So, I was watching Meet the Press yesterday with Tom DeLay - Page 2

DosEquis · 03-19-2007, 12:16 PM

I think debating it in all fashions is legitimate. The reason we debate going in to begin with is to hold the president accountable for the shitty decision. To see if they cherry picked intelligence to help make a case for war, etc. It is not counter productive to have such a debate and it actually makes sure we still have some checks and balances along with accountability.

Tom Delay is an idiot. He said the EXACT opposite comments when we were in Bosnia/Kosovo. By his own standards today he was not a patriot in the late 90s.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

So, we shouldn't look at how we got there.

No, we shouldn't. We should have debated that before going in. We're there now, there are other things to worry about. For example:

We shouldn't look at what has hapened since being there.

We most certainly should be looking at what has happened, and how we can strategize to maximize (and expediate) a victory. Debating why we went in after the fact that we're already there is pointless.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Again, he stated that if you don't support the President's actions, then you're a traitor that is trying to help the enemy.

If people are giving away our missions, our strategy, our plans, then most certainly they are helping the enemy.

Whether or not they are a traitor depends on if it was intentional I guess. But that is hardly the point.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

It's not unfortunate. It's very fortunate that the public has come to their senses. And it only took them SIX YEARS.

Which kinda renders it moot, does it not?

lew · 03-19-2007, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If people are giving away our missions, our strategy, our plans, then most certainly they are helping the enemy.

Whether or not they are a traitor depends on if it was intentional I guess. But that is hardly the point.

So Democrats are calling the terrorists and telling them our military plans?

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So Democrats are calling the terrorists and telling them our military plans?

Neither me nor Delay has said such a thing...why are you trying to put words into our mouths?

FMR. REP. DeLAY: ...every step of the day, undermine--I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

That's what he said. Certainly it's not specific to Democrats is it? Anybody that does such a thing is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. Is he wrong? Certainly not.

It's up to you to determine who's doing it, though.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 01:51 PM

to Scrum's quote from DeLay.

What's funny is that DeLay and the rest of the neocon partisan hacks that now fill most of the Republican party's ranks in Congress were singing a completely different tune when it was Clinton in office taking military action.

They were saying many of the things those who they now brand as unpatriotic, hate-America-first, etc, pretty much verbatim.

That's what's so angering to me, people who switch their position 180 to suit the political climate. That's not having a view about something, it's being a mindless sheep.

DeLay and people like him in Congress are mindless partisan sheep who care less about what is right and more about their own power and the power of their party.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So Democrats are calling the terrorists and telling them our military plans?

They act like when we withdraw is exactly like the DDay invasion that needs to be kept secret at all costs.. but the reality is very different.

The problem is that it took a bunch of pressure for Bush to adopt timetables, ie: benchmarks -- that are still not being met. Although we have seen some marginal improvement since the surge (which has happened during every other surge), certainly setting these timetables (or benchmarks if the Bushites prefer that word) has helped us to progress and not hindered it.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, we shouldn't. We should have debated that before going in. We're there now, there are other things to worry about.

So you're saying that once we do something, why we did it is irrelevant as long as we're doing it.

Even if it's wrong. Even if it's misguided. Even if it's harming us on many levels. That's a poor way to run any kind of operation, and certainly a war.

Understanding why we did something is very relevant to the discussion about whether or not we should continue it, and if so, in what fashion.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So you're saying that once we do something, why we did it is irrelevant as long as we're doing it.

Even if it's wrong. Even if it's misguided. Even if it's harming us on many levels. That's a poor way to run any kind of operation, and certainly a war.

Understanding why we did something is very relevant to the discussion about whether or not we should continue it, and if so, in what fashion.

Let's look at a different example. Let's assume you meet a girl, date her for a few weeks, and she suddenly gets pregnant. She has the baby. What do you do? Do you sit around debating whether or not it was right to sleep with her? Do you debate what you should have done instead? No, you work with what you have, you deal with it, and you move on. YOu look forward, not backwards. The only thing you have control over is what you do now, not what you already did.

The only thing that can be gained from discussing about the reasons of the war is that we don't do it again (that is, of course, if everyone agrees it was wrong, but that's not the case). The only thing that can be done NOW is what we are doing...that's fighting a war, and we should want to win this war. EVERYONE should want to win this war.

lew · 03-19-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's what he said. Certainly it's not specific to Democrats is it? Anybody that does such a thing is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. Is he wrong? Certainly not.

It's up to you to determine who's doing it, though.

Of course he is wrong. Setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq is not, I repeat NOT, aiding and abetting the enemy. To think so, is a complete and utter lack of logic.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Let's look at a different example. Let's assume you meet a girl, date her for a few weeks, and she suddenly gets pregnant. She has the baby. What do you do? Do you sit around debating whether or not it was right to sleep with her? Do you debate what you should have done instead? No, you work with what you have, you deal with it, and you move on. YOu look forward, not backwards. The only thing you have control over is what you do now, not what you already did.

That's a really bad comparison because the situation is completely different.

What if you weren't sure if the baby was yours?

Would you take it at her word after knowing her for such a short, or would you demand a paternity test before you spent the rest of your life providing for the child?

If we try to follow your bad example even further, then you're advocating the former. I'd advocate the latter.

Being sure you know what really took place is essential to planning decisions moving forward.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Of course he is wrong. Setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq is not, I repeat NOT, aiding and abetting the enemy. To think so, is a complete and utter lack of logic.

If it means a victory to them and a loss to us, it most certainly is aiding them. That's the simplest one to figure out.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What if you weren't sure if the baby was yours?

Yeah, maybe. Don't over-complicate the example.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 03:28 PM

The more accurate the better, even if it is a horrendous comparison.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The more accurate the better, even if it is a horrendous comparison.

It doesn't change the point: don't focus on the past when the only thing you can change is the future.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 03:35 PM

Ah, see, now there's a difference. Don't focus on the past to the exclusion of the present or future, I agree. I make that point quite often when people bring up Clinton as a way of avoiding what's currently going on.

Ignoring the past is a fatal mistake when planning how to go forward though.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Ignoring the past is a fatal mistake when planning how to go forward though.

Only when the past has a relevant impact.

Debating about whether or not we should have gone to war is irrelevant now that we're already at war. Our stategy of winning the war should not be tainted by a guilty conscience for 'wrongly' starting the war.

Focusing on the past is also a fatal mistake when planning how to go forward.

DosEquis · 03-19-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It doesn't change the point: don't focus on the past when the only thing you can change is the future.

You think i killed your g/f, stop trying to prove it and just move on. She's dead.

It is about accountability. If they cherry picked intelligence, withheld information, fabricated information, or anything else that lacked integrity while they were building a case to go in there... it needs to be investigated and they need removed from office if it turns out to be the case. This has cost 400+ billion dollars, 3200 american lives, and 25,000 wounded. If they were bullshitting to get us there to serve some other geopolitical agenda they need to be in prison.

Thats why we debate it.