"Flirting With Disaster"

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Hitchens is a fabulous speaker..he is a frequent guest on Chris Mathews Hardball (uber-liberal talkshow), he is a frequent guest on Fox News (moderate news outlet),

lol...Matthews is an "uber-liberal" and Fox News = Moderate...hilarious.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Hitchens is a fabulous speaker..he is a frequent guest on Chris Mathews Hardball (uber-liberal talkshow), he is a frequent guest on Fox News (moderate news outlet),

lol...Matthews is an "uber-liberal" and Fox News = Moderate...hilarious.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at that statement as well. Just amazing.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

What part of what Kerry says about Iraq do you feel is invalid or an exageration?

An exageration like what the whitehouse said a couple days ago? That "none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralized training to date, despite earlier claims they had", that "that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush", and when Bush says fully trained he means Passing Initial Basic Training?

Is that an exageration?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ
What part of what Kerry says about Iraq do you feel is invalid or an exageration?

I don't know. I'll have to check to see what Kerry's saying today, because it's probably not the same thing he was saying yesterday.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ
What part of what Kerry says about Iraq do you feel is invalid or an exageration?

I don't know. I'll have to check to see what Kerry's saying today, because it's probably not the same thing he was saying yesterday.

Of course you don't know, its easier to follow rhetoric then post content. And way to not answer the question I posed about Iraq and your administration's supposed validity.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ
What part of what Kerry says about Iraq do you feel is invalid or an exageration?

I don't know. I'll have to check to see what Kerry's saying today, because it's probably not the same thing he was saying yesterday.

Of course you don't know, its easier to follow rhetoric then post content. And way to not answer the question I posed about Iraq and your administration's supposed validity.

Rhetoric? Excuse me?

Do you mean like the rhetoric Kerry spouted about Bush's secret plan to call up the National Guard and Reserves if he's re-elected. Or Kerry's rhetoric about Bush's supposed plan to implement a draft?

Yeah, of course I don't know. :roll:

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ
What part of what Kerry says about Iraq do you feel is invalid or an exageration?

I don't know. I'll have to check to see what Kerry's saying today, because it's probably not the same thing he was saying yesterday.

Of course you don't know, its easier to follow rhetoric then post content. And way to not answer the question I posed about Iraq and your administration's supposed validity.

Rhetoric? Excuse me?

Do you mean like the rhetoric Kerry spouted about Bush's secret plan to call up the National Guard and Reserves if he's re-elected. Or Kerry's rhetoric about Bush's supposed plan to implement a draft?

Yeah, of course I don't know. :roll:

I know its hard to follow the conversation train.

You said Kerry was exagerating the Iraq war (making it look bad). I asked you the opposite pointing out that Bush and Co. are lying about how many are trained, how well things are going, and flat out being ignorant in saying that fully trained is the same as passing initial basic training. You didn't answer.

Then you responded with rhetoric saying that Kerry is a flip-flopper but provided no answer to the fact that Bush and Co. are exagerating the situation. You, well ignored that as that would go against your argument.

As for Bush's secret plan to call up National Guard and Reserves, its hardly secret, we're quite reliant on them now, is that going to magically go away if we continue in Iraq in the current direction?

And here's another thing you won't repsond to that mirrors your thoughts on the Dems talking about the draft, albeit to a worse degree. How about Cheney saying that if we make the wrong decision this election the likelihood is very good that we'll experience another largescale terrorist attack here in the U.S.

Hmm?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ

I know its hard to follow the conversation train.[/quote]
As was evidenced by you switching to the Kerry track when I wasn't even going there initially with my comments. But, if that's the track you want to take I'll follow along it as well.

You said Kerry was exagerating the Iraq war (making it look bad).

No, you said I was claiming that. I actually said no such thing. I was talking about hyperbole from "the left" (not Kerry) and you suddenly decided to reroute the discussion.

I asked you the opposite pointing out that Bush and Co. are lying about how many are trained, how well things are going, and flat out being ignorant in saying that fully trained is the same as passing initial basic training. You didn't answer.

Which was a sad attempt to limit and narrow the scope of the discussion to one tiny aspect of the overall, which is a rather dishonest tactic and which I why I ignored it.

Then you responded with rhetoric saying that Kerry is a flip-flopper but provided no answer to the fact that Bush and Co. are exagerating the situation. You, well ignored that as that would go against your argument.

Keryy is a flip-flopper. There's not even a discussion that it's rhetoric. It's the truth.

