• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush speech 12-18

Caine said:
I don't have to, you just did.

But, as to the rest of hipster's statements on the actual speech, I agree!
Tell me:
Where, exactly, do you think the vast majority of the criticism of the war comes from - liberal democrats, or some other group?

Who, if not the liberal democrats, is most likely to refuse to acknowledge any success in the war, but more than happy to level criticism of same?
 
M14 Shooter said:
The problem is that its like pulling teeth to get Liberal democrats to even admit that any eggs have been laid. Their entire message focuses on whats wrong with Iraq and does whatever it can to avoid ackowledging whats right.

For Bush, failure in Iraq is not an option.
For the Dems, failure in Iraq is their only hope.

I'm not a Democrat at all. But you sound like the Democrats actually want the US to lose this war! If the US does lose this war (which is possibility), America's reputation will be damaged almost beyond repair in the world.

If the Democrats were quiet American would think everything is going to plan in Iraq, but they weren't. Because things are not going ot plan Bush has been FORCED to admit that their were mistakes on his part made. And THAT is a big step forward in my opinion.

There have been some sucesses in Iraq, but their have been failures - you have to admit that M14.

If it wasn't for the democrats, the Republicans would just sit their smiling and telling everyone that everything is okay, even if Iraq was falling down around them. I think the public need to know.
 
GarzaUK said:
I'm not a Democrat at all. But you sound like the Democrats actually want the US to lose this war! If the US does lose this war (which is possibility), America's reputation will be damaged almost beyond repair in the world.

If the Democrats were quiet American would think everything is going to plan in Iraq, but they weren't. Because things are not going ot plan Bush has been FORCED to admit that their were mistakes on his part made. And THAT is a big step forward in my opinion.

There have been some sucesses in Iraq, but their have been failures - you have to admit that M14.

If it wasn't for the democrats, the Republicans would just sit their smiling and telling everyone that everything is okay, even if Iraq was falling down around them. I think the public need to know.

LOL...... Its freakin' sad when a guy from the UK understands this better than an American.

I wonder why this is......... hrm.......
 
GarzaUK said:
I'm not a Democrat at all. But you sound like the Democrats actually want the US to lose this war! If the US does lose this war (which is possibility), America's reputation will be damaged almost beyond repair in the world.
You say that like the Democrats would not be OK with that, so long as they re-gain domestic power.

You have to understand that everything they have done since 2000 (and, arguably, 1994) ha sbeen to that end. Nothing else matters.

Why do you think that all of those Democrats that supported Clinton's argument in 1998 have been distancing themselves from it? if Bush lied/misled/whatever about Iraqm then so too did Clinton -- but we can;t let that get out, because it hurts our chances to regain power...

If the Democrats were quiet American would think everything is going to plan in Iraq, but they weren't. Because things are not going ot plan Bush has been FORCED to admit that their were mistakes on his part made. And THAT is a big step forward in my opinion.
Just a means to an end - more power for them, less for the republicans.

There have been some sucesses in Iraq, but their have been failures - you have to admit that M14.
There are things that have not gone as well as we would have liked.
Actual 'failures'? I guess that depends on how you define the word.
 
Caine said:
LOL...... Its freakin' sad when a guy from the UK understands this better than an American.

I wonder why this is......... hrm.......
Tell me:
Where, exactly, do you think the vast majority of the criticism of the war comes from - liberal democrats, or some other group?

Who, if not the liberal democrats, is most likely to refuse to acknowledge any success in the war, but more than happy to level criticism of same?
 
M14 Shooter said:
You say that like the Democrats would not be OK with that, so long as they re-gain domestic power.

You have to understand that everything they have done since 2000 (and, arguably, 1994) ha sbeen to that end. Nothing else matters.

Why do you think that all of those Democrats that supported Clinton's argument in 1998 have been distancing themselves from it? if Bush lied/misled/whatever about Iraqm then so too did Clinton -- but we can;t let that get out, because it hurts our chances to regain power...


Just a means to an end - more power for them, less for the republicans.


There are things that have not gone as well as we would have liked.
Actual 'failures'? I guess that depends on how you define the word.

And our power grab has been working beautifully, especially the congressional redistricing in Texas. :roll:
 
M14 Shooter said:
Tell me:
Where, exactly, do you think the vast majority of the criticism of the war comes from - liberal democrats, or some other group?
The vast majority of the criticism of the war comes from crazy whacko liberal individuals in the country itself, not the elected Democrats. These include, but are not limited to, Conspiracy Theorists/MoveOn.org Folks/Anti-War Protestors


Who, if not the liberal democrats, is most likely to refuse to acknowledge any success in the war, but more than happy to level criticism of same?[/QUOTE]Read above.
 
