Poll: Most doubt Dems have plan for Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.

 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,258
201
106
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_1By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 4:01 PM ET



WASHINGTON - More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.
In the aftermath of an anti-Republican wave, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed lingering uncertainty about the country's direction and the ability of Democrats and President Bush to work together. Underscoring the country's political divisions, Democrats expressed more confidence and optimism than Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12 as the public adjusted to Washington's new division of labor, with President Bush in the White House and Democrats holding the reins of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

please oh please tell us something we don`t already know...rofl

Why don't we actually wait and see what the Dems do in the next few months instead of reciting talking points. If they don't have a plan you can say. 'told you so."
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.
But why would the Democrats need to distract people from their impeachment of Bush? Did he change parties while no one was looking?

This isn't some Kerry attempt at humor is it? :)
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
DaveSimmons,

The operative portion of my statement was "IF they get a president in office". It has nothing to do with Bush. Considering the quality of the potential candidates, impeachment is more likely than some may think.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
It is up to Bush to present a new play for Iraq. He is the President and the American people have told him to change. The job of the Democrats is to allow him enough room to eat his giant crow and have the consequences of his disaster fall on him and those who supported him. It is not the Democrats job to go in seize control and claim the disaster that is coming there is their idea. The war belongs to Bush and he will have to eat it.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,600
4,698
136
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.

The term is "wag the dog", Einstein, and you seem to have no comprehension of what it means.

P.S It was just a movie, Sherlock.

But if you insist on using the term, and bother to investigate it further, you would realize that it is what the Republicans accused Clinton of doing during the "Monica" investigations. Clinton was trying to go after Osama Bin Ladin, but the Republicans just laughed, accusing him of trying to divert attention off of his having had manly sex with an actual adult woman, who happened to not be his wife, instead of an underage male page...the horror.
:roll:
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
DaveSimmons,

The operative portion of my statement was "IF they get a president in office". It has nothing to do with Bush. Considering the quality of the potential candidates, impeachment is more likely than some may think.
I see, that was a Kerry attempt at humor :)

You meant to imply that if the Democrats got a president elected, that president (especially Hillary) would then receive indecent liberties from a female intern, lie about it under oath, be impeached by a Democratic house and senate, then finally use Iraq as a distraction from said impeachment.

That's definitely up there with two birds and not studying for a convoluted bit of humor :)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_1By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 4:01 PM ET



WASHINGTON - More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.
In the aftermath of an anti-Republican wave, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed lingering uncertainty about the country's direction and the ability of Democrats and President Bush to work together. Underscoring the country's political divisions, Democrats expressed more confidence and optimism than Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12 as the public adjusted to Washington's new division of labor, with President Bush in the White House and Democrats holding the reins of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

please oh please tell us something we don`t already know...rofl
LOL @ U! You aren't asking the right question. Which is: What is the GOP plan for dealing with Iraq? Slam your head against the wall on a daily basis until something magically works itself out?

http://www.angryflower.com/smashi.html
now doesnt this fit well :)
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_1By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 4:01 PM ET



WASHINGTON - More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.
In the aftermath of an anti-Republican wave, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed lingering uncertainty about the country's direction and the ability of Democrats and President Bush to work together. Underscoring the country's political divisions, Democrats expressed more confidence and optimism than Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12 as the public adjusted to Washington's new division of labor, with President Bush in the White House and Democrats holding the reins of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

please oh please tell us something we don`t already know...rofl
LOL @ U! You aren't asking the right question. Which is: What is the GOP plan for dealing with Iraq? Slam your head against the wall on a daily basis until something magically works itself out?
The plan...

1. Act like incompetent boobs
2. Out some of the more undesirable members of the "Corrupt Bastards Club"
3. Bungle an election
4. Accept regime change with a wink and a smile
5. Ask "Whatcha gonna do now?"
6. ???
7. Profit!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Dem's Plan for Iraq is get the hell out as soon as possible. I say hell yeah. Iraq is broken beyond repair, all that remains is to watch the civil war ignite completely, and watch the Shia take over.

Good riddance to that craphole, and this is 110% why we should move to a post-oil/gas economy and national energy platform.

CArter tried to tell us. No one listened then and still arnt listening. I saw a report how far 2.2 trillion (what iraq war costed so far) could have done to making a all electric car/nuke powered infrastuctre a reality. It was shocking. Basically we could have built 500 plants given every american driver a expensive long lasting lithium sulfide batt for free and all they would have to buy was car itself...natually way less than a normally asperated engined car due to simplicity. Oh well. I guess the west wants fundi muslims ruling the world one day when oil hits $300 a barrel and they have us over the barrel. My time in Saudi back in the early 90s I never saw such wealth in my life. Makes Orange County look like Watts. I'd like to see it today. Saudis don't work. All Americans and Asians treated like garbage. Again I'd like to see it now with todays oil prices.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:

haha. "Wag the tail"! lol

hahaha

hahaghgahahakakkakakhaaaaaaaaaaaaa

breathe

hahahahakjdkjskahaahahjjajajss,lol
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
The one thing that most of the members here...Democrat or Republican, are not ready for, is that there is no solution for Iraq, except the one that is currently in operation. There will never be a peace in the Middle East, until the Antichrist brings about a false peace, that will herald the end of this age and the return of Christ. Then, Democrat and Republican, religious and atheist will be a thing of the past. What is occurring now is simply putting off the inevitable, but even a delay is better than what will follow immediately afterward.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
edited URL-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_4

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_1By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 4:01 PM ET



WASHINGTON - More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.
In the aftermath of an anti-Republican wave, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed lingering uncertainty about the country's direction and the ability of Democrats and President Bush to work together. Underscoring the country's political divisions, Democrats expressed more confidence and optimism than Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12 as the public adjusted to Washington's new division of labor, with President Bush in the White House and Democrats holding the reins of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

please oh please tell us something we don`t already know...rofl

Umm, the elections were only a week ago. How about giving the Democrats another week or two to come up with plans to turn around a war that has been going on for years.

GWB is President and he determines foreign policy. The Congress controls funding.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.

The term is "wag the dog", Einstein, and you seem to have no comprehension of what it means.

P.S. It was just a movie, Sherlock.

But if you insist on using the term, and bother to investigate it further, you would realize that it is what the Republicans accused Clinton of doing during the "Monica" investigations. Clinton was trying to go after Osama Bin Ladin, ---Bull......you know better than that!!

but the Republicans just laughed, accusing him of trying to divert attention off of his having had manly sex with an actual adult woman, who happened to not be his wife, instead of an underage male page...the horror.
:roll:

 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
JEDIYoda,

Where did I say one word about Osama Bin Laden? The incident in question was Clinton's raid on Iraq, it had nothing to do with Bin Laden. The raid was out of the blue, without any justification and was over as fast as it began, when it had served it's purpose.

EDIT: BTW, there was nothing manly about Clinton's affair with Monica. But that is another issue, which I do not choose to go into.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Well they have two years to come up with one. Right now their job is to prevent the Neocons from screwing things up worse than they already have.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Funny that the Bush fans didn't raise the issue of a "plan" at the outset...

Didn't seem necessary, marching in formation behind the "Conservative" banner, right?

And it still wouldn't be, if that flag of faith were still waving at the head of the column...

The sad truth is that nobody, other than the Iraqi insurgents, really has a plan. That revelation is clearly reason enough for the faithful to simply kill the messenger, return to the comfort of conditioning and Denial... keep right on buying the shoddy product offered under the "Conservative" brand.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The one thing that most of the members here...Democrat or Republican, are not ready for, is that there is no solution for Iraq, except the one that is currently in operation. There will never be a peace in the Middle East, until the Antichrist brings about a false peace, that will herald the end of this age and the return of Christ. Then, Democrat and Republican, religious and atheist will be a thing of the past. What is occurring now is simply putting off the inevitable, but even a delay is better than what will follow immediately afterward.

Why didn't you just cut through that Seekermeister crap and go directly for something like Loon or DeludedReligiousNutCase and save us the trouble of figuring it out?
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
There will never be a peace in the Middle East, until the Antichrist brings about a false peace, that will herald the end of this age and the return of Christ. Then, Democrat and Republican, religious and atheist will be a thing of the past. What is occurring now is simply putting off the inevitable, but even a delay is better than what will follow immediately afterward.

Do you actually believe this stuff? Tell the truth.

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.

The impeachment of Clinton was a disaster for the republicans because they brought up nothing of substance. Clinton shouldn't even have been asked about the whole affair, unless, of course, you feel that congress should actively investigate the sex life of the president. Most people realized this since Clinton's approval ratings barely dropped.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The one thing that most of the members here...Democrat or Republican, are not ready for, is that there is no solution for Iraq, except the one that is currently in operation. There will never be a peace in the Middle East, until the Antichrist brings about a false peace, that will herald the end of this age and the return of Christ. Then, Democrat and Republican, religious and atheist will be a thing of the past. What is occurring now is simply putting off the inevitable, but even a delay is better than what will follow immediately afterward.

Dude, are you proselytizing to us? STFU right now.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I hate the Republican Plan.

I keep hearing this phrase, that we will not quit till we win. First of all Iraq is the one that has to win. If the people of Iraq are unwilling to fight for their freedom, then there is only so much that the USA can do to help them. I think sending American GI's out as targets to patrol areas is not a very good plan for the USA to keep doing. I think we should set up a few bases in the desert and we should support the Iraqi people when they have problems. However, Iraq must take care of itself. Many Muslims resent any western help becuase they consider it an intrusion. I think this is why Reagan pulled out of the Middle East. He realized that we could not change their hearts and it would mean a lot of bloodshed for Americans.

The big problem is that now the terrorists are coming to America and trying to destroy us on our own soil. The terrorists will keep attacking us if we do nothing. If there is anything I know for sure, it is that we do not make a very good punching bag. Most animals if they are cornered will fight for their lives and that is what we have to find a way to do. President Bush has the wrong plan for this fight.

I would be in favor of rounding up all Muslim Immigrants and sending them back where they came from. We are inviting disaster to let muslim immigrants come to America. Sooner or later they will be encouraged to fight and destroy the USA.

I think Iran is our biggest problem. We may have to wipe Iran out.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,600
4,698
136
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The Democrats will need Iraq, if they get a president in office, so that they can use it to "wag the tail" like Clinton did, to distract people from an impeachment hearing.

How on earth does this make sense? Is this a joke? Or maybe you can pass me some of that herb you're obviously inhaling. Puff puff pass man. :cookie:
I don't find anything humorous about it, but if you would stop smoking your "herb", you might understand, because it should be obvious to anyone that was around during the Clinton administration.

The term is "wag the dog", Einstein, and you seem to have no comprehension of what it means.

P.S. It was just a movie, Sherlock.

But if you insist on using the term, and bother to investigate it further, you would realize that it is what the Republicans accused Clinton of doing during the "Monica" investigations. Clinton was trying to go after Osama Bin Ladin, ---Bull......you know better than that!!

but the Republicans just laughed, accusing him of trying to divert attention off of his having had manly sex with an actual adult woman, who happened to not be his wife, instead of an underage male page...the horror.
:roll:



Oh really?




"The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of."


















 
Feb 16, 2005
14,058
5,398
136
Maybe because the US citizens realized that the people in charge are insane, to quote Albert Einstein:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.