A simple question for Bush supporters

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.

If you set a timetable and it gets missed, either your a liar, a piss poor manager, or the resistance is stronger then you thought it was.

 

[ElFenix]

when its done its done. obviously, it'll take a while to suck the world's terrorists into the sponge that is iraq. hell, it took a decade to get japan and germany on board. i don't know why anyone would expect iraq to take a much shorter amount of time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?

Edit: Link and exerpt added

Story that prompted the thought

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington. He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700. A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground -- there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time -- the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."

I think the reason is obvious, the progress that is being made in Iraq isnt getting air time in our MSM. Only the negatives in the campaign are being shown on the nightly news. Bush could sit back and let the rest of America become cynical of the situation or he could go around and let the people know of the good we are doing over there.

Here's some of the progress being made...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1616997&enterthread=y

You and MSM are one in the same.

Congrats!

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
do you know that what yoursaying is intelectualy dishonest?

Rummy and crew went into Iraq with an insufficient number of soldiers. Agree or disagree?

Rummy and crew went into Iraq without a containment plan. Agree or disagree?

The DumbYa administration myopically declared mission accomplished in late October of 2003. Agree or disagree?

Rummy ignored General Eric Shinseki, the army's respected Chief of Staff, because he disagreed with Rummy's assement of the number of troops necessary for the Iraqui invasion. Agree or disagree?

Should i really continue this?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: irwincur
Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable. Furthermore, exit strategies are funny things as they never really exist in war. A war is done when the mission is accomplished - to be determined at a later date.

Normally, i dont feed trolls (of which you are a rather rare breed being so dense and all), but i seem to remember DumbYa on the deck of a freighter with a HUGE banner declaring mission accomplished in late October of 2003. Your logic, as usual, is horribly flawed chickenhawk.

That is such a lame snipe to take. Mission accomplished was obviously about defeating Saddam's troops.

Liberals as usual take it out of context and think it somehow validates their idiotic views on the world.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
when its done its done. obviously, it'll take a while to suck the world's terrorists into the sponge that is iraq. hell, it took a decade to get japan and germany on board. i don't know why anyone would expect iraq to take a much shorter amount of time.

I think that while we're focused on Iraq, the smart terrorists are busy planning some real terrorists attacks on us, and the smart ones aren't in Iraq. For example, where's Osama??

The terrorist leadership seems more then able to find volunteers for suicide missons, and all they really need to carry ou a succesful attack on is is ONE commited terrorist. Anybody should be able to figure out that we can't kill them all.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: irwincur
Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable. Furthermore, exit strategies are funny things as they never really exist in war. A war is done when the mission is accomplished - to be determined at a later date.

Normally, i dont feed trolls (of which you are a rather rare breed being so dense and all), but i seem to remember DumbYa on the deck of a freighter with a HUGE banner declaring mission accomplished in late October of 2003. Your logic, as usual, is horribly flawed chickenhawk.

That is such a lame snipe to take. Mission accomplished was obviously about defeating Saddam's troops.

LOL, Bush claimed it was mission accomplished because that was as far as he had bothered to think ahead.

 

[indianduddawg47]

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?

Because TNN (the Taliban News Network) will broadcast our withdrawl time schedule across the world, boosting terrorist morale and ultimately cause more death and destruction.

By the way, that's not a simple question. Us conservatives smelt too much gasoline from our ford pickups to ever have learned how to read such big questions.

 

[PatboyX]

bit of a catch-22.
we plan exit and miss, we are screwed.
we dont plan exit, we are screwed.
while i lean toward a desire to have a plan, it just doesnt seem possible. not in any meaningful way. which, im sure, would just enrage people all the more. not to mention the sort of cruelty that may be inadvertently put to the troops in such an event.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: irwincur
Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable. Furthermore, exit strategies are funny things as they never really exist in war. A war is done when the mission is accomplished - to be determined at a later date.

Normally, i dont feed trolls (of which you are a rather rare breed being so dense and all), but i seem to remember DumbYa on the deck of a freighter with a HUGE banner declaring mission accomplished in late October of 2003. Your logic, as usual, is horribly flawed chickenhawk.

That is such a lame snipe to take. Mission accomplished was obviously about defeating Saddam's troops.

Liberals as usual take it out of context and think it somehow validates their idiotic views on the world.

Again, i have a chickhawk to thank for validating the horribly myopic planning this administration has employed.

Do you, my 18 year old easily influenced troll, believe that this administration went into Iraq with a single thought about post-opposition containment?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.

If you set a timetable and it gets missed, either your a liar, a piss poor manager, or the resistance is stronger then you thought it was.

Or simply that its not so easy to plan a war.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.

If you set a timetable and it gets missed, either your a liar, a piss poor manager, or the resistance is stronger then you thought it was.

Or simply that its not so easy to plan a war.

Who said it was easy, we're asking for a plan, any plan, just a plan. There was no plan going in and there is no plan now. Why is there no plan--at all?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.

If you set a timetable and it gets missed, either your a liar, a piss poor manager, or the resistance is stronger then you thought it was.

Or simply that its not so easy to plan a war.

Then your vote is for "piss poor mananger"?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.

If you set a timetable and it gets missed, either your a liar, a piss poor manager, or the resistance is stronger then you thought it was.

Or simply that its not so easy to plan a war.

Then your vote is for "piss poor mananger"?

Out of those 3, the resistance is stronger is probably the closest.