The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

And just who was it who said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years???

War on terror was NOT, as most people understand now, in Iraq.
Now it is.

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

100 more years in Iraq?????
Us being there is just one of the causes that the terrorist use in recruiting.
Perhaps it is NOW time for the people and Government of Iraq to step up to the plate and take over the running on their own country.
Name any other country that we have bases in that we are running the country.
Us being there just delays them from facing and doing something about the very hard chooses and decisions that they have to make.
They just put it off on us.
And as I pointed out, us being there just helps the criminals.
And as I pointed out, the war on terror was not in Iraq. They had very little if anything to do with it.
The political decisions made by our politicians caused the war to expand into Iraq. Thus, as you pointed out, it is now a reality.

Should we just pack out bags and leave in February? NO.
And IMVHO no one really believes or thinks that can or will happen.

[AGDee]

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

Agree-on all counts.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

Agreed. Part of me has to wonder if this continues on much longer, how long before drafting has to start up again? One of my co-workers who's in the National Guard and is in his early 50s has done two tours. My sorority sister who was stationed in Germany for a few years went to Iraq so many times I quit counting.

Interesting how adament the DNC