Specter: Bush not sole 'decision-maker'...OUCH!!!

[garya505 2]

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

So you are essentially advocating war without end, a perpetual state of conflict with no clear victory conditions and no clear enemy other than what the government chooses to tell you. Good luck - you'll be wading in blood for years, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before, if not worse.

You've said several times that you understand the complexity of the world situation as it pertains to the war on terror. Why then are you defending a policy which essentially equates to "Running a bull through the China shop" of the middle-east, effectively ignoring the sectarian and religious differences that divide the different nations and factions within them? As I see it you're the one who wants the "nice, clean solution" - thinking that you can promote democracy at the point of a gun, and that fear will somehow stop terrorists from pursuing their ideological agenda. Its that ideology (several centuries worth BTW) that needs to be changed - and pervasive as it is, it cannot be changed with violence.

I don't expect you'll agree with me, or cast less scorn on this post than my previous ones on this topic. Its not only your argument that I disagree with - its the simplistic terms of reference used to address these issues that makes these discussions these topics tiresome and really quite futile.

OK, you don't like my plan. Fair enough. What's your plan then? Can you provide any specifics, beyond this vague "changing of ideology"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

So you are essentially advocating war without end, a perpetual state of conflict with no clear victory conditions and no clear enemy other than what the government chooses to tell you. Good luck - you'll be wading in blood for years, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before, if not worse.

You've said several times that you understand the complexity of the world situation as it pertains to the war on terror. Why then are you defending a policy which essentially equates to "Running a bull through the China shop" of the middle-east, effectively ignoring the sectarian and religious differences that divide the different nations and factions within them? As I see it you're the one who wants the "nice, clean solution" - thinking that you can promote democracy at the point of a gun, and that fear will somehow stop terrorists from pursuing their ideological agenda. Its that ideology (several centuries worth BTW) that needs to be changed - and pervasive as it is, it cannot be changed with violence.

I don't expect you'll agree with me, or cast less scorn on this post than my previous ones on this topic. Its not only your argument that I disagree with - its the simplistic terms of reference used to address these issues that makes these discussions these topics tiresome and really quite futile.

OK, you don't like my plan. Fair enough. What's your plan then? Can you provide any specifics, beyond this vague "changing of ideology"?

Well I guess we're back to - "liberals like to complain, but don't have any ideas of their own". Its easy for someone who just points at the President and says "I agree with everything he does". Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

As regards changing ideology, I don't think that is achievable in the short or medium term - and certainly not with military force.

Edited February 1, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

Sure but the bushbashers (which seems to be a statistical majority these days) aren't out there spending your tax $ on controversial wars and getting people killed to no purpose.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

Sure but the bushbashers (which seems to be a statistical majority these days) aren't out there spending your tax $ on controversial wars and getting people killed to no purpose.

yet congress gave him the go-ahead and they are not held accountable either

[yogib37 3]

This is actually a bit of a gray area. Once the President has the troops and the funding and the authorization, he gets to execute the will of the people without Congress looking over his shoulder. Congress doesn't get to say al-Anbar over Baghdad.

Congress holds the purse, though, and if the President needs more troops and money (or a war with Iran), he's gotta ask. This is where it gets tricky; once force is authorized, does Congress have to give the president whatever he wants and rubber stamp it? I don't see why; that's the point of a check. See this rhetoric for what it is; a power grab, and a way to demonize opposition to an unpopular war. Good for Spector for calling him on it.

(I don't think it's an election year ploy; Spector's been calling the administration on its bullshit pretty consistently. Plus, his seat is pretty secure. He's popular in Pa.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

Bush does not even belive in the Constitution.. He was quoted as saying about the Constitution is "just a god damm piece of papper'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yet congress gave him the go-ahead and they are not held accountable either

Put it another way - if you work for a corporation and your annual profits aren't up to muster, who are the shareholders going to come for first - the guy at the top or middle-management?

Edited February 1, 2007 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

Sure but the bushbashers (which seems to be a statistical majority these days) aren't out there spending your tax $ on controversial wars and getting people killed to no purpose.

yet congress gave him the go-ahead and they are not held accountable either

I thought we were going to be done with this, but for the record, she has posted about your #######. I only said some men are compensating, it was a joke, and I didn't necessarily mean anything found in a guy's netherregions, ok? Can you let it go, old bulldog?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

Sure but the bushbashers (which seems to be a statistical majority these days) aren't out there spending your tax $ on controversial wars and getting people killed to no purpose.

yet congress gave him the go-ahead and they are not held accountable either

I thought we were going to be done with this, but for the record, she has posted about your #######. I only said some men are compensating, it was a joke, and I didn't necessarily mean anything found in a guy's netherregions, ok? Can you let it go, old bulldog?

um, alex, would you please quite carrying on about my #######. it's starting to make you look freaky.

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, seriously, I've never said anything about your #######. If I look freaky I'm sure it's only to you. Can you just drop the subject?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Charles, seriously, I've never said anything about your #######. If I look freaky I'm sure it's only to you. Can you just drop the subject?

alex, i never thought i'd say this to a woman, but about my #######: just let it go, k?

[Fandango 1,439]

Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

i see the same thing in regard to the bushbashing

Sure but the bushbashers (which seems to be a statistical majority these days) aren't out there spending your tax $ on controversial wars and getting people killed to no purpose.

yet congress gave him the go-ahead and they are not held accountable either

I thought we were going to be done with this, but for the record, she has posted about your #######. I only said some men are compensating, it was a joke, and I didn't necessarily mean anything found in a guy's netherregions, ok? Can you let it go, old bulldog?

how'd it go from the prez and congress to a #######? did I miss summat or are we talkin bout Willy?

[garya505 2]

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

So you are essentially advocating war without end, a perpetual state of conflict with no clear victory conditions and no clear enemy other than what the government chooses to tell you. Good luck - you'll be wading in blood for years, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before, if not worse.

You've said several times that you understand the complexity of the world situation as it pertains to the war on terror. Why then are you defending a policy which essentially equates to "Running a bull through the China shop" of the middle-east, effectively ignoring the sectarian and religious differences that divide the different nations and factions within them? As I see it you're the one who wants the "nice, clean solution" - thinking that you can promote democracy at the point of a gun, and that fear will somehow stop terrorists from pursuing their ideological agenda. Its that ideology (several centuries worth BTW) that needs to be changed - and pervasive as it is, it cannot be changed with violence.

I don't expect you'll agree with me, or cast less scorn on this post than my previous ones on this topic. Its not only your argument that I disagree with - its the simplistic terms of reference used to address these issues that makes these discussions these topics tiresome and really quite futile.

OK, you don't like my plan. Fair enough. What's your plan then? Can you provide any specifics, beyond this vague "changing of ideology"?

Well I guess we're back to - "liberals like to complain, but don't have any ideas of their own". Its easy for someone who just points at the President and says "I agree with everything he does". Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

As regards changing ideology, I don't think that is achievable in the short or medium term - and certainly not with military force.

Well, while you're thinking about your long term change in "ideology" those guys (you know, those ficticious guys you think noone knows who or where they are) will be planning their next attack.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

So you are essentially advocating war without end, a perpetual state of conflict with no clear victory conditions and no clear enemy other than what the government chooses to tell you. Good luck - you'll be wading in blood for years, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before, if not worse.

You've said several times that you understand the complexity of the world situation as it pertains to the war on terror. Why then are you defending a policy which essentially equates to "Running a bull through the China shop" of the middle-east, effectively ignoring the sectarian and religious differences that divide the different nations and factions within them? As I see it you're the one who wants the "nice, clean solution" - thinking that you can promote democracy at the point of a gun, and that fear will somehow stop terrorists from pursuing their ideological agenda. Its that ideology (several centuries worth BTW) that needs to be changed - and pervasive as it is, it cannot be changed with violence.

I don't expect you'll agree with me, or cast less scorn on this post than my previous ones on this topic. Its not only your argument that I disagree with - its the simplistic terms of reference used to address these issues that makes these discussions these topics tiresome and really quite futile.

OK, you don't like my plan. Fair enough. What's your plan then? Can you provide any specifics, beyond this vague "changing of ideology"?

Well I guess we're back to - "liberals like to complain, but don't have any ideas of their own". Its easy for someone who just points at the President and says "I agree with everything he does". Incidentally, the "Hulk don't like, Hulk smash" policy we are pursuing at the moment isn't really all that specific, seeing as noone seems to know where or against whom we are venting our anger.

As regards changing ideology, I don't think that is achievable in the short or medium term - and certainly not with military force.

Well, while you're thinking about your long term change in "ideology" those guys (you know, those ficticious guys you think noone knows who or where they are) will be planning their next attack.

Noone's debating that - you're still labouring under the strange conception that going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the last attack is going to prevent the next one.

But still... if you want to go charging recklessly about the wilderness without a map or compass, be my guest...

Edited February 1, 2007 by erekose