As for Bush's secret plan to call up National Guard and Reserves, its hardly secret, we're quite reliant on them now, is that going to magically go away if we continue in Iraq in the current direction?

Apparently you have no clue as to the fearmongering Kerry forwarded in respect to the NG and Reserves. Hint: It wasn't about the existing NG and Reserves that are being used.

And here's another thing you won't repsond to that mirrors your thoughts on the Dems talking about the draft, albeit to a worse degree. How about Cheney saying that if we make the wrong decision this election the likelihood is very good that we'll experience another largescale terrorist attack here in the U.S.

Hmm?

How about Kerry and Co. using the identical tactics?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6126519/

Kerry isn't any better than Bush in restraining himself in the fearmongering department.

Of course, neither of them is getting my vote so I view them both with a jaundiced eye instead of a prejudicial eye on only one of them. What's your story?

 

[MonkeyK]

HS,
The article you post seems to imply that because Kerry would benefit politically if things go badly, that he want's things to go badly. That is a false argument, however respected the author.

Your kids might benefit economically if you were killed, would that mean that they should want you to die?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

I asked you the opposite pointing out that Bush and Co. are lying about how many are trained, how well things are going, and flat out being ignorant in saying that fully trained is the same as passing initial basic training. You didn't answer.

Which was a sad attempt to limit and narrow the scope of the discussion to one tiny aspect of the overall, which is a rather dishonest tactic and which I why I ignored it.

Then you responded with rhetoric saying that Kerry is a flip-flopper but provided no answer to the fact that Bush and Co. are exagerating the situation. You, well ignored that as that would go against your argument.

Keryy is a flip-flopper. There's not even a discussion that it's rhetoric. It's the truth.

As for Bush's secret plan to call up National Guard and Reserves, its hardly secret, we're quite reliant on them now, is that going to magically go away if we continue in Iraq in the current direction?

Apparently you have no clue as to the fearmongering Kerry forwarded in respect to the NG and Reserves. Hint: It wasn't about the existing NG and Reserves that are being used.

And here's another thing you won't repsond to that mirrors your thoughts on the Dems talking about the draft, albeit to a worse degree. How about Cheney saying that if we make the wrong decision this election the likelihood is very good that we'll experience another largescale terrorist attack here in the U.S.

Hmm?

How about Kerry and Co. using the identical tactics?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6126519/

Kerry isn't any better than Bush in restraining himself in the fearmongering department.

Of course, neither of them is getting my vote so I view them both with a jaundiced eye instead of a prejudicial eye on only one of them. What's your story?

Forgive me for assuming that when you say left you're adding Kerry to the mix. It only makes sense in the grouping. Last I checked when you say hyperbole you mean that the left is exagerating the situation. I asked valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous? You implied the left didn't know the meaning of "valid."

You say the President lying about the situation in Iraq is a "tiny" aspect. That's funny; especially since they're pimping it as more then that. I didn't know that training the Iraqi's to run their own country was a "tiny" portion of the plan; or that providing American tax payers with "valid" numbers was a tiny portion of what the President should be held accountable for. Your acceptance of it only shows how passive the U.S. has become to this President, how acceptance of being mislead and told untruths has become.

Kerry is a flip-flopper? Prove it. Prove that Bush isn't by the way. Because if they both are its not worth talking about. I can provide some Bush flip-flops if you'd like. We'll quantitively calculate who does it more if you'd like.

What's worse. Fearmongering of the national guard or extending them well beyond their expected time of duty in a war that has no plan and no exit strategy.

So you're conceeding that they both fear-monger; yet attacking Kerry for defending himeslf using the same tactics that Rove and Co. used against him.

My story? Kerry gets my vote. Bush has been a disaster domestically and abroad. We've lost the allies we had after 9-11. We've lost a million jobs in his 4 years (first time since Hoover to lose jobs). Industry is writing our Enviornmental laws and its somehow illegal for the U.S. Government to negotiate lower prices with drug companies.

That's just a start, but Kerry gets my vote.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Forgive me for assuming that when you say left you're adding Kerry to the mix. It only makes sense in the grouping. Last I checked when you say hyperbole you mean that the left is exagerating the situation. I asked valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous? You implied the left didn't know the meaning of "valid."

It's a poor assumption to believe that "the left" includes Kerry when there are folks who are leftish and don't support Kerry. My beliefs are actually far more left than right, and I don't support him.

