Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 9, 2005.
i wonder if anyone in the WH has yet thought of the plan suggested here a long time ago: put saddam back in power.
<life of brian>
"(they) keep the peace."
"let's face it; they're the only ones who could in a place like this."
</life of brian>
operation: Democracy-I'm Lovin it!
i'm gonna throw an idea out there, and i kinda can't believe i'm doing this. but... do you guys think it's possible, at all, that some people in this world just simply don't want the exact same lifestyle or governmental system as we've got in the US?
i mean, it's crazy, but does anyone think it's even remotely possible?
and, you know, now that i'm out here in la-la land, maybe i'll even ask this. does anyone think that, even for some who do want that, that maybe they don't want it forced on them?
i mean, wow, i'm considering checking myself into an institution right now, 'cuz i feel really out there, and my FBI folder probably just got a lot thicker, but... you know... just wondering.
But it's this administrations politically motivated duty
to turn all them poor lost souls into good Christian, God fearing Republicans, if it kills them.
what is the antecedent of "them"?
Their mother, I imagine.
You'd better hope you get yourself checked in quick, or you might find yourself being rendered. Watch out for that white Learjet.
Aren't nearly all of them white?
Ohmygod, now I'm really paranoid!
It amazes me that some of our "leaders" are just now waking up to the reality that there is chaos in Iraq and that it is likely to be that way for some time. How many people, including their own Sec. of State and previous GOP administration officials, told them over and over again that a fractured Iraq and civil war were the likely consequences of a US invasion. Well, why should it come as a surprise to anyone that a new Constitution that freezes out a substantial Sunni Arab minority just might feed the fires of that very civil war? Just what do we think is the likely consequence of forcing the Sunni Arabs out of any power sharing, while supporting the creation of a Islamic republic with political forces allied with Iran? What to bet whether it means a disintegration of Iraq into mini-states or a long-term stable democratic regime? Come on, it's about time to get real. It also time for everyone who predicted this mess to tell the naive, power-hungry, architects of this disastrous policy how wrong the were and just who is responsible for this mess.
The fact that a number of officials are now speaking to the press, but decidedly off the record, is quite interesting. I don't know what this signals, but I would not be surprised if it means that some change in policy direction is in the offing.
any theories on what changes we might see?
You know, I had actually hoped I'd be wrong about the whole Iraq thing. Like, maybe it would actually work out for everyone in the long run. Somehow, I still don't see that happening. I hate being right. Looks like everything BushCo gambled our futures on hasn't payed off like they planned. I'd claim shadenfraude, but it actually makes me a little sad.
Oh... and angry.
Well, I don't know, but the administration has been playing a toe-dance with these issues from the very start. Remember how they moved away from the WMD claims? Step by step, like we weren't even supposed to notice the change. They might just be preparing the ground for a staged withdrawal of U.S. troops even if the security and political situation in Iraq isn't stabilized, knowing full-well that these previously hard-and-fast conditions can never actually be met in time to save the Republicans from punishment at the polls.
I expect the Constitution to pass under dubious circumstances and some "staged" withdrawal, with and accent on the theatrical meaning of the word, of US forces by late next summer. There is also going to be a shift in how the administration sells the reality of a Islamic republic to US voters as a realistic solution, instead of the western democracy we were all promised Iraq would welcome with open arms and petal-strewn streets. If they don't shift in this direction and the body counts continue to mount the GOP will pay for it in the loss of control of both houses.
I would love to see the expiration date of all those no bid contracts
"to help the people of Iraq"
Have you ever seen the movie, The Money Pit?
Oh I think it's a foregone conclusion that you will be seeing a drawdown of US forces around next summer. The GOP leadership knows that if they cannot show progress on the Iraq crusade by late summer/early fall of '06 there will be hell to pay at the polls. AND they know that losing control of either house of Congress would be a huge disaster, since investigations would begin immediately. Thus their only option is to make Iraq a success story between now and then, even if it has to be manufactured.
What this will do to Iraq is probably usher in civil war, but as long as the GOP retains control of Congress, I don't think the long-term stability of Iraq matters to them. At least not until '08, when another round of 'progress' will have to be made.
Yes, but the difference will be in whether it's the window-dressing reduction required to protect congressional Republicans in 2006 if the situation improves, or more on the order of a full-scale withdrawal of troops representing the effective abandonment of administration policy. The party line up until now has been that fewer US troops will be required as the Iraqi government takes more responsibility for security, and assumes a reduction in violence with the ratification of their constitution. If, as the 2006 election draws near, it becomes increasing obvious that neither is true, then I would expect the administration to begin executing a u-turn, just like they did on WMDs -- and hope that not too many people notice. I suspect that the ground is currently being prepared for such a maneuver.
according to a recent page 1 l.a. times article, the flip flop has already begun. one of the military leaders was quoted as saying that decreasing the troops would actually help minimize the insurgent attacks.
so in essence, we can win the war by leaving.
declare victory and leave...gosh, that sounds familiar.
i'll try to find the link.