Lets assume for a minute that Democrats will win the presidency and congress....

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Didn't they suggest sh!tcanning Rumsfield? Sounds like a pretty good start of a solution to me.

sorry Charlie, that's not a solution. they think shitcanning the President would work too.
i want to hear rational ideas, and alternative solutions. they just don't talk along those lines.

Please name specific problems, and who created them, that you expect Democrats to solve for you?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Didn't they suggest sh!tcanning Rumsfield? Sounds like a pretty good start of a solution to me.

sorry Charlie, that's not a solution. they think shitcanning the President would work too.
i want to hear rational ideas, and alternative solutions. they just don't talk along those lines.

Please name specific problems, and who created them, that you expect Democrats to solve for you?

read the thread title for one.

and then read again what i have posted. i see Dems always being critical of the current administration, but never offering up solutions to the very issues they are criticizing.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Didn't they suggest sh!tcanning Rumsfield? Sounds like a pretty good start of a solution to me.

sorry Charlie, that's not a solution. they think shitcanning the President would work too.
i want to hear rational ideas, and alternative solutions. they just don't talk along those lines.

Please name specific problems, and who created them, that you expect Democrats to solve for you?

read the thread title for one.

and then read again what i have posted. i see Dems always being critical of the current administration, but never offering up solutions to the very issues they are criticizing.

Don't you think acknowledging that Iraq was a mistake is the first step to fixing that mistake?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Didn't they suggest sh!tcanning Rumsfield? Sounds like a pretty good start of a solution to me.

sorry Charlie, that's not a solution. they think shitcanning the President would work too.
i want to hear rational ideas, and alternative solutions. they just don't talk along those lines.

Please name specific problems, and who created them, that you expect Democrats to solve for you?

read the thread title for one.

and then read again what i have posted. i see Dems always being critical of the current administration, but never offering up solutions to the very issues they are criticizing.

Don't you think acknowledging that Iraq was a mistake is the first step to fixing that mistake?

absolutely. now tell me what you are going to do to change that "mistake". don't just go on and on about what is wrong now. how are you going to right it? what would YOU have done differently? show me a Dem who has offered up an alternative action.

 

[Zebo]

Bush's mistake was Iraq. Not ony does it stop us from taking out Irans capabilities with 150,000 troops under Iran's and Iraqi Shi'a thumb, he no longer has the politcal capital to launch such an attack against a real terror sponsor. Really Iraq is the biggest strategic disater in our history from generals essays I've read such as Zinni..Swartzkoff etc. I have no doubt when democrats take over troops will be pulled and USA will attack Iran, no troops all death from above. Democrats arn't antiwar, those missles don't sell themselves you know and thus the war lobby has allies on both sides of the isle. In effect I think the WOT will get a positive shot in the arm if dems take power instead of spinning our wheels in Iraq hoping, praying Iraqis act like our founding fathers one day which will never happen, we will try and neutralize Iran

 

[Zebo]

If you have any doubt of Democrats war intentions read the Hoekstra-Harman paper signed off by every democrat on the House Intelligence Committee

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf

It was poo pooed by the, half muslim, all isreal all the time, UN but that does'nt mean squat.

 

[amish]

**SNIP**

Originally posted by: moshquerade
absolutely. now tell me what you are going to do to change that "mistake". don't just go on and on about what is wrong now. how are you going to right it? what would YOU have done differently? show me a Dem who has offered up an alternative action.

1. apologize to the public & iraqis
2. inform them that we have not delivered what we promised and have not fully been committed to what needs to get done.
3. go back to the tapes of the senate hearing where our generals gave us a number of soldiers needed to restructure iraq.
4. send the right amount of troops. this would make it difficult for any insurgent to move.
5. get rid of no-bid contracts to help pay for the additional troops
6. fire rumsfield since he would not allow this under him.
7. get the iraqi government working together as shia, shiite, and kurds
8. after, hopefully, two years the iraqi gov. is up and running and the insurgency is hanging by a thread.
9. realize that as a president, if this were to happen, that i would go down as an unpopular mediocre president that lasted only one term and who was only there to clean up a mess.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think at this point, the GOP is too politically invested in Iraq to make objective decisions on our policy there.
Democrats would bring a new set of eyes to the problem that can make decisions based on current situation, not to justify past decisions.

The main question is: can we still succeed in Iraq, would staying there longer help or just delay the inevitable?

I've asked this question many times and don't recall seeing a straight answer from anyone.

What is the definition of success in Iraq?

That's an easy question to answer. The much harder question is how do you get to that successful resolution.

Success in Iraq is :
1. When the insurgency/terror groups have been eliminated, or at least reduced in capacity that they are a minor annoyance.
2. The Shia-Shiite cycle of violence is ended and we figure out a way to get/make these people live together in peace.
3. The government retains its current status a democratically elected government representative of all the people of Iraq.

So far #3 is very close to being done. Just need to get the few holdouts left to get involved.
The other 2 are a mess. Hate to be in charge of solving that problem.

Success is an Iraq that is a peaceful nation that is tolerant of its neighbors. I think Turkey and Jordan might be good role models for success, although Jordan needs to be democratic to be a perfect role model, but at least both countries are peaceful and I believe have a decent level of human rights.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Yes, they seem to be unaware of their ability to call hearings, what with their control of so many congressional committees and all.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
absolutely. now tell me what you are going to do to change that "mistake". don't just go on and on about what is wrong now. how are you going to right it? what would YOU have done differently? show me a Dem who has offered up an alternative action.

Why do you put "mistake" in quotes? You don't think invading Iraq was a mistake?
As far as what needs to be done, you do need to acknowledge what has been done wrong first. For example, if you want to stay in Iraq, then you need to acknowledge that invading with insufficient number of troops to effectively occupy the country was a mistake, and increase the number of troops to get the job done. Otherwise we need to withdraw from the country. To continue to have troops there with no hope of effectively fighting the insurgency is the worst case scenario that we are now pursuing under this administration. As far as what a Democrat president would do, that depends on which one is elected presiden, since there are differing opinions within the party. I have heard solutions ranging from withdrawing troops to increasing number of troops, so you need to be more specific about which candidate you are asking about.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: amish
1. apologize to the public & iraqis
2. inform them that we have not delivered what we promised and have not fully been committed to what needs to get done.
3. go back to the tapes of the senate hearing where our generals gave us a number of soldiers needed to restructure iraq.
4. send the right amount of troops. this would make it difficult for any insurgent to move.
5. get rid of no-bid contracts to help pay for the additional troops
6. fire rumsfield since he would not allow this under him.
7. get the iraqi government working together as shia, shiite, and kurds
8. after, hopefully, two years the iraqi gov. is up and running and the insurgency is hanging by a thread.
9. realize that as a president, if this were to happen, that i would go down as an unpopular mediocre president that lasted only one term and who was only there to clean up a mess.

I wanted to comment on numbers 5 and 6.

I think the whole no-bid contract thing is much ado about nothing. There were no-bid contracts under Bill Clinton, took place in Kosovo and Bosnia. The main complaint about the no-bid contracts now is that Chenney worked for Hailiburton, no one had a problem with them when Clinton was president, don?t take my word read for yourself:

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

Now regular contracts can be cheaper and should be done whenever possible, but overall this whole ?no-bid contract? thing is about politics more than policy.

Second. The calls for the firing of Rumsfeld are also more about politics than policy. The Democrats like to attack Rumsfeld because he is an easy target.
You can not doubt though that Rumsfeld is one of the smartest people in Washington, just watch him on a TV show once or twice, he knows his stuff and he lets it show. Of course he also seems to suffer from ?I?m the smartest guy in the room? syndrome, a trait he shares with Hillary and Bill. Rumsfeld and Bill also share the inability to take blame for things that go wrong, at least publicly.
Despite all of this a LOT of people on the right and in the White House have a lot of confidence in Rumsfeld, which is probably the most important thing the president needs to have in anyone who serves him.
Firing Rumsfeld may make a lot of Democrats happy, and will certainly gain Bush some short term political gain. However, will it have much effect long term? How long will it take for the Democrats to start complaining about any replacement for him?
Also the Democrats will use it as a huge symbolic victory. They will try to make the firing of Rumsfeld into a metaphor for the entire war on terror and will endlessly try to score political points from his firing. That alone could be a reason Bush is not in a hurry to eliminate him.

Finally, should the members of congress have any say in who the president has working for him? Do we want to create a precedence in which complaints from one party causes a president of the other party to change his cabinet? Think long and hard about this because some time in the future there will be a Democratic president and a Republican congress, would the Democrats want those Republicans calling for the removal of any cabinet member they don?t like or disagree with?

If you don?t agree with any of the above please feel free to respond with a logical rebuttal.
For those of you who don?t know what the term ?logical rebuttal? means, I?ll give you a hint: calling me names, a shill or a team player are not tantamount to logic.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: amish
1. apologize to the public & iraqis
2. inform them that we have not delivered what we promised and have not fully been committed to what needs to get done.
3. go back to the tapes of the senate hearing where our generals gave us a number of soldiers needed to restructure iraq.
4. send the right amount of troops. this would make it difficult for any insurgent to move.
5. get rid of no-bid contracts to help pay for the additional troops
6. fire rumsfield since he would not allow this under him.
7. get the iraqi government working together as shia, shiite, and kurds
8. after, hopefully, two years the iraqi gov. is up and running and the insurgency is hanging by a thread.
9. realize that as a president, if this were to happen, that i would go down as an unpopular mediocre president that lasted only one term and who was only there to clean up a mess.

I wanted to comment on numbers 5 and 6.

I think the whole no-bid contract thing is much ado about nothing. There were no-bid contracts under Bill Clinton, took place in Kosovo and Bosnia. The main complaint about the no-bid contracts now is that Chenney worked for Hailiburton, no one had a problem with them when Clinton was president, don?t take my word read for yourself:

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

Now regular contracts can be cheaper and should be done whenever possible, but overall this whole ?no-bid contract? thing is about politics more than policy.

Second. The calls for the firing of Rumsfeld are also more about politics than policy. The Democrats like to attack Rumsfeld because he is an easy target.
You can not doubt though that Rumsfeld is one of the smartest people in Washington, just watch him on a TV show once or twice, he knows his stuff and he lets it show. Of course he also seems to suffer from ?I?m the smartest guy in the room? syndrome, a trait he shares with Hillary and Bill. Rumsfeld and Bill also share the inability to take blame for things that go wrong, at least publicly.
Despite all of this a LOT of people on the right and in the White House have a lot of confidence in Rumsfeld, which is probably the most important thing the president needs to have in anyone who serves him.
Firing Rumsfeld may make a lot of Democrats happy, and will certainly gain Bush some short term political gain. However, will it have much effect long term? How long will it take for the Democrats to start complaining about any replacement for him?
Also the Democrats will use it as a huge symbolic victory. They will try to make the firing of Rumsfeld into a metaphor for the entire war on terror and will endlessly try to score political points from his firing. That alone could be a reason Bush is not in a hurry to eliminate him.

Finally, should the members of congress have any say in who the president has working for him? Do we want to create a precedence in which complaints from one party causes a president of the other party to change his cabinet? Think long and hard about this because some time in the future there will be a Democratic president and a Republican congress, would the Democrats want those Republicans calling for the removal of any cabinet member they don?t like or disagree with?

If you don?t agree with any of the above please feel free to respond with a logical rebuttal.
For those of you who don?t know what the term ?logical rebuttal? means, I?ll give you a hint: calling me names, a shill or a team player are not tantamount to logic.

Hell no, I don't agree with any of the above. You are basically saying Bush shouldn't fire Rumsfeld because it's bad politically for Republicans, never mind Rumsfeld's actual performance on the job. Results of which speak for themselves. You claim Rumsfeld is smart, yet what evidence is there to back that up? He looks smart in front of cameras? Oh, I guess that settles it. Never mind that this is the guy who not only didn't plan for the occupation of Iraq, but threatened to fire anyone who did. Now, maybe someone can explain to me how planning to go to war to occupy a country without planning for the actual occupation qualifies as "smart." I would love to hear that.
And hell yeah, the Congress should have a say in who runs the Defense Department. The Congress funds the DoD. He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. You want the Congress to appropriate money for the war without having any say in how and by whom it is run? You are living in a dream world.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: amish
1. apologize to the public & iraqis
2. inform them that we have not delivered what we promised and have not fully been committed to what needs to get done.
3. go back to the tapes of the senate hearing where our generals gave us a number of soldiers needed to restructure iraq.
4. send the right amount of troops. this would make it difficult for any insurgent to move.
5. get rid of no-bid contracts to help pay for the additional troops
6. fire rumsfield since he would not allow this under him.
7. get the iraqi government working together as shia, shiite, and kurds
8. after, hopefully, two years the iraqi gov. is up and running and the insurgency is hanging by a thread.
9. realize that as a president, if this were to happen, that i would go down as an unpopular mediocre president that lasted only one term and who was only there to clean up a mess.

I wanted to comment on numbers 5 and 6.

I think the whole no-bid contract thing is much ado about nothing. There were no-bid contracts under Bill Clinton, took place in Kosovo and Bosnia. The main complaint about the no-bid contracts now is that Chenney worked for Hailiburton, no one had a problem with them when Clinton was president, don?t take my word read for yourself:

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

Now regular contracts can be cheaper and should be done whenever possible, but overall this whole ?no-bid contract? thing is about politics more than policy.

Second. The calls for the firing of Rumsfeld are also more about politics than policy. The Democrats like to attack Rumsfeld because he is an easy target.
You can not doubt though that Rumsfeld is one of the smartest people in Washington, just watch him on a TV show once or twice, he knows his stuff and he lets it show. Of course he also seems to suffer from ?I?m the smartest guy in the room? syndrome, a trait he shares with Hillary and Bill. Rumsfeld and Bill also share the inability to take blame for things that go wrong, at least publicly.
Despite all of this a LOT of people on the right and in the White House have a lot of confidence in Rumsfeld, which is probably the most important thing the president needs to have in anyone who serves him.
Firing Rumsfeld may make a lot of Democrats happy, and will certainly gain Bush some short term political gain. However, will it have much effect long term? How long will it take for the Democrats to start complaining about any replacement for him?
Also the Democrats will use it as a huge symbolic victory. They will try to make the firing of Rumsfeld into a metaphor for the entire war on terror and will endlessly try to score political points from his firing. That alone could be a reason Bush is not in a hurry to eliminate him.

Finally, should the members of congress have any say in who the president has working for him? Do we want to create a precedence in which complaints from one party causes a president of the other party to change his cabinet? Think long and hard about this because some time in the future there will be a Democratic president and a Republican congress, would the Democrats want those Republicans calling for the removal of any cabinet member they don?t like or disagree with?

If you don?t agree with any of the above please feel free to respond with a logical rebuttal.
For those of you who don?t know what the term ?logical rebuttal? means, I?ll give you a hint: calling me names, a shill or a team player are not tantamount to logic.

first i'm going to start out with...nice post.

i'm sure no-bid contracts do have their time and place, but for my little strategy to work it would take a ton of money. more vehicles, better maintenance on existing vehicles, food, ammo, transportation, ad nauseam.

one way to cut a corner is to have a better/cheaper contract. with more troops there should be a better security force in place instead of paying a premium for a group that is used to delivering with people shooting at them. without some cost cutting we better start issuing war bonds or some other way to increase the governments income. personally, i'm sick of spend, spend, spend, but wars are expensive.

rummy is definately intelligent. its hilarious when he gives a reporter a "you're stupid" look for dumb questions. i just don't think that he would let more troops go, especially when that is what general (can't remember his name) told him. other than that i don't have a problem with him.

members of congress should NOT have a say at who is in the cabinet. this upsets the political balance that is tantamount to our government. granted there will always be ebbs and flows between congress and the president.

out for the weekend, adios.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hell no, I don't agree with any of the above. You are basically saying Bush shouldn't fire Rumsfeld because it's bad politically for Republicans, never mind Rumsfeld's actual performance on the job. Results of which speak for themselves. You claim Rumsfeld is smart, yet what evidence is there to back that up? He looks smart in front of cameras? Oh, I guess that settles it. Never mind that this is the guy who not only didn't plan for the occupation of Iraq, but threatened to fire anyone who did. Now, maybe someone can explain to me how planning to go to war to occupy a country without planning for the actual occupation qualifies as "smart." I would love to hear that.
And hell yeah, the Congress should have a say in who runs the Defense Department. The Congress funds the DoD. He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. You want the Congress to appropriate money for the war without having any say in how and by whom it is run? You are living in a dream world.

Try this:

Donald H. Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as the 13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, U.S. Congressman and chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).

From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.

Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

OK, so he is a Princeton grad. Naval aviator, 4 time congressman elected at the age or 30, Ambassador to NATO, Chief of Staff of the White House, the youngest person ever to be Secretary of Defense in 1975, CEO of TWO different pharmaceutical companies.

I'd say all of that is pretty good evidence that is he a pretty smart guy huh?

 

[galperi1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hell no, I don't agree with any of the above. You are basically saying Bush shouldn't fire Rumsfeld because it's bad politically for Republicans, never mind Rumsfeld's actual performance on the job. Results of which speak for themselves. You claim Rumsfeld is smart, yet what evidence is there to back that up? He looks smart in front of cameras? Oh, I guess that settles it. Never mind that this is the guy who not only didn't plan for the occupation of Iraq, but threatened to fire anyone who did. Now, maybe someone can explain to me how planning to go to war to occupy a country without planning for the actual occupation qualifies as "smart." I would love to hear that.
And hell yeah, the Congress should have a say in who runs the Defense Department. The Congress funds the DoD. He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. You want the Congress to appropriate money for the war without having any say in how and by whom it is run? You are living in a dream world.

Try this:

Donald H. Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as the 13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, U.S. Congressman and chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).

From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.

Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

OK, so he is a Princeton grad. Naval aviator, 4 time congressman elected at the age or 30, Ambassador to NATO, Chief of Staff of the White House, the youngest person ever to be Secretary of Defense in 1975, CEO of TWO different pharmaceutical companies.

I'd say all of that is pretty good evidence that is he a pretty smart guy huh?

He certainly is a smart guy. He's managed to clusterf@#$k iraq and STILL have a job.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Clinth
I for one would be scared if the Dems get back in, the soft hand and kid glove approach to terrorism is what got us in this mess to begin with. Launch a cruise missile here and there or go to the UN and whine as are troops were attack. Times have change and that kind of approach does not and has not work. Hard and fast school ground rules. Thats what they respect. not politics, Bush did that. give him credit for that if nothing else.

I've seen the elephant
Clinth

Am I the only one who thinks we're worse off than we were right after 9/11? We've done a lot to spread the ideology of Al-Qaeda and helped it branch into a country that previously opposed it. We've created and helped a lot of new terrorist groups around the world and virtually trashed our relationship with countries that used to be (and should still be) our closest allies. And we're currently stuck spending a vast amount of blood and treasure occupying a country that posed no threat to us.

I would give Bush a lot of credit if he had attacked the terrorists with "hard and fast school ground rules" (despite how toolish that phrasing sounds), but what he did was simply widly lash out at any convenient target and then attempt to play politics to (successfully) help him and his partisan buddies get elected. Not exactly admirable behavior in my book. Maybe the Dems will be too soft on terrorists (although I think that's a lot of Republican bullshit, personally), but damn it if they don't at least seem to know how to use their brains. I'd rather err on the side of overthinking the problem than the side of applying way too much uncontrolled action.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

I never quite understand why people believe this is a valid criticism. Maybe it's just me, but coming up with stupid ideas is not more admirable and does not demonstrate better leadership skills than not coming up with ideas at all and simply shooting down the bad ones. In fact, the latter group has a skill the former group lacks, the ability to pick out and avoid bad ideas. Rhetorical points about Dems digging us out of the messes Republicans got us into isn't really a good argument, had we been Republican free from the beginning, there would be no mess to clean up in the first place.

And in any case, Republicans are no better than the Dems in the idea department when it comes to Iraq. Bush keeps dragging out that claptrap about "staying the course". Very motivational and all, but that's not a plan. A plan would have specific goals and specific ideas to reach those goals and specific measures to see how well we are reaching those goals. In other words, a "timeline"...something proposed repeatedly by Dems and soundly rejected by the stay-the-coursers. In other words, the Republican plan for Iraq was to invade and then wing it...the Dems at least support the idea of having a plan to get out, many of them have proposed such plans. I see no exit strategy from the right...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

I never quite understand why people believe this is a valid criticism. Maybe it's just me, but coming up with stupid ideas is not more admirable and does not demonstrate better leadership skills than not coming up with ideas at all and simply shooting down the bad ones. In fact, the latter group has a skill the former group lacks, the ability to pick out and avoid bad ideas. Rhetorical points about Dems digging us out of the messes Republicans got us into isn't really a good argument, had we been Republican free from the beginning, there would be no mess to clean up in the first place.

And in any case, Republicans are no better than the Dems in the idea department when it comes to Iraq. Bush keeps dragging out that claptrap about "staying the course". Very motivational and all, but that's not a plan. A plan would have specific goals and specific ideas to reach those goals and specific measures to see how well we are reaching those goals. In other words, a "timeline"...something proposed repeatedly by Dems and soundly rejected by the stay-the-coursers. In other words, the Republican plan for Iraq was to invade and then wing it...the Dems at least support the idea of having a plan to get out, many of them have proposed such plans. I see no exit strategy from the right...

Rainsford, I think the point of the "Dems have no solutions either" argument is that it is a lot easier to complain about what someone is doing than putting out a workable plan of your own.
Every football fan in the country can tell you every thing his team did wrong the day after they loss a game, but how many of them can actually create a game plan that would work? It is a lot easier to point out peoples mistakes and faults than to provide a working solution, especially to something as complicated as Iraq.

I think there is a plan of action in Iraq, I just don't think they are very good at getting information out about the plan. Right now the plan seems to be that we train Iraqi soldiers and then those soldiers take over the policing of their own country. When there are enough of them trained the Americans will go into a support role and eventually leave the country.

Now you can certainly doubt that the plan will work, but they do have a plan.

One last thing, I think the Republicans want to see this Iraq thing work out FAR more than the Democrats do because it is the Republicans who are talking the political heat for our failures in Iraq. If (big IF) the Iraq situation can be worked out then the Republicans will pat each other on the back and the Democrats will find some thing new to complain about, such is the nature of politics in America.

Note: I am not advocating that the Democrats want to see American soldiers dying, but you have to think that there are some Dems who are enjoying the mess the Republicans are suffering through in regards to Iraq.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Note: I am not advocating that the Democrats want to see American soldiers dying, but you have to think that there are some Dems who are enjoying the mess the Republicans are suffering through in regards to Iraq.

Some? I'd say most!

The sad fact is that many in the opposition party are rooting for the enemy. They're betting against America and putting politics first. Not surprisingly, many of these people did the exact same thing 40 years ago in another controversial war.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade
so far the Dems have put up no solutions to anything. they are champions of criticism without coming up with any better ideas.

Didn't they suggest sh!tcanning Rumsfield? Sounds like a pretty good start of a solution to me.

sorry Charlie, that's not a solution.

Yes it is.

 

[AAjax]

IMO nothing will change, in Iraq or otherwise. Remember it was the Dems who brought you Vietnam(by and large). Of course the underlying issue is that the division of partys is an illusion, Dems in office= one half of the agenda moved forward... Repubs in office= the other half moved forward.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AAjax
IMO nothing will change, in Iraq or otherwise. Remember it was the Dems who brought you Vietnam(by and large). Of course the underlying issue is that the division of partys is an illusion, Dems in office= one half of the agenda moved forward... Repubs in office= the other half moved forward.

You know it might be a Republican President in the future who solves this problem, one thing for certain it isn't the current Republican President and his administration, they are the ones who totally fscked it up and us along with it.

 

[TheSlamma]

Admit we screwed up and slowly pull out while the people continue to fight, bicker and kill themselves

Do you know how long these people have been doing this? And what do you think the US governemnt can't stop THOUSANDS of years of it?

Please kid go back to class... LOTS of learning to do.