• 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.

McCain surprised by Reid's sudden '180 on surge'

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just a week ago, Harry Reid was indicating that he might support a troop surge. Today, he changed his mind. So why did he change his mind. It seems that, between then and now, he found out that commanders on the ground are saying that the troops surge would not work. Now I must ask a question. Did Bush talk to the commanders? Nope, he began firing them when they told him what he did not want to hear.

Article, with links to two relevant sources is here
.
 
Seems Reid is not the only one to have changed his mind.

In the foreword to “The Best and the Brightest,” by David Halberstam.
It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay”.
No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.” - John McCain
 
There has already been a good deal of democratic mind changing since the election, i.e. the promise to impeach, the promise of bi-partisanship, eliminating the 4 day work week, now the troop surge. Sad.
 
There has already been a good deal of democratic mind changing since the election, i.e. the promise to impeach, the promise of bi-partisanship, eliminating the 4 day work week, now the troop surge. Sad.

1) As for Democratic mind changing, could be based on information they received. However, I don't know, because your question is too broad. If you could be specific, then I will better be able to address the question. Until you do, you could be right, or you could be wrong. No way to tell, since that statement is too vague.

2) On the promise not to impeach, I believe the leadership is still on track to keep that, and not because they don't want to. An impeachment proceeding would send them off track on what they are trying to do. However, although the leadership has no plans to impeach, the far left of the party would like to. However, it would be disingenuous to apply their statements to the leadership, who are the ones who control the party.

3) Bi-partisanship? I agree. They took that from the Republican playbook. Doesn't make it right, so I will agree with you there.

4) 4 day work week? They take one day off to see a football game, which isn't a cool thing to do (they are supposed to work, so I agree with you on that one single day). The following Monday is MLK's birthday, which is a holiday (per statute), so they cannot legally work that day. Out of that, you make a wild claim that they are eliminating the 5 day work week. Sorry, but that is just a lie. Let's see what happens the week AFTER the MLK holiday. I bet you will then be eating your words.

5) Troops surge? Looks like somebody is listening to the commanders on the ground, after all.
 
1) As for Democratic mind changing, could be based on information they received. However, I don't know, because your question is too broad.
I wasn't asking a question.
 
There has already been a good deal of democratic mind changing since the election, i.e. the promise to impeach, the promise of bi-partisanship, eliminating the 4 day work week, now the troop surge. Sad.

There has also already been a good deal of generals being replaced that have not given Bush the responses he wants to hear.
 
As I have already stated on another thread, I may surmise what the President may say, but to write a supposition based on that would be nothing short of being presumptious. I prefer to wait until I have ACTUALLY heard what he will say, then and only then will I exercise my democratic right to comment.
To suppose on such an important decision is nothing other than mindless gossip.
Adds not a thing to this discussion.
 
Just a week ago, Harry Reid was indicating that he might support a troop surge. Today, he changed his mind. So why did he change his mind. It seems that, between then and now, he found out that commanders on the ground are saying that the troops surge would not work. Now I must ask a question. Did Bush talk to the commanders? Nope, he began firing them when they told him what he did not want to hear.

Article, with links to two relevant sources is here
.

So...another blog told you about how another Democrat took an utterly moronic, contradictory position on Iraq and you decide that this means Bush has selective hearing?

Nice logic.

This says it all (from your source): "In mid-December, Reid backed a temporary rise, but only if it was part of a withdrawal plan by President Bush."

:lol:

So he backed increasing the number of troops, but only if it decreased the number of troops...as a part of another Democrat retreat and defeat policy.

Nothing you've provided shows that Bush fired people until he got the answer he wanted. You also have not demonstrated that even the majority of his advisors were against a troop surge.

In short, this is an fundamentally invalid statement, based on assumptions.

BTW...

"A new CIA report showing...a former administration official's statement that the United States went in without enough troops, [was] "definitive evidence as to why George Bush should not be reelected," John F. Kerry said yesterday."

The Boston Globe. October 8, 2004. Pg. A1. ON IRAQ, BOTH CANDIDATES SEIZE ON CIA REPORT

:roll:
 
Last edited:
True


I'll ask that you link the evidence on this.

See Current:

This is the problem with your "link please". While sometimes it is appropriate.....it is used, overused and abused by you. Do you really need a link when it has been all over the news that Bush fired the two Generals who disagreed with him on the "surge" position....
Some things are just common knowledge if you follow "current affairs".....I would say especially in this case....there are some situations where "link please" is just not appropriate unless people are uneducated and uninformed.
 
There has also already been a good deal of generals being replaced that have not given Bush the responses he wants to hear.

Yeah, like when Lincoln was President.
 
Back
Top Bottom