Bush's Third Term = Obama???

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

You can say Bush Flip Flopped on Iraq, its ok to change strategy if something isn't working.

The reason, Obama changed his potential strategy is because the current strategy "the surge", is working.

Kg(if I may)....is Obama changing strategy or tactics? C'mon now! Bush has been absolutely rock solid on Iraq. He has followed advice from those on the ground, his military Commanders. He has changed tactics as the enemy has changed tactics and strategy as well. Iraq transformed into al-Qaeda's central front. High stakes terror war was engaged. Bush NEVER took a step backwards, he vetoed timelines and Congressional budget games, he refuses to set any troop levels...agree or disagree, you know exactly where he stands. We ain't going anywhere and we want a long term presence in that nation. You don't have to look under skirts or translate as far as Bush is concerned.

Obama is all over the map with Iraq. Could you imagine if Bush or McCain had stated they'd be "refining their statements" as they learned more? C'mon, the kid glove thing gets a bit tiresome. Obama has not the slightest clue what's going on and is totally hapless concerning this war on terror. Just today, I'm hearing him speak out on the threats posed by Iran...the same Iran he was going to go talk to. He refines positions and 'changes' nearly everyday.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Kg(if I may)....is Obama changing strategy or tactics? C'mon now! Bush has been absolutely rock solid on Iraq.

wrong

He has followed advice from those on the ground, his military Commanders.

only the ones he agrees with... he fires the rest of them...

He has changed tactics as the enemy has changed tactics and strategy as well. Iraq transformed into al-Qaeda's central front. High stakes terror war was engaged. Bush NEVER took a step backwards, he vetoed timelines and Congressional budget games, he refuses to set any troop levels...agree or disagree, you know exactly where he stands. We ain't going anywhere and we want a long term presence in that nation.

2/3rds of the US wants out

Obama is all over the map with Iraq.

his position from the start was very clear... he didn't wanna go to begin with

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you guys want to talk about a flip flop

Tough to keep any conversation regarding Obama's obvious flip floppin here, isn't it? An immediate deflection tactic always sounds alarms with me. Why....Motivez...cannot we focus on the thread topic?

Forget FISA, forget McCain, forget Bush...for the moment. Can we all just consider for a minute the flip flopping and colossal errors the leading Presidential Canidadte is making? Does it bother anyone his responses on foreign interests seem random and uneducated? Must we deflect to a Republican or Conservative when discussing Obama, are we not permitted to criticize or raise obvious issues?

Do his random and inconsistent comments on Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan raise a concern flag here? Is anyone even paying attention, he's just this morning trying to look tough and talk about the Iranian "threat."

What Iranian threat, Obama? Has anyone stopped to consider Obama's previous statements or votes...ot lack thereof concerning Iran.

http://http://stloracle.blogspot.com...nst-obama.html

Kid glove denial ain't like America, why the love for this fraud Obama? I don't get it, imo, he ain't qualified to wash Oval Office dishes. Please.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

2/3rds of the US wants out

THe statement concerned Bush and his supporters solid position. We want a long term presence, we ain't going anywhere. We've been right in front and carrying the flag not taking a step backwards. Sorry, you're simpy wrong here.

his position from the start was very clear

His position since the start of what? High School? He wasn't factored in the decision in 2002, his position wasn't clear at all, it didn't exist. Let's try to remain correct here, far flungery isn't necessary.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

THe statement concerned Bush and his supporters solid position. We want a long term presence, we ain't going anywhere. We've been right in front and carrying the flag not taking a step backwards. Sorry, you're simpy wrong here.

Actually, he's not: Poll: 63% want all troops home by end of '08 - USATODAY.com

Americans want us out of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Let's try to remain correct here, far flungery isn't necessary.

Yes, lets.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Kid glove denial ain't like America, why the love for this fraud Obama? I don't get it, imo, he ain't qualified to wash Oval Office dishes. Please.

What makes you say he's not qualified to wash dishes, I'd love to hear a rational explanation of that one.

I'd be willing to bet his education out stripes yours.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Once again, the surge has accomplished little, the cease fire between the two major militant groups responsible for a significant portion of the violence has been almost entirely responsible for the decline in violence, and most of the rest of it has been due to the "Anbar Awakening"

And we shouldn't pretend like violence is at an acceptable level there, it's still horrible with far too many Iraqi's dying every day

what data are you basing this on?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what data are you basing this on?

I'm at work so I don't have my bookmarks available but I've posted links analyzing the impact of the ceasefires between Sadr's militia and the others and the Anbar Awakening in other threads

Without that ceasefire there's no reason to believe violence would be down as much as it is, and certainly without the Anbar Awakening we'd still have far more radicals stirring up ethnic tensions, leading to further violence and clashes between the militias..

Both of those things took place before the surge was in place, so they cannot be attributed to it.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Kg(if I may)....is Obama changing strategy or tactics? C'mon now! Bush has been absolutely rock solid on Iraq. He has followed advice from those on the ground, his military Commanders. He has changed tactics as the enemy has changed tactics and strategy as well. Iraq transformed into al-Qaeda's central front. High stakes terror war was engaged. Bush NEVER took a step backwards, he vetoed timelines and Congressional budget games, he refuses to set any troop levels...agree or disagree, you know exactly where he stands. We ain't going anywhere and we want a long term presence in that nation. You don't have to look under skirts or translate as far as Bush is concerned.

and he has fired Generals when things weren't going well and then we went into another direction. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, I thought democrats want people who change their opinions to changing situations.

I prefer not to paint G. W. Bush as "tough" on terror, when he nor his family has been deployed.

Obama is all over the map with Iraq. Could you imagine if Bush or McCain had stated they'd be "refining their statements" as they learned more? C'mon, the kid glove thing gets a bit tiresome. Obama has not the slightest clue what's going on and is totally hapless concerning this war on terror. Just today, I'm hearing him speak out on the threats posed by Iran...the same Iran he was going to go talk to. He refines positions and 'changes' nearly everyday.

McCain refined his position, got Bush and board and this is one of the main reasons why McCain won the Republican nomination. It isn't surprising that Obama is gravitating towards the position, because it is has been successful.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm at work so I don't have my bookmarks available but I've posted links analyzing the impact of the ceasefires between Sadr's militia and the others and the Anbar Awakening in other threads

Without that ceasefire there's no reason to believe violence would be down as much as it is, and certainly without the Anbar Awakening we'd still have far more radicals stirring up ethnic tensions, leading to further violence and clashes between the militias..

Both of those things took place before the surge was in place, so they cannot be attributed to it.

Who made the Sunnis trust the US, the USMC. Who pays their salary, the US.

[motivez]

The Iraqi's would have expelled Al Qaeda by themselves without our interference, they have no desire for them to be in that country.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

The Iraqi's would have expelled Al Qaeda by themselves without our interference, they have no desire for them to be in that country.

No they would not have, they didn't have the might

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by motivez

Actually, he's not: Poll: 63% want all troops home by end of '08 - USATODAY.com

Americans want us out of Iraq.



Yes, lets.

Did we begin polling the American People on whether to withdraw from Iraq or not? Is it the American People's decision, should polls dictate war policy?

This is getting fun.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by motivez

What makes you say he's not qualified to wash dishes, I'd love to hear a rational explanation of that one.

I'd be willing to bet his education out stripes yours.

What makes me say he's not qualified? How about flip flopping and indecision. How about his Rev Wright shamefulness. How about his change for hope and hope for change? His empty rhetoric and cluelessness when not having a script in front of him?

I don't think he's qualified and then...what is this......another deflection to MY education? Motivez...let's remain founded here. The issue is Obama...not Charles Martel.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I prefer not to paint G. W. Bush as "tough" on terror, when he nor his family has been deployed.

Really? Guess we'll have to suspend credit given to Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Thomas Jefferson. As they never sent their family or put themselves in harms way, how can Lincoln for example be given credit?

Indeed, the Dems tried this with the Condoleeza Rice hearing. How could CR oversee this war, she had no family, no personal loss to risk.

Would we want FDR making decisions on WW2 on whether he would have sent his family or not? Would we want Lincoln to send his wife first before the first Union soldier died?

Would any of us today...knowing what we know of the French or European continent, would we sacrifice our own families to push Nazis out of Europe back in 1944? Should Eisenhower and staff have sent their children first to show their bravery?

Ridiculous.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Really? Guess we'll have to suspend credit given to Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Thomas Jefferson. As they never sent their family or put themselves in harms way, how can Lincoln for example be given credit?

Indeed, the Dems tried this with the Condoleeza Rice hearing. How could CR oversee this war, she had no family, no personal loss to risk.

Would we want FDR making decisions on WW2 on whether he would have sent his family or not? Would we want Lincoln to send his wife first before the first Union soldier died?

Would any of us today...knowing what we know of the French or European continent, would we sacrifice our own families to push Nazis out of Europe back in 1944? Should Eisenhower and staff have sent their children first to show their bravery?

Ridiculous.

Jefferson may or may not of had children
Lincoln's son did: Robert Todd Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 of FDR's sons served in WWII
John McCain's son has served in Iraq and he has another at the Naval Academy right now

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Jefferson may or may not of had children
Lincoln's son did: Robert Todd Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 of FDR's sons served in WWII
John McCain's son has served in Iraq and he has another at the Naval Academy right now

Jefferson's wife died shortly after giving birth to their sixth child. Lincoln's son served on Grant's staff the last weeks of the war, NEVER saw ANY action.

I do know FDR had a son who was a Marine, the Roosevelts being a military family, however, I cannot seem to think FDR made decisions during the war based on whether to throw his own children into the fray.

The Commander in Chief needs to make decisions absent his family in mind, should we all agree? Should Lincoln have thought it better to cede to the South as he didn't want his own children harmed?

Neither should a childless President be asked to explain his decision as he or she has no children. Should Clinton of sent Chelsea into Bosnia before bombing?

The assertion approaches nonsensical.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Did we begin polling the American People on whether to withdraw from Iraq or not? Is it the American People's decision, should polls dictate war policy?

This is getting fun.

You said he was wrong, that American's didn't want out of the war, I simply provided a link showing you that he was in fact correct.

And, I think if the vast majority of Americans are against our involvement in a war, Congress should exercise their authority and cease funding it.

So yes, in effect what Americans want should dictate war policy.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel