Why the statement ?Democrats don?t need a plan, it?s not their war? is totally worthless

[jackschmittusa]

JD50

Care to comment on my second post in this thread? I thought I offered a plausable explaination why the link to Dave's post was not applicable.

ProfJohn

Now you seem pretty far off topic. It seems like a rant.

 

[ProfJohn]

Jack, here is Dave's entire comment, including what he quoted and what he bolded.
Based on what he bolded he was most certainly making the statement "It's not the Democrats war" they don't need a plan.
BTW: Since then I posted two other comments that are very similar in tone. Both basicly say this is Bush's problem to solve.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

WEAKENED by the unpopular Iraq war, President George W. Bush accused Democrats of lacking a plan to prevail in the conflict today as he opened a week-long drive to try to keep Republicans in control of the US Congress.

"The Democratic goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq," Mr Bush told a rousing rally in a gymnasium at Georgia Southern University.

"If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one.

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, yet they don't have a plan for victory," he said.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
To be fair, I don't see where Bush said it's democrats fault how Iraq is going. I see where he's saying they lack a plan if they win.

And in fact, democrats are divided on what to do in Iraq. My congressman estimates there might be 70 in the house who, like him, favor immediate withdrawal; others don't.

I agree with Craig. Nice to see we can agree on something. The thread title is very misleading.

What is this crap.

It's not "The Democrats War" .

This is "The War Presidents War" and now he's trying to pawn it off on Democrats.

Sonabitch and to those that spout this crap along with the chimp you are as Un-American as they come.

 

[Steeplerot]

You know, if you have such a big problem with AT forums, and you have stated you don't know much about computer tech, then what the hell are you doing trolling and disrupting here then?
There is no bias here really, righties these past few years may be outnumbered (It IS a high-tech forum full of young folks duh and national opinion is swinging away from neocns like it or not -I have read this forum for far longer then 2004) but noone is stopping them from posting politics and news, not drama, take this crap to yahoo chatroom *Ihatelibsgousa* or something and whine there.

Seriously, its folks like you that scare off decent debate and well thought out posts by rightiees with your partisan swill.

Its this whole right wing waah everything is biased crap that gets posters like shinerburke 86ed. Not the bias, mods get sick of the endless drama queens.

 

[Aisengard]

ProfJohn, the most dmcowen was saying is that it was irresponsible and spinmeisterish to pawn off responsibility on Iraq to the Democrats by saying that they had no plan. I'm not even going to comment on the utterly cowardly and childish attitude Bushie portrays here.

Nowhere did dmcowen say what the title of this thread states. The best you can do is put words in his mouth. Sad, sad day, even for ProfJohn.

 

[nageov3t]

honest question... let's say the democrats had a surefire plan for Iraq.

what could they do with it? the commander-in-chief is a republican, they're very unlikely to win the senate, and cutting off funding for the war would be political suicide.

 

[Craig234]

So here is a list of Democratic created problems that Republicans no longer have to work on solving. You Democrats better get to work, you have a lot of work to do.

Social Security- created in 1935 by FDR and a Democratic congress

Medicaid- Created in 1965 by LBJ and a Democratic congress

Medicare- Created in 1965 by LBJ and a Democratic congress

War on Poverty- Part of the Great Society created by LBJ and a Democratic congress in 1965 (The poverty rate which was already declining at the creation of this effort has remained relatively stable for 30+ years, despite all of our spending during this time)

These are outstanding democratic successes which are problems only for republicans because they show how democrats are the party that is the best for most Americans.

The programs run into trouble after 25 years of republican misrule and bankrupting the nation; the democrats can address those errors.

Let's look at them briefly.

Social Security: elder poverty was 90% before the program, the norm for the elderly; now, it's 11%, and a third of the budget is for disabled, widows etc. Very popular.

Medicaid/Medicare - enormously successful at delivering needed medical care to many Americans. Efficiently run in terms of low administrative costs.

War on Poverty - permanently reduced the % of Americans by about a third IIRC. Your description of the history is misleading IMO.

Take a look at the government data - the rate had long been higher, approaching JFK it was over 20%; he got it down to about 17% with the continued liberal programs and prosperity from liberal government; LBJ's war on poverty got it down close to 10%, and it's remained in the 10-13% level ever since. The war on poverty was a great success.
Link to Census poverty data

 

[Zebo]

I don't think it's a secret democrats plan is "stay the course" as well so in effect you are voting other policy voting for either party - and pay back for lies, treating our soldiers as disposable soldiers like toys at Christmas Bush and republicans must pay for... Democrats have maintained the illusion wisely they want a pull out but it will be a cold day in hell before they cut off funding this adventure. ... at least 30-40% never would adding republican votes I can't see anything but staying the course. ...it will grind us up for another 2-4 years until we simply can't feild an army nor fund it and we will withdraw in shame. This wasn't called the greatest strategic disaster in our History by Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency during President Reagan for nothing you know.

 

[jackschmittusa]

1. I believe that for purposes of glory or blame, this is Bush's war.

2. As CIC for the next 2 years, it will be primarily his responsibility for conducting it.

3. Every suggestion from the Dems has been solidly rejected by Bush. Instead, he creates cute soundbites like "cut and run" which seems like a rather juvenile attempt to mock them at best; or a deceptive misconnotation of what was meant at worst. Then he claims they have no plan.

Even if you construe all of his comments about plans to mean plan for "victory" rather than the conduct of the action, you must be aware that there are quite a few people who feel that "victory" is unlikely in Iraq in any circumstances. For these people, no such plans are necessary because "victory" is a fantacy not worth persuing at the current high cost. You may not agree, but many others do.

Besides all of this, Bush has never offered anything that vaguely resembles what most people would call a plan. A plan generaly creates a series of steps, with a given order of execution, designed to accomplish a specific goal. It usually includes prescribed data collection along the way to determine whether each of the steps has advanced properly toward the stated goal. Each time a step fails, it requires a re-evaluation as to whether the goal is still achievable.

Bush keeps cherry picking events that he sees as positive, and claims these were successful steps toward victory.

Topple Sadaam - mission accomplished..........not exactly

Install a puppet government - great news..........not exactly

Have elections - government of the people.........not exactly

create a constitution - will make everybody happy over there........not exactly

quickly train and equip Iraqi security forces - we can go home.....not exactly

throw in a few more random examples

the insurgency is in its last throes - almost over....not exactly

Iraqi oil will pay for the war - too cheap to pass up........not exactly

I could go on and on, but you get my point. Bush has never outlined a workable plan; has suggested that there is no price ceiling, no time limit; no measure of failed steps can possibly suggest that the goal is out of reach; etc.. Even his goal of a stable Iraq is so ill defined as to be meaningless. One could successfully argue that Iraq was stable under Sadaam.

So yes, from my perspective, I'm a little sick of this "no plan" crap.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, in response to your post:
The problem is that these programs are going to drive us broke.
It is not that they did not work when created, many of them did.
The problem is that they are a HUGE problem going into the future.
My point was that if the Democrats don't have to offer any solutions about Iraq because they didn't create the problem, then why should the Republicans offer any solutions to these Democratically created problems? Both views are absurd.

To the anti-Bush posters on P&N.
If you truly believe that Iraq is Bush's problem and he should be the one fixing it then quit bitchin about EVERYTHING he does. He says we are staying the course, you bitch, he says we are not staying the course, you bitch, if he came out tomorrow and said we are bringing all our troops home you would find a way to bitch. The only constant coming from the left minded posters on here when it comes to Iraq is constant bitching.

The point of this thread was that the people on P&N who make comments similar to the ?he created this mess he has to solve it? are totally wrong. That is not how you run a country. That is like seeing my neighbors house on fire and saying ?we it?s his fault for smoking in bed? and rolling over and going back to sleep. That is not acceptable behavior. Like it or not we are in Iraq, and we as a country have to come up with a solution. If your idea of a solution is to leave tomorrow then say it, but don?t post some BS about how this is Bush?s fault and therefore only he has to deal with it.

Can anyone imagine a Republican in 1941 saying ?Well if only Roosevelt had done a better job dealing with Japan they would not have attacked up, it?s his fault, let him deal with it.?

 

[Steeplerot]

I am sure everyone knows who will handle this, it is standard for reps to make messes and have dems clean them up.

Be nice if reps had some accountability for once before pawning it off.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone imagine a Republican in 1941 saying ?Well if only Roosevelt had done a better job dealing with Japan they would not have attacked up, it?s his fault, let him deal with it.?

So when did Iraq attack us?

 

[Jhhnn]

How Lame, ProfJohn, claiming that SS will drive us broke in the future, when it's really lack of fiscal integrity by Repubs. We can adjust SS and medicare expenditures as needed, but debt maintenance costs are determined by the size of the debt and external forces, the going rate for money...

Money borrowed for what purpose? To finance taxcuts for America's wealthiest, and to pay for a war of adventure... pre-emptively looting the treasury.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: ProfJohnCan anyone imagine a Republican in 1941 saying ?Well if only Roosevelt had done a better job dealing with Japan they would not have attacked up, it?s his fault, let him deal with it.?

In 1941 up until the early part of December I can't imagine a Republican NOT blaming FDR for the problems going on between the US and Japan.

And then there was something we will never see in a Republican controlled Congress.
"Congressional leaders advised President Franklin Roosevelt that it would be better for such an inquiry to be in Truman's sympathetic hands than to let it fall to those who might use it as a way of attacking his administration"

How unpatriotic!

http://www.house.gov/tierney/press/truman5505.shtml

PS.. D- ProfJohn for your history knowledge.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

Fine! I'll say it!

Let's get the hell out of Iraq! There is no light at the end of the tunnel. No victory to be had. China is already working on a deal for oil development in Iraq. We won't get that either.

The country is always going to have factions at each other's throats unless someone like Sadaam beats them into line with a big hammer. But since Western Democracy is the only acceptable coice, we can't do that.

Phased withdrawal, immediate withdrawal, timetable, something something that says that there is a sensable limit to we are willing to lose there.

The whole thing was a huge mistake. Let's learn from it and use it to our future advantage.

No, I am not an expert on the M.E., but give me credit. I pointed out the fallacies with GWB's reasons for the invasion, and I have been proved right. I called BS on the rosy picture he painted for after the standing army was defeated, and was again proved right. I have pointed out how worthless our tactics were for achieving anything good, and again was proved right.

So, here I am, an average guy with a modest knowlege of the M.E. and the use of military force, and so far, I've been batting 1.000. I have no reason to believe that my current assessment of the situation is any less accurate.

If it is any consolation to you, I do think that there once was a time when we might have cobbled together a working government for Iraq (likely shakey, needing constant supervision, and monetary aid), we blew that chance a long time ago. To have done that, we would have needed to do so many things right so quickly from the beginning. Instead, we we seemed to choose to do the worst thing imaginable every time. ( Though the list is legion, a very good example of a huge early mistake was to fire and refuse any employment we had a say in to any Baath Party member. Patton proved how stupid such a move was when he ignored orders to do the same to anyone who had a card for the Nazi Party. I was dumbfounded that we could make such a huge mistake again during an occupation.)

So, yes we should CUT our losses, RUN the flag up the staff, and march home, eyes front.

 

[Zebo]

I'm glad that embassy is 43 stories tall, makes evactuation easier as machine guns don't aim so good past 300ft when helicopters will be lifting the remainder of the American presence in Iraq off the rooftop .

 

[Zebo]

Can anyone imagine a Republican in 1941 saying ?Well if only Roosevelt had done a better job dealing with Japan they would not have attacked up, it?s his fault, let him deal with it.?

Can anyone imagine Roosevelt talking about "winning German hearts and minds" "all Germans want freedom" "The Good poeple of Germany" and other feel good pandering? Nope we demonized them in childrens cartoons to news shows, slaughered whole towns, and really went to war back then until they capitulated. As I said in another thread the West can't win a war today with current leadership and 24/7 news rats prattling on, so stop tying. Best thing Bush could have done after he started waring is leave DEC 03 with Saddam and his cronies in tow on the way to Hauge and not attempt this nation building.

 

[Gaard]

He'll be gone shortly.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is that these programs are going to drive us broke.
It is not that they did not work when created, many of them did.
The problem is that they are a HUGE problem going into the future.
My point was that if the Democrats don't have to offer any solutions about Iraq because they didn't create the problem, then why should the Republicans offer any solutions to these Democratically created problems? Both views are absurd.

They're only going to drive us broke in a republican government, where so much money is wasted. That's the republican plan - "starve the beast" - bankrupt the organization which represents the public, the government, so that the power is transferred from it to the hands of the very wealthy.

You were trying to argue that the republicans do need to 'fix the problems', but you missed the fact the republicans are not doing so - they're taking us down the road to break all those programs, not because they have to but because they want to.

Just as soldiers can go to Iraq and shoot people without really uinderstanding the full politics, there is a republican army fighitng a war not because they hate old and sick people but because there's an established structure to do that.

The republicans have been fighting for the wealthy against most Americans for a long time, often without realizing it. Remember, the republicans opposed all the programs we're discussing. They said Social Security would never work, that we couldn't afford it. And when they were proven wrong, they kept saying it for years, until politics made them rethink it.

Republicans are not saying those are democratic problems so they can let them break, they're saying they're democratic great programs so they must be broken. Not the point you meant to make, but the one that needs to be made.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here are few more similar statements both of these are from today.

Originally posted by: senseamp
Iraq is still Bush's problem. But now there will be Democrats in Congress to hold his feet to the fire if he keeps failing instead of rubberstamping one failed policy after another.
Ultimately Bush has to fix this mess, but with oversight.

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
It shouldn't be the Democrats fault to fix all the sh*t caused by Bush! He's basically saying "They can't fix the crap I f*cked up, so don't elect them." THAT'S his platform now.

Neither of those say what you claimed. They both make sense too. I guess you'll need to keep hunting for something to back up your empty charge.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Democrats already had a plan to fix Social Security. Al Gore was selected to lose in 2000.

And Democrats have, are, and will only be to happy to take responsibility for those social programs you mentioned. At least they actually help out Americans.

This, totally ignoring the fact that no one said what your misleading and desperate title quoted. It's okay, you can stop, ProfJohn. We know your party is in the last throes of its attack on America. You don't have to continue to prove why that is.

The desperation is palpable. They know they are in their last throes and this is what their arguments have been reduced to. Though their old arguments weren't much better..

 

[Lemon law]

If we are going to win in Iraq---whatever winning gets redefined to---we will need some national resolve. If the dems don't win any wing in congress---they will have no voice. And national resolve is impossible in an era where the country is nearly divided in two.

Maybe this so called Baker report may provide some insight and change in direction---but without the dems, this is and remains a GWB war that we are losing badly---and a loss may mean the whole mid-east---and the economies of the entire world will go up in smoke also.

I opposed going in---but now that we are in---we are going to have to be united in a strategy that will get us out in decent shape.

Sadly--the key man---GWB is not part of the solution---he is the problem personified. And unprecidented in American history---a congress may have to impeach GWB just so we can
have a hope of winning Iraq militarily and diplomatically.---which may be the price the international
community imposes as a pre-condition to wade into Iraq.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Can anyone imagine a Republican in 1941 saying ?Well if only Roosevelt had done a better job dealing with Japan they would not have attacked up, it?s his fault, let him deal with it.?

Can anyone imagine Roosevelt talking about "winning German hearts and minds" "all Germans want freedom" "The Good poeple of Germany" and other feel good pandering? Nope we demonized them in childrens cartoons to news shows, slaughered whole towns, and really went to war back then until they capitulated. As I said in another thread the West can't win a war today with current leadership and 24/7 news rats prattling on, so stop tying. Best thing Bush could have done after he started waring is leave DEC 03 with Saddam and his cronies in tow on the way to Hauge and not attempt this nation building.

This is preposterous to the highest level.

Nazi germany had a state of the art, highly trained standing army of millions, armed with the most advanced weaponry ever developed to that time, hell-bent on dominating as much of the planet as they could logistically manage, which amounted to a threat of biblical proportions.

Iraq was a pipsqueak, demoralized, non-player on the world stage. Infrastructure crumbling, military eviscerated from the previous gulf war, population at borderline starvation rates, stabilized chiefly by a secular butthole who was vicious with any dissent or resistance.

Comparing the two threats is spectacularly irresponsible, inaccurate, and a stupid way to try to make a point that has *some* validity.

Yes, a more educated and globally informed public will be less readily pushed into conflict WITHOUT a pretty damned clear reason. Don't confuse it with an unwillingness to fight at all.

For example, I have a son due in December, and I love my country. If there exists a clear and credible major threat to the very continued existence of the country, as existed in WW2, I would sign up at the nearest recruiting station in doubletime, and you can bet there would be millions joining me. I will *NOT*, however, volunteer for the incredible waste of life, effort, money, and time that exemplifies the Iraqi conflict. Or anything similar to that.

There is a HUGE difference, and as such, there is little to draw upon in comparison to support such insane conclusions as you have made.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Tab
Really? I've never seen that said or anything like it.

How is this? Link

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What is this crap.

It's not "The Democrats War" .

This is "The War Presidents War" and now he's trying to pawn it off on Democrats.

Sonabitch and to those that spout this crap along with the chimp you are as Un-American as they come.

You also don't see any evidence of a left biases on P&N either right?

If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave instead of spewing your worthless, hatefull garbage? I'm guessing your a very frustrated person in real life and in actuality like coming to a "left leaning" forum where you can aynomousley take your frustration out on "liberahuls".

Either that or your getting paid to do it.

Edit: There are 10 threads in the first 2 pages that you have started. I begining to think you must be getting paid to be a troll.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When asked what the Democratic plan is for winning the Iraq war MANY posters on here respond with a variation of the line ?It?s not their war, they don?t need a plan?

The only people I see making that statement are mindless neocon hacks like you. I'm sure your handlers are glad to know you're still on their string and dancing to their tune.

The Bushwhackos started this war of LIES and left us with no good choices about where to go from here so claiming the Democrats have "no plan" is a meaningless statement. The more important question is, why we should trust the fscking criminals who were stupid enough to get us here to have a clue about how to get out?

Whether control of either or both houses of Congress changes hands, the available choices of action won't change, but if we're lucky enough to get a Democratic majority in both houses, at least, we won't have the same corrupt, lying traitors trying to lead us down the same path based on the same lies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave instead of spewing your worthless, hatefull garbage? I'm guessing your a very frustrated person in real life and in actuality like coming to a "left leaning" forum where you can aynomousley take your frustration out on "liberahuls".

Either that or your getting paid to do it.

Edit: There are 10 threads in the first 2 pages that you have started. I begining to think you must be getting paid to be a troll.

I count five now, but that can change over time.
There are also 3 by techs, who seems to be creating less threads this week.
Three by Craig234
and three by Dave, who I would guess creates more threads than anyone else.
Now I never see anyone accuse these people of being "paid posters" Why is only the conservative is accused of that?

Any why the constant attack on me? Why are you guys so afraid of what I post that you have to continuously level attacks such "paid to do it" against me?

Look at the amount of traffic to this forum and use your brain and you will realize that there is WAY too little traffic to make paying someone to post here worth it. The busiest thread on here has had only 1291 views. Why pay someone to post something that only 1200 people will look at? Get over the delusional self importance that what is being said and posted on here is even noticed by people outside this forum.

As for your ?worthless hateful garbage? line you are obviously not paying attention to what some of the ?bomb throwers? are saying on here, such as the ?Sonabitch and to those that spout this crap along with the chimp you are as Un-American as they come.? Line by Dave. Calling someone ?un-American? is hateful, I come no where near that level.