Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Condi Rice summarizes the entire W administration in one sentence (WaPo)

GrimReefa

By GrimReefa
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Guest skinsmatic

Guest skinsmatic

Posted
Posted

Hagel, Brownback, Warner, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi and on and on have ALL said we should increase the troops.

is there a link that shows when these request where made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TradeTheBeal!

TradeTheBeal!

Posted
Posted
The statement really does seem indicative of the Bush Administration. It's just a variation on "Stay the Course." If it doesn't work, keep doing it exactly the same way until it does. Rice's statement is just a variation on their basic rhetoric.

The definition of insanity: to expect different results from identical actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky21

Rocky21

Posted
Posted
The statement really does seem indicative of the Bush Administration. It's just a variation on "Stay the Course." If it doesn't work, keep doing it exactly the same way until it does. Rice's statement is just a variation on their basic rhetoric.

Bush said his administration has never been "stay the course". :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
What is the Democrat Plan B? I don't thik I've heard that

Do you bother to read these threads, or just jump directly from "subject line" to "talking point"?

Kilmer, here, has been simultaneously claiming that there's never been a Democrat Plan B, and listing, by name, all of the prominent Democrats who've proposed one. (Well, actually, he's been listing some of the ones who've made proposals, but still . . . )

For about the last 20 posts.

It's been entertaining. :munchout:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
Do you bother to read these threads, or just jump directly from "subject line" to "talking point"?

Kilmer, here, has been simultaneously claiming that there's never been a Democrat Plan B, and listing, by name, all of the prominent Democrats who've proposed one. (Well, actually, he's been listing some of the ones who've made proposals, but still . . . )

For about the last 20 posts.

It's been entertaining. :munchout:

They've offered plans to leave Iraq, they havent offered a plan on how to win there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

You cut off the back end of the tube put it back in and reseal it. Putting toothpaste back in the tube is easy. Can you do that with Iraq? Probably not, but as for plans I've heard everything from more troops, to less troops, to forcing the Iraqi PM's hand, to cutting and running, to cutting Iraq into multiple nations. There has been no lack of plans, just lack of imagination and an inability to speculate or plan contingencies by the executive branch in what is one of their primary duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge

Sarge

Posted
Posted
Do you bother to read these threads, or just jump directly from "subject line" to "talking point"?

Kilmer, here, has been simultaneously claiming that there's never been a Democrat Plan B, and listing, by name, all of the prominent Democrats who've proposed one. (Well, actually, he's been listing some of the ones who've made proposals, but still . . . )

For about the last 20 posts.

It's been entertaining. :munchout:

THe only plan I've heard is "Retreat"

Is there a plan to win?

If there is, I haven't heard it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCsportsfan53

DCsportsfan53

Posted
Posted

To me, anyone who wasn't already aware that the W administration operates under the assumption that they're 100% correct, at all times and only under best case scenarios has been living under a rock. The man is just too stubburn to consider himself being wrong or making a mistake as a possiblity and the Republicans see it, too and are distancing themselves from him. How do you work with someone who acts like they're on a mission from God, someone who doesn't do give and take and shows complete disdain for dissent and compromise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

It might still work as a confederasy, a United States of Iraq sort of thing, but I'm skeptical of the split model too. Although on it's surface it seems like the best idea.

I'm not sure which politician proposed this thought, but I know that I've heard it bandied about a number of times prior to the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
It might still work as a confederasy, a United States of Iraq sort of thing, but I'm skeptical of the split model too. Although on it's surface it seems like the best idea.

I'm not sure which politician proposed this thought, but I know that I've heard it bandied about a number of times prior to the election.

Which is exaclty my point, I cant find a single politician backing this idea or offering a detailed plan other than leaving.

All I hear is "The President is wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge

Sarge

Posted
Posted
THe only plan I've heard is "March Forward"

Is there a plan to win?

If there is, I haven't heard it

Well now, that's been the problem, hasn't it?

If these troops are going in to kick ass, then that's fine

If they're going in with their hands tied behind there backs and get tried and sent ot prison for shooting "detainees", as we've mostly been doing, then this surge is of no use

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The 12th Commandment

The 12th Commandment

Posted
Posted
Well now, that's been the problem, hasn't it?

If these troops are going in to kick ass, then that's fine

If they're going in with their hands tied behind there backs and get tried and sent ot prison for shooting "detainees", as we've mostly been doing, then this surge is of no use

You were listening to Reagan last night I'd bet. A change in the rules of engagement. I tend to agree with you here, if were gonna fight, then no holds barred. Beat'em into submission and then see what we can do. With communications the way they are today though, it's a difficult if not impossible proposition. Makes you wonder if we can ever really win a ground war this way. Bombs seem to be the only way around it. Of course they have their down side too with respect to civilian casualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge

Sarge

Posted
Posted
You were listening to Reagan last night I'd bet. A change in the rules of engagement. I tend to agree with you here, if were gonna fight, then no holds barred. Beat'em into submission and then see what we can do. With communications the way they are today though, it's a difficult if not impossible proposition. Makes you wonder if we can ever really win a ground war this way. Bombs seem to be the only way around it. Of course they have their down side too with respect to civilian casualities.

Nope. Came up with that all by myself :D

No holds barred is the only way to fight a war. Unfortunately we're fighting with the Marquis of Queensbury rulebook.

My suggestion, rope off Sadr city, let women and kids under the age of 10 leave, and carpet bomb everything else

But that would probably ofeeeeeend someone, and we can't have that :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chomerics

chomerics

Posted
Posted
THe only plan I've heard is "Retreat"

That is because you lack the objectiveness of actually listening to an argument and listening to the other side. It is easy to claim nobody has a plan when you have your head buried into the ground. It only proves your ignorance thought.

:2cents:

Is there a plan to win?

If there is, I haven't heard it

Again, remove your head from the sand (or your arse) every now and then, and you might be informed, but until you do, you will continue to help breed ignorance.

I'll even get you started Sarge, start with This Site and let us know when you find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
Well now, that's been the problem, hasn't it?

If these troops are going in to kick ass, then that's fine

If they're going in with their hands tied behind there backs and get tried and sent ot prison for shooting "detainees", as we've mostly been doing, then this surge is of no use

I agree that allowing our troops to do what they have to do is important. It is also important to make sure that the strategy behind this operation puts them in the best position to do their job. Kicking ass is important, but even good ass kickings will not win the overall effort if the grand strategy is unsound.

Given the track record of this administration it is understandable why people are sceptical. So far our strategy consisted of throwing troops/money at Iraq while telling American people what they want to hear.

American people siad they wanted change. President came out and said "We are changing things" and requested to throw more troops/money at the problem... well that's the same old strategy, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I really hope this time they get it right. Hopefully that navy admiral dude can adjust to urban/desert warfare quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...