"Todd" wrote in message
anews.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!

Murtha served his country with honor, you illiterate twit. He deserves our
respect, despite differing political opinions.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

Have you always been so delusional, Jon? Do you honestly believe the GOP
won't tout their great victory in the Iraq War? Do you think history books
will say that W got lucky? We're talking politics here, not reality. Bush
will be thumping his chest for decades.

A victory in Iraq will elevate Bush to the level of a great President,
despite his poorly-planned and executed military adventure.

Max

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

Have you always been so delusional, Jon? Do you honestly believe the GOP
won't tout their great victory in the Iraq War? Do you think history
books will say that W got lucky? We're talking politics here, not
reality. Bush will be thumping his chest for decades.

Of course they will. That doesn't make reality, however, as you accurately
point out.
He might believe he'd be vindicated, but tell that to the 1000s who were
injured and died.

A victory in Iraq will elevate Bush to the level of a great President,
despite his poorly-planned and executed military adventure.

In his own mind perhaps.


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

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

"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?

I said "as soon as possible." I also said, "Immediately withdrawing is not
an option."

These are not in disagreement.

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.

I don't get what you're trying to prove. They're not talking about anyone
leaving anytime soon.


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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Todd" wrote in message
anews.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!

Murtha served his country with honor, you illiterate twit. He
deserves our respect, despite differing political opinions.

Max


murtha durt bag. marine not kut and run. marine fite to finish. eat own
gutz 2 win. murtha traiter. politiks cum 1st with him. country cum 2nd.
country cum 1st with marine. he no marine. traiter. him = kerry. durt
bag both.

todd

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"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


sumthing no kan cum to nuthing (he he he).

todd