You say the President lying about the situation in Iraq is a "tiny" aspect. That's funny; especially since they're pimping it as more then that. I didn't know that training the Iraqi's to run their own country was a "tiny" portion of the plan; or that providing American tax payers with "valid" numbers was a tiny portion of what the President should be held accountable for. Your acceptance of it only shows how passive the U.S. has become to this President, how acceptance of being mislead and told untruths has become.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you were trying to narrow the scope of the discussion to one very specific remark that Bush made. Now look, you overstate my remark and blow it even further out of proportion. It's the very tactic you are so aptly demonstrating right now that makes me want to throw up my hands in disgust at the left.

Kerry is a flip-flopper? Prove it. Prove that Bush isn't by the way. Because if they both are its not worth talking about. I can provide some Bush flip-flops if you'd like. We'll quantitively calculate who does it more if you'd like.

Did I claim Bush doesn't flip-flop as well? No. Of course I didn't.

Do you need more straw to complete your argument?

What's worse. Fearmongering of the national guard or extending them well beyond their expected time of duty in a war that has no plan and no exit strategy.

Do you mean fearmongering or using the extension powers that are perfectly permissable under NG regs? Then you top off your statement with a flourish of hyperbole. Thanks for the demonstration of precisely the things of which I speak.

So you're conceeding that they both fear-monger; yet attacking Kerry for defending himeslf using the same tactics that Rove and Co. used against him.

I attack the left because as someone who is by definition a lefty himself, though a lefty hawk, the crowd I'm in embarrases the hell out of me. The sloganeering, the slights, the constant hyperbole, the namecalling, etc. all coagulate to make the left appear as a bunch of pimply-faced, idealistic frosh when I know they are better than that. Ultimately they come off as no better than the right that they despise.

My story? Kerry gets my vote. Bush has been a disaster domestically and abroad. We've lost the allies we had after 9-11. We've lost a million jobs in his 4 years (first time since Hoover to lose jobs). Industry is writing our Enviornmental laws and its somehow illegal for the U.S. Government to negotiate lower prices with drug companies.

That's just a start, but Kerry gets my vote.

Help yourself. But like Pete Townsend wrote, and which applies if Kerry gets elected:

"There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight"

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so is the perception of what is valid and what is not. It would be nice if we could prove OBL was dead or alive. Even a simple thing like that would help Bush and it wouldn't surprise me if it happens.

As far as the "war" going poorly being good for Kerry, just ask yourself, "Whose fault is that??"

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ
Forgive me for assuming that when you say left you're adding Kerry to the mix. It only makes sense in the grouping. Last I checked when you say hyperbole you mean that the left is exagerating the situation. I asked valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous? You implied the left didn't know the meaning of "valid."

It's a poor assumption to believe that "the left" includes Kerry when there are folks who are leftish and don't support Kerry. My beliefs are actually far more left than right, and I don't support him.

You say the President lying about the situation in Iraq is a "tiny" aspect. That's funny; especially since they're pimping it as more then that. I didn't know that training the Iraqi's to run their own country was a "tiny" portion of the plan; or that providing American tax payers with "valid" numbers was a tiny portion of what the President should be held accountable for. Your acceptance of it only shows how passive the U.S. has become to this President, how acceptance of being mislead and told untruths has become.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you were trying to narrow the scope of the discussion to one very specific remark that Bush made. Now look, you overstate my remark and blow it even further out of proportion. It's the very tactic you are so aptly demonstrating right now that makes me want to throw up my hands in disgust at the left.

Kerry is a flip-flopper? Prove it. Prove that Bush isn't by the way. Because if they both are its not worth talking about. I can provide some Bush flip-flops if you'd like. We'll quantitively calculate who does it more if you'd like.

Did I claim Bush doesn't flip-flop as well? No. Of course I didn't.

Do you need more straw to complete your argument?

What's worse. Fearmongering of the national guard or extending them well beyond their expected time of duty in a war that has no plan and no exit strategy.

Do you mean fearmongering or using the extension powers that are perfectly permissable under NG regs? Then you top off your statement with a flourish of hyperbole. Thanks for the demonstration of precisely the things of which I speak.

So you're conceeding that they both fear-monger; yet attacking Kerry for defending himeslf using the same tactics that Rove and Co. used against him.

I attack the left because as someone who is by definition a lefty himself, though a lefty hawk, the crowd I'm in embarrases the hell out of me. The sloganeering, the slights, the constant hyperbole, the namecalling, etc. all coagulate to make the left appear as a bunch of pimply-faced, idealistic frosh when I know they are better than that. Ultimately they come off as no better than the right that they despise.

My story? Kerry gets my vote. Bush has been a disaster domestically and abroad. We've lost the allies we had after 9-11. We've lost a million jobs in his 4 years (first time since Hoover to lose jobs). Industry is writing our Enviornmental laws and its somehow illegal for the U.S. Government to negotiate lower prices with drug companies.

That's just a start, but Kerry gets my vote.

Help yourself. But like Pete Townsend wrote, and which applies if Kerry gets elected:

"There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight"

When Bush and Co. try to paint Kerry as one of the top most liberal senators, then its easy to assume when people say the left think this way, that they also assume Kerry does. But I digress...

I'm trying to narrow the argument to one thing Bush said? One thing? They've been saying this DAY IN and DAY OUT that things are going better then the media is reporting, that the CIA was "just guessing" in their reports on the conditions of Iraq ("worst case...civil war"). Why do 40% of American's believe Saddam was in on 9-11? Because its clear and focused misleading from this administration, all the damn time. Get upset at my debating tactics, but try to question the actual content every so often.

No, I don't need you to prove Bush is a flip-flopper; I simply asked it. I asked prove that Kerry is a flip-flopper and perhaps prove that Bush isn't one. Of course you didn't answer. But more importantly, prove to me that he is, just don't suck up the TV ads that say so. Bush is the flip-flopper, just no one cares about it for some reason. So no, I don't need a straw, I'm just asking you to prove your argument that Kerry is a flip-flopper, and asking you to perhaps strengthen your argument basing it on the fact that Bush isn't. Its very simple.

We have to rely so strongly on the national guard because Bush has us overextended in the wrong war at the wrong time. If we were focused on Al Qaeda and the Taliban our national guardsmen wouldn't be more or less active duty troops, going beyond their expected requirement of duty.

And your quote I guess implies that I'm a partisan. That's a nice generalization/exageration/hyperbole. Perhaps I just don't like the direction of my country and feel Kerry will provide a better course.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DanJ
When Bush and Co. try to paint Kerry as one of the top most liberal senators, then its easy to assume when people say the left think this way, that they also assume Kerry does. But I digress...

I'll avoid trotting out the tired old Walter Matthau quote from the Bad News Bears.

I'm trying to narrow the argument to one thing Bush said? One thing?

Not trying..."tried."

They've been saying this DAY IN and DAY OUT that things are going better then the media is reporting, that the CIA was "just guessing" in their reports on the conditions of Iraq ("worst case...civil war"). Why do 40% of American's believe Saddam was in on 9-11? Because its clear and focused misleading from this administration, all the damn time. Get upset at my debating tactics, but try to question the actual content every so often.

You provide no content. You continue on with the same old tired rhetoric and hyperbole, complete with the standard unsubstantiated claims ('All these people think Saddma was involved in 9/11 because their lemmings standing slack-jawed waiting for Bush to force-feed them more crap.'). It's as if the entire left visits a single webpage and just lifts this garbage straight from a template. It really makes me wonder if they can actually think for themselves?

No, I don't need you to prove Bush is a flip-flopper; I simply asked it. I asked prove that Kerry is a flip-flopper and perhaps prove that Bush isn't one. Of course you didn't answer. But more importantly, prove to me that he is, just don't suck up the TV ads that say so. Bush is the flip-flopper, just no one cares about it for some reason. So no, I don't need a straw, I'm just asking you to prove your argument that Kerry is a flip-flopper, and asking you to perhaps strengthen your argument basing it on the fact that Bush isn't. Its very simple.

Pick one of the many threads that have appeared in P&N already on that very topic and beat that dead horse some more if you desire. This thread is not the place for that particular discussion.

We have to rely so strongly on the national guard because Bush has us overextended in the wrong war at the wrong time. If we were focused on Al Qaeda and the Taliban our national guardsmen wouldn't be more or less active duty troops, going beyond their expected requirement of duty.

"Wrong war at the wrong time. blah, blah, blah."

Which comes nowhere near the issue whatsoever. If you want to constantly go off with your straight-from-the-template anti-Bush rants, please do it elsewhere and not in this thread.

And your quote I guess implies that I'm a partisan. That's a nice generalization/exageration/hyperbole. Perhaps I just don't like the direction of my country and feel Kerry will provide a better course.

Like I said before, help yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

What an ignorant troll post

I've posted an article by a well respected intellectual, in a liberal online magazine.

Call it what ever you want.

And yes, i believe that Democrats are rooting for failure..how on earth do you explain Kerry's unexplainable take on Iraq...he is calling our current allies "puppets" and "bribed" and "less safe because you suppport us", and then claiming he will withdraw our troops from "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", and get new allies to send troops into iraq (inspite of Germany and France stating they won't send troops under any circumstances)

Kerry's approach to Iraq is feckless, and borders on treasonous...

Bush destroyed the honor of the United States by preemptively attacking an foe on a false pretext. Bush is a massive pile of scum that has slimed our nation in actual fact and you lap up the slime trail he leaves like a foraging sheep. Bush is an actual traitor. And out of cowardly fear you justify evil.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Huh, that's funny, because "dems want the war/economy/etc to go badly just so Bush looks bad" sounds like hyperbole to me. None of you people have shown anything that would suggest this is a case for a significant portion of the population, so unless you can demonstrate why you would think so...I suggest you take a look in mirror before accusing "the left" of doing anything.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Huh, that's funny, because "dems want the war/economy/etc to go badly just so Bush looks bad" sounds like hyperbole to me. None of you people have shown anything that would suggest this is a case for a significant portion of the population, so unless you can demonstrate why you would think so...I suggest you take a look in mirror before accusing "the left" of doing anything.

Let me ask you a question and please answer honestly:

Are you hoping for US success in Iraq even though it will verify the Bush Doctrine should that happen?

Be honest too. Isn't there a part of you that hopes for failure to demonstrate the neocons were wrong?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Huh, that's funny, because "dems want the war/economy/etc to go badly just so Bush looks bad" sounds like hyperbole to me. None of you people have shown anything that would suggest this is a case for a significant portion of the population, so unless you can demonstrate why you would think so...I suggest you take a look in mirror before accusing "the left" of doing anything.

Let me ask you a question and please answer honestly:

Are you hoping for US success in Iraq even though it will verify the Bush Doctrine should that happen?

Be honest too. Isn't there a part of you that hopes for failure to demonstrate the neocons were wrong?

What, at the cost of our boys lives? No way in hell! That doesn't mean that I shouldn't be pissed that I was misled by him and his nefarious network of Neocons into supporting his ill advised excellent adventure into Iraq based on doubtful and faulty intel that a competent leader should have known was wrong. Now he says we are there to liberate those wags, the same motherfsckers who are shooting and killing our soldiers and ,who according to a gallup poll, a large minority would prefer Hussien in Power than our liberation of them of them from him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Huh, that's funny, because "dems want the war/economy/etc to go badly just so Bush looks bad" sounds like hyperbole to me. None of you people have shown anything that would suggest this is a case for a significant portion of the population, so unless you can demonstrate why you would think so...I suggest you take a look in mirror before accusing "the left" of doing anything.

Let me ask you a question and please answer honestly:

Are you hoping for US success in Iraq even though it will verify the Bush Doctrine should that happen?

Be honest too. Isn't there a part of you that hopes for failure to demonstrate the neocons were wrong?

Your question is meaningless. Nobody has to wish for what is obviously coming to pass regardless of what people wish on any side. Did the Romans wish for the fall of Rome or did they pursue stupid policies that made it happen.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Valid criticism!=a troll

Yet valid criticism of Iraq = Treasonous?

The key word there is "valid." There's a big difference between validity and hyperbole and sometimes I'm not sure if the left recognizes that.

Huh, that's funny, because "dems want the war/economy/etc to go badly just so Bush looks bad" sounds like hyperbole to me. None of you people have shown anything that would suggest this is a case for a significant portion of the population, so unless you can demonstrate why you would think so...I suggest you take a look in mirror before accusing "the left" of doing anything.

Let me ask you a question and please answer honestly:

Are you hoping for US success in Iraq even though it will verify the Bush Doctrine should that happen?

Be honest too. Isn't there a part of you that hopes for failure to demonstrate the neocons were wrong?

Are you hoping for a failure of US success in Iraq? Hell no, what a ridiculous question. :roll:

I'm hoping for a leader that knows how to get us out of this mess that the NeoCons caused.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What, at the cost of our boys lives? No way in hell! That doesn't mean that I shouldn't be pissed that I was misled by him and his nefarious network of Neocons into supporting his ill advised excellent adventure into Iraq based on doubtful and faulty intel that a competent leader should have known was wrong. Now he says we are there to liberate those wags, the same motherfsckers who are shooting and killing our soldiers and ,who according to a gallup poll, a large minority would prefer Hussien in Power than our liberation of them of them from him.

So your answer then is that you are hoping for a US failure in Iraq?