. In the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence was regarded as a failure and a weak way to address terrorism. So here comes a rootin-tootin, gunslinger from Texas who follows the motto, "shoot first, and ask questions later." And people ate it up...or at least the spineless media did and we all got the wool pulled over our eyes.

So we got our military over in Iraq to squash an enemy that has no name - no leader. Who's the leader? Osama Bin Laden? How many deputies do you have to kill before the whole lot of the bandits are dead? Hmmm...too many questions...better start shootin' and leave the questionin afterwards.

That's my two cents...

[GaryC 7]

So your saying because there is no specific country or government to fight that we should just ignore them? What kind of nonsense is this?

Your argument is a little like the boy who put his finger in the dike. Its like trying to count the grains of sand on a beach.

So your also saying that we should do nothing? #######? Do you really think that if we ignore them they will go away? Or we should just retract our country into it's shell and hide from the world? Or are you one of those that thinks we can negotiate (kiss a$$ ) with the radical fundamentalist Muslims?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not all wars are lost on the battlefield.

You might have noticed, but this war wasn't started on the battlefield...

It's a fictitious war, fighting a fictitious enemy as Reynaldo pointed out poignantly, earlier in the thread. It's like declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. Rey - that was awesome BTW!

Sorry Steve. You really don't have a clue. There is a very real enemy. They have publicly declared war on us. They fired the first shots and killed 3000 people. They may or may not have been in Iraq at the start of the war but one thing is for sure, they are there now. If we don't deal with them in Iraq we will be dealing with them here. I really don't understand how you can't understand that simple concept. The dems will get their way. And a LOT of our people will be killed because of their cowardice. I only hope for your sake your not in the next city to be attacked.

So, can you actually declare war on crime in your neighborhood? And if so, tell me how you'll know when you've won?

So your saying because there is no specific country or government to fight that we should just ignore them? What kind of nonsense is this?

Exactly. Declaring war on terror is as nonsensical as declaring war on crime in your neighborhood - nothing but a feel-good BS slogan...means nothing in concrete terms. It doesn't answer questions, but it sure taps into your emotions, doesn't it?

So your saying because there is no specific country or government to fight that we should just ignore them? What kind of nonsense is this?

Your argument is a little like the boy who put his finger in the dike. Its like trying to count the grains of sand on a beach.

So your also saying that we should do nothing? #######? Do you really think that if we ignore them they will go away? Or we should just retract our country into it's shell and hide from the world? Or are you one of those that thinks we can negotiate (kiss a$$ ) with the radical fundamentalist Muslims?

Ignore whom, Gary? Who are we fighting? And when do you claim victory? Think outside the box, brother.