Caine said:
The vast majority of the criticism of the war comes from crazy whacko liberal individuals in the country itself, not the elected Democrats. These include, but are not limited to, Conspiracy Theorists/MoveOn.org Folks/Anti-War Protestors
Oh come ON!
You cannot possibly believe what you just typed.

The Dem LEADERSHIP has done little else but criticise the war, claim that Bush lied ('misled', they say), argue that we're losing the war, that we need to pull out sooner rather than later, etc.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Oh come ON!
You cannot possibly believe what you just typed.

The Dem LEADERSHIP has done little else but criticise the war, claim that Bush lied ('misled', they say), argue that we're losing the war, that we need to pull out sooner rather than later, etc.

First Bolded Section: Misled they say because Misled we were, even Bush was misled, and since congress had no access to the information he did, congress was misled.

Second Bolded Section: Negative, they may make statements that your Conservative Republican friends confuse with losing the war, but in fact, they are stating that this war is not up to us to win, I believe Senator Lindsey Graham also said this, and he was a Republican. ( I might have his name wrong, But I know its Graham), it is up to the Iraqi government for us to be victorious.
 
Caine said:
First Bolded Section: Misled they say because Misled we were, even Bush was misled, and since congress had no access to the information he did, congress was misled.
False.
The various committees saw the same intel Bush did.

Second Bolded Section: Negative, they may make statements that your Conservative Republican friends confuse with losing the war, but in fact, they are stating that this war is not up to us to win
Again, false.
"The war is a catastrophic failure, a quagmire' - Kennedy
"It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." - Hagle
There's more, of course.
 
M14 Shooter said:
You say that like the Democrats would not be OK with that, so long as they re-gain domestic power.

You have to understand that everything they have done since 2000 (and, arguably, 1994) ha sbeen to that end. Nothing else matters.

Why do you think that all of those Democrats that supported Clinton's argument in 1998 have been distancing themselves from it? if Bush lied/misled/whatever about Iraqm then so too did Clinton -- but we can;t let that get out, because it hurts our chances to regain power...


Just a means to an end - more power for them, less for the republicans.


There are things that have not gone as well as we would have liked.
Actual 'failures'? I guess that depends on how you define the word.

Funny as Democrats were pretty much for the Iraq war if I can remember until it became clear that the war was been run pretty badly. Then they started to oppose it. In fact they voted for it. If your theory is correct that they have been eager for power since 2000 wouldn't it be in there best interests to oppose the war in Iraq from the very beginning?

Bush's low approval ratings and vunerablitiy are not of the Democrats doing rather Bush's and his administration ineptitude with the handling of war. He is now blaming himself for those errors that resulted in "terrible loss", about bloody time too.
It was only half a year ago when he was stating he was right about every decision he has made.

I'm not denying that the Democrats recently have smelled blood in their nostrils and are now attacking to get the Houses back, but hey the Republicans would have done the same if it was vice-versa and you know it.
 
GarzaUK said:
Funny as Democrats were pretty much for the Iraq war if I can remember until it became clear that the war was been run pretty badly. Then they started to oppose it. In fact they voted for it. If your theory is correct that they have been eager for power since 2000 wouldn't it be in there best interests to oppose the war in Iraq from the very beginning?
Nope...They claim that the Dems would be accused of being unpatriotic if they went against the president when coming to Iraq, and they would feel the sting come election time, so its much easier for them to say they really didn't "mean it" now...

Of course, that's just an admission that they acted like sheep, but shhhhh...you're not supposed to notice...:2wave:

GarzaUK said:
Bush's low approval ratings and vunerablitiy are not of the Democrats doing rather Bush's and his administration ineptitude with the handling of war. He is now blaming himself for those errors that resulted in "terrible loss", about bloody time too.
It was only half a year ago when he was stating he was right about every decision he has made.
Bush had admitted that once the elections were over, he'd stop with the back-and-forth political barrage that comes with elections...Of course, everyone says they WANT it that way, but, in reality, it works...Bush started firing back on Veterans Day and has been on the offense since...when he was NOT responding to attacks from the other side of the aisle, that was when his approval started to fall...Since he's started to fire back, they've been steadily increasing...

Like it matters...That part is just a public relations thing...:shrug:

GarzaUK said:
I'm not denying that the Democrats recently have smelled blood in their nostrils and are now attacking to get the Houses back, but hey the Republicans would have done the same if it was vice-versa and you know it.
Most likely...Welcome to politics...

"blood in the nostrils"?!?!?...Is that a European saying?...We use "blood in the water" over here...:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom