Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (320662)	1/14/2007 11:02:33 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573691

"You own this one...don't look to the democrats to exonerate or bail you out. " That is going to be tough to make it stick. Accepting responsibility isn't their strong suite, it is always easier to blame someone or something else. Like this, we would have won in Iraq if it wasn't for the press, the protesters, the Democrats or if the Iraqis had more sense. Now the last point has a lot off truth to it, but it was something that should have been factored in from the beginning. It isn't like no one had a clue that this might have happened. The idea they have floated that no one had a clue that this was possible should be laid to rest by the reason that Bush41 didn't take out Saddam in Desert Storm Part 1. Which was the fear that what is happening, would happen. And they didn't fear it because of the press, the protesters or the Democrats. It was feared because even a casual analysis of the situation tells you that Iraq shared a lot with the old Yugoslavia. All that held it together as a more or less peaceful country was a strong man dictator. Take away the strong man, and things fall apart. Violently. This isn't a hindsight is 20/20 thing either. There were a lot of people who knew this before. But they weren't telling Bushco what they wanted to hear, so they didn't get heard. And that wasn't the fault of the press, the protesters, the Democrats or for that matter, the Iraqi people. It is solely the fault of Bushco and the people who elected them.

To: Alighieri who wrote (320662)	1/14/2007 12:10:04 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1573691

Al, > You own this one...don't look to the democrats to exonerate or bail you out. It's all a blame game to you. That's how you can get out of proposing alternate solutions and the consequences which follow. That's how you can be against the war, but against cuts to the funding of said war. That's how you can be for peace, but against the enforcement of said peace against people who don't believe in it. As long as you create those moral and mental boundaries, you can convince yourself that you are not responsible for a damn thing. Boy oh boy, talk about true selfish individualism ... Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (320662)	1/14/2007 5:49:11 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573691

Perhaps this is a consequence of the Dems "support the troops, but not the war" position. Actually this is a consequence of your support for a man who first lied us into a war and then botched its execution in the most public and in your face way. You and people like you have the blood of thousands of americans and iraqis on your hands. You own this one...don't look to the democrats to exonerate or bail you out. Hear! Hear!

To: Alighieri who wrote (320662)	1/15/2007 4:29:01 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573691

Bush, 'as isolated as a president can be,' presses on By Jennifer Loven the Associated Press Tucson, Arizona \| Published: 01.15.2007 WASHINGTON — President Bush once said he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side. It's moving in that direction. People in the United States already were angry about the war before Bush said he would try to bring unrelentingly violent Iraq back from the brink by adding 21,500 more U.S. troops to the 132,000 there now. Polls show the U.S. public overwhelmingly does not like the idea. Democrats always in opposition were joined very publicly by some Republicans in dissent. Even Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had to be persuaded to go along with a larger U.S. presence in Baghdad. Bush "is as isolated as a president can be," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. Lawmakers did authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today, however, the Democratic-controlled Congress is poised to produce nonbinding votes against a policy that will reverberate into the 2008 elections. And Bush's problem with Washington's politicians is not only the product of the new partisan divide. Moderate Democrats who had the president's back on the war are jumping ship. The din of disapproval is heard even among some conservative Republicans. The time when only a few GOP lawmakers would gingerly criticize the president's leadership on the war has given way to the kind of no-holds-barred rhetoric heard the day after Bush's Wednesday night speech. "The most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a presidential aspirant and persistent war critic. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., until now a war supporter, said, "I have not been told the truth." GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the holdouts on Bush's side who wants more troops, acknowledged it was anyone's guess whether most Republicans will back the president when the votes are called. "I hope the overwhelming majority of my Republican colleagues will come on board, but I can't predict that," he said. Bush treated Republican leaders from the House and Senate to an overnight at Camp David to work on strategy on keeping party members in line after a week of defections that ranged well beyond Iraq. Digging in for confrontation, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney said they will not budge from sending thousands more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it. "I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of new Democratic-run Congress. "But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Bush gave his first interview from Camp David, airing Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes." "Some of my buddies in Texas say, 'You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours?"' Bush said of Iraqis. "And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America." When asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said "Not at all." "We liberated that country from a tyrant," Bush said. "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." Cheney said Sunday that Democrats have offered no credible alternative to Bush's revised war strategy. Cheney said withdrawing from Iraq would mean giving in to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and other U.S. enemies. "They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," Cheney said. "They can't beat us in a stand-up fight, but they think they can break our will." President's approval at 29% In breaking with Bush, the politicians are following the public. Seventy percent of those questioned oppose sending more troops to Iraq and doubt that doing so will help, according to AP-Ipsos polling in January. Approval of the president's handling of the war stands at 29 percent. Bush's aides took pains to portray the war plan as in line with the thinking of both his generals and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. But the president ignored that group's central recommendations: pulling U.S. troops back by next year, changing their mission right away and recruiting help from Iran and Syria. The group publicly thanked Bush for paying attention to some of their ideas — such as embedding more U.S. trainers with Iraqi security forces and setting benchmarks — but made clear that they noticed all the ways the president had spurned them. War commanders feared a troop increase would strain the armed forces while reducing incentives for Iraqis to take over for themselves. So they had to be brought around. They received assurances Bush would couple the buildup with significant economic aid and demands that the Iraqis make difficult political and tactical changes. But the president attached no consequences if al-Maliki fails — as he has in the past — to deliver. Zelizer, the political historian, said the now-open revolt of increasing numbers in Bush's own party could be "very dangerous" for the president. azstarnet.com