* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.
What cable channel have you been watching?


Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the
President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most
had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also
said the hoped it worked.

Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things
will work out.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.
What cable channel have you been watching?


Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to
see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most
had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also
said the hoped it worked.

Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things
will work out.

I've got a theory about all this ridiculous political shenanigans that
is going on of late. I think it's all been orchestrated by the powers
that be to keep the terrorists from attacking inside the country again.

I think the Dems and Repubs got together sometime about four years ago
and agreed to the current situation of bickering and unreasonable
actions in congress for the purpose of making the Islamic fascist
terrorists put a hold on their plans. They know any major attack will
unite the country against them like 9-11 did so they can be easily
fooled into thinking the Bush administration is in total ruin and
leftist Democrats who are weak on defense will gain power making it all
the easier for terrorists to strike in the future. As long as terrorists
see the country being torn apart from the inside they can just sit and
bide their time hoping the country will soon crumble under its own
weight.

I just can't imagine how Democrat leaders can continue to be so asinine,
strident, and unrealistic while the Republicans continue to act more and
more spineless. The President seems to be taking everything on the chin
like a victim and acting more and more like lame duck. This is what the
terrorists want and it certainly is what the Democrats want. The
terrorists look at the Democrats and think. "The enemy of my enemy is my
friend." Mr. Bush has happily assumed the role of Democrat and terrorist
enemy to further the cause of freedom. He is a truly great man.

But, the point is that Democrats just cannot be as anti-American as they
seem. Therefore it makes sense for me to conclude it's all a big plan to
thwart terrorists and while President Bush plays the guy everybody loves
to hate, the Democrats are playing the party everybody loves to hate. So
give the Dems some credit if this is the actual case as their playing
their appointed role to perfection has helped the country to remain free
of terrorists attacks.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.

What cable channel have you been watching?



Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see
the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

Max


Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will
fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well.

You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been
vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left
will have been just so much hot air and BS.

Max

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.
What cable channel have you been watching?


Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see
the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had
doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the
hoped it worked.

Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will
work out.

I honestly believe that to be an outright lie. I'm not accusing you of
lying, but if liberals have said they hope his plan works, they are lying.
A victorious W is the last thing the far left wants. It would vilify
everything they've done up to this point. If the insurgency and the civil
unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of
democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President
and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You
can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that.

Max

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.
What cable channel have you been watching?


Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see
the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had
doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the
hoped it worked.

Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will
work out.

I've got a theory about all this ridiculous political shenanigans that is
going on of late. I think it's all been orchestrated by the powers that be
to keep the terrorists from attacking inside the country again.

I think the Dems and Repubs got together sometime about four years ago and
agreed to the current situation of bickering and unreasonable actions in
congress for the purpose of making the Islamic fascist terrorists put a
hold on their plans. They know any major attack will unite the country
against them like 9-11 did so they can be easily fooled into thinking the
Bush administration is in total ruin and leftist Democrats who are weak on
defense will gain power making it all the easier for terrorists to strike
in the future. As long as terrorists see the country being torn apart from
the inside they can just sit and bide their time hoping the country will
soon crumble under its own weight.

I just can't imagine how Democrat leaders can continue to be so asinine,
strident, and unrealistic while the Republicans continue to act more and
more spineless. The President seems to be taking everything on the chin
like a victim and acting more and more like lame duck. This is what the
terrorists want and it certainly is what the Democrats want. The
terrorists look at the Democrats and think. "The enemy of my enemy is my
friend." Mr. Bush has happily assumed the role of Democrat and terrorist
enemy to further the cause of freedom. He is a truly great man.

But, the point is that Democrats just cannot be as anti-American as they
seem. Therefore it makes sense for me to conclude it's all a big plan to
thwart terrorists and while President Bush plays the guy everybody loves
to hate, the Democrats are playing the party everybody loves to hate. So
give the Dems some credit if this is the actual case as their playing
their appointed role to perfection has helped the country to remain free
of terrorists attacks.

Dream on, Neal. It's a nice theory--think anyone besides yourself will buy
it?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the
President's plan would work.

What cable channel have you been watching?



Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is
anything but.

I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever
hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see
the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face.

Max


Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan"
will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as
well.

You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been
vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left
will have been just so much hot air and BS.

Max

I don't agree. He won't be "vindicated" at all. He'll have gotten lucky with
an ill-conceived war and with no plan.

We will all be lucky and perhaps, maybe, he will have learned from his
mistakes, although I doubt it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

If the insurgency and the civil
unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of
democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President
and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower.
You
can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that.

David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He
says
essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the
situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent
sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the
troops
out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a
stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The
Dems
want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility
for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so
they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with
something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people
that
they don't know what they're doing.


It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the
Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need to
withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives. Immediately
withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on either side is
calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and requiring the Iraqis
to take control of their situation. If it's still possible to fix it, which
I and most analysists think, including those in the military, then we'll
soon find out.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Nathan Branden" wrote in message
...
On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop"
said:

If the insurgency and the civil
unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period
of
democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great
President
and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and
Eisenhower. You
can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants
that.

David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times.
He says
essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the
situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent
sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the
troops
out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a
stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished.
The Dems
want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take
responsibility
for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull
out, so
they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with
something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded
people that
they don't know what they're doing.


That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and
Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There
can be nothing in between.


murtha he a turd (he he he). he a chicken. he no marine. marines fight.
murtha hide B hind desk. yell surrender!

todd

todd

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the
Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need
to withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives.

This statement contradicts the one immediately below.

Immediately withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on
either side is calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and
requiring the Iraqis to take control of their situation.

You first statement implies that a civil war is beyond anyone's control.
Then you state that leaving before the Iraqis take control is not an option.
Which is it?

If it's still possible to fix it, which I and most analysists think,
including those in the military, then we'll soon find out.

Is that why House Democrats attempted to pass a resolution removing Bush's
ability to continue the war? Doesn't sound as if they believed there was a
fix in order, now or ever.

Max

"Nathan Branden" wrote in message
...
On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

If the insurgency and the civil
unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of
democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President
and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower.
You
can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that.

David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He
says
essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the
situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent
sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the
troops
out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a
stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The
Dems
want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility
for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so
they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with
something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people
that
they don't know what they're doing.


That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and
Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There
can be nothing in between.

Vietnam comes to mind.

Max