Democrats For Troop Increase Before They Were Against It

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Troop Increase Before They Were Against Ithttp://unclemeat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/democrats-for-troop-increase-before-they-were-against-it/

Sen. John Kerry, Bush’s Democratic opponent in last year’s presidential election, told NBC’s “Today” show that the borders of Iraq “are porous” and said “we don’t have enough troops” there.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed Bush’s notion that sufficient troops are in place.

“I’m going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq,” the Delaware Democrat said. “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”

Biden argued, “The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly.”

http://unclemeat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/democrats-for-troop-increase-before-they-were-against-it/

And now what are these masters of hypocricy saying now well Biden for example has totally reversed his position:

“I totally oppose this surging of additional American troops into Baghdad,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both inside and outside the administration.”

Biden Opposes a Troop Increase in Iraq, Foreshadowing a Fight With the Bush Administration - New York Times

The reason that they are all of a sudden reversing their position is that they do not support victory in Iraq they want us to fail in Iraq so that they can regain and maintain their power, that's right boys and girls the Democrats want more troops and Iraqi's to die for their own personel power, but don't take my word for it let's ask Democratic Caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel:

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Vulture Politics

These people are the ****ing scum of the earth and this is what you voted for America, but the people get the government they deserve I suppose.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Gee, does Biden sound like he's running for President or what?

 

[Goobieman]

These people are the ****ing scum of the earth and this is what you voted for America, but the people get the government they deserve I suppose.

More evidence to support the idea that the Dems dont care what happens so long as they can gain and maintain power.

 

[Dezaad]

The reason that they are all of a sudden reversing their position is that they do not support victory in Iraq they want us to fail in Iraq so that they can regain and maintain their power, that's right boys and girls the Democrats want more troops and Iraqi's to die for their own personel power, but don't take my word for it let's ask Democratic Caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel:

Hey, do you find the actual reason for the reversals of position on this issue so compelling that you have to construct these silly accusations in order to avoid true discussion? Or, is it that you think we're all here to play a silly game of 'who can be most clever' at making the other side look bad?

Here, let me help you along. Finish the following paragraphs. It should not be difficult, given that the arguments for your position are plausibly as reasonable as the arguments against it:

Some Democrats and Republicans have abandoned their position that we should have troop increases in Iraq. Most who have done so claim it is for the following reasons: ______________________ ___________________ _______________________. I think they are wrong because ___________________ ______________________ ____________________.

These people are the ****ing scum of the earth and this is what you voted for America, but the people get the government they deserve I suppose.

:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hey, do you find the actual reason for the reversals of position on this issue so compelling that you have to construct these silly accusations in order to avoid true discussion?

Why have they changed their positions? Well the obvious answer is that if the President is fer it they're agen it. That and they're invested in defeat in Iraq as is made quite clear by the sickening statement made by Rahm Emanuel who no longer even attempts to hide that he wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq in order to gain political power for his party.

 

[Dezaad]

Why have they changed their positions? Well the obvious answer is that if the President is fer it they're agen it. That and they're invested in defeat in Iraq as is made quite clear by the sickening statement made by Rahm Emanuel who no longer even attempts to hide that he wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq in order to gain political power for his party.

Seriousness with which to take this post = zero.

:yawn:

 

[Iriemon]

What amazes me is that the Republican machine has enough money to pay people to monitor and track down everything these guys said to come up with these little tidbits so rapidly and get them out on the web. It is really amazing.

 

[ARealConservative]

ouch, that is bound to leave a mark.

 

[aps]

And now what are these masters of hypocricy saying now well Biden for example has totally reversed his position:



The reason that they are all of a sudden reversing their position is that they do not support victory in Iraq they want us to fail in Iraq so that they can regain and maintain their power, that's right boys and girls the Democrats want more troops and Iraqi's to die for their own personel power, but don't take my word for it let's ask Democratic Caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel:



These people are the ****ing scum of the earth and this is what you voted for America, but the people get the government they deserve I suppose.

LOL You all are desperate. Shall we talk about this?

President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
June 28, 2005

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.



President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror

So George Bush was against a troop surge before he was for it? Oh, but that's not a flip-flop, now is it? LOL

 

[Stinger]

Seriousness with which to take this post = zero.

:yawn:

Validity of your denial = -1

Why don't you hold the people you support accountable for their trying to undermine the war?

 

[Stinger]

What amazes me is that the Republican machine has enough money to pay people to monitor and track down everything these guys said to come up with these little tidbits so rapidly and get them out on the web. It is really amazing.

A DSL line doesn't cost much at all. Or you can just tune in a good news source like FOX and get fully informed.

Not amazing at all to those in the know.

 

[BWG]

So George Bush was against a troop surge before he was for it? Oh, but that's not a flip-flop, now is it? LOL

Oh aps, that's only for Democrats.
IOIYAR
(It's Ok If Your A Republican)

 

[Iriemon]

A DSL line doesn't cost much at all. Or you can just tune in a good news source like FOX and get fully informed.

Not amazing at all to those in the know.

Oh yeah? So how much do you get paid for doing it?

 

[niftydrifty]

What amazes me is that the Republican machine has enough money to pay people to monitor and track down everything these guys said to come up with these little tidbits so rapidly and get them out on the web. It is really amazing.

I know! You'd think they'd spend their energy working on figuring out how to govern well, eh?

Of course, the real problem here (but you won't hear this from TOT) is that you-know-who was against troop increases before he was for them. but now it's too late. the invasion was in 2003. now it's 2007!

we have this poorly run war effort which has resulted in failure. so administration apologists like TOT are demonizing those that appear to be hypocrits, but, get this, ONLY if they're democrats.

totally inane thread, TOT.

 

[Dezaad]

So George Bush was against a troop surge before he was for it? Oh, but that's not a flip-flop, now is it? LOL

This is precisely the reason why this whole thread is idiotic from the get go! I could just as easily start saying that Bush wants to fail in Iraq by asking for a troop surge, since I believe it is a failing strategy. I could :spin: :spin: :spin: and say that it is because he wants oil prices high for his oil buddies, etc etc ad nauseum.

But I won't, because I don't believe it, just like I don't believe Democrats want Iraqi democracy to fail.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

LOL You all are desperate. Shall we talk about this?



So George Bush was against a troop surge before he was for it? Oh, but that's not a flip-flop, now is it? LOL

So lets's see....aps was asking that Bush be flexible, adapt to change and stop staying the course...then when he actually does it, she uses it as another cheap, partisan criticism. Why are you flip flopping, aps?

Nothing but jealous :spin:

:spin:

:spin:

:spin:

I sure hope you're better in an actual court, Counselor.

 

[aps]

This is precisely the reason why this whole thread is idiotic from the get go! I could just as easily start saying that Bush wants to fail in Iraq by asking for a troop surge, since I believe it is a failing strategy. I could :spin: :spin: :spin: and say that it is because he wants oil prices high for his oil buddies, etc etc ad nauseum.

But I won't, because I don't believe it, just like I don't believe Democrats want Iraqi democracy to fail.

Dezaad, Republicans believe that any time someone changes their mind, no matter how much the facts change, that such is a flip-flop (but only if it involves a Democrat). It's ridiculous, and it shows me how the Republicans are blinded by their hate to apply real life to these situations.

I have used this example before--if I meet a man, fall in love, and marry him, and he subsequently cheats on me, am I flip-flopping if I change my mind and divorce him?

 

[aps]

So lets's see....aps was asking that Bush be flexible, adapt to change and stop staying the course...then when he actually does it, she uses it as another cheap, partisan criticism. Why are you flip flopping, aps?

Nothing but jealous :spin:

:spin:

:spin:

:spin:

I sure hope you're better in an actual court, Counselor.

I am merely pointing out that the same accusations that TOT is making against the Democrats can be made against George Bush. In in his speech, where he recommended the surge, he explained that things were not going the way they were previously. Thus, he was justifying why he had changed his mind. There is a reason why the Democrats have changed their mind. It's not about flip-flopping. It's about weighing facts as they change and changing plans when appropriate. I honestly don't think that Bush was flip-flopping. It's flip-flopping when the change in the decision is based on NOTHING.

I am not the type of attorney who goes to court because I don't think well on my feet. However, I will say that when I was in law school, I got the only A in my Trial Advocacy class, and I hated that class, as I hate public speaking. But, for some reason, I am good at it.

 

[Dezaad]

So lets's see....aps was asking that Bush be flexible, adapt to change and stop staying the course...then when he actually does it, she uses it as another cheap, partisan criticism. Why are you flip flopping, aps?

Nothing but jealous spin.

I sure hope you're better in an actual court, Counselor.

OMG, if you can't see this:

Democrats were for the troop surge before they were against it.
Bush was against the troop surge before he was for it.

You know, CurrentAffairs, I have this impression that you try to act so superior. It would have some redeeming quality surrounding it if it was actually backed up by something, but its clearly not.

 

[aps]

OMG, if you can't see this:

Democrats were for the troop surge before they were against it.
Bush was against the troop surge before he was for it.

You know, CurrentAffairs, I have this impression that you try to act so superior. It would have some redeeming quality surrounding it if it was actually backed up by something, but its clearly not.

Ahhhh, I love it when someone reaches the same conclusion I have.

 

[Stinger]

Oh yeah? So how much do you get paid for doing it?

Get paid for doing what? It doesn't cost much to get informed.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

OMG, if you can't see this:

Democrats were for the troop surge before they were against it.
Bush was against the troop surge before he was for it.

You know, CurrentAffairs, I have this impression that you try to act so superior. It would have some redeeming quality surrounding it if it was actually backed up by something, but its clearly not.

I'm not suggesting superiority on my part by any means. In fact, you and I are agreeing on this issue, but I think you might have missed it. I was showing aps the same ridiculous circumstances that you are showing here.

 

[niftydrifty]

I have used this example before--if I meet a man, fall in love, and marry him, and he subsequently cheats on me, am I flip-flopping if I change my mind and divorce him?

uh, only if you're a Democrat. If you're a Republican, it's called adapting strategy.

 

[oldreliable67]

Here is the article excerpted by aps, but with different sentences highlighted:

President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
June 28, 2005

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

Puts the Bush comments in a different light, doesn't it? Read this way, in its entirety, there is no possibility of a "flip-flop" interpretation. Battlefield conditions change, not due to politics but to the ebb and flow of war. However grudgingly it might be, you really should give Bush credit for going against the polls and the November election results and doing what he thinks is the right thing with this troop surge. He may ultimately be proven right; he may ultimately be proven wrong. But only pure partisanship permits denial that he is doing what he thinks is the right thing in this situation.

Politics on the other hand, changes due to the ebb and flow of the polls and who thinks partisan advantage can be gained by changing their position on issues. Lets be clear: notice I referred to "politics" in the above, not specifically Repubs or Democrats. You can be sure that if the situation were reversed, the other guys would be doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seriousness with which to take this post = zero.

:yawn:

Fantastic rebuttle bra-****ing-vo. :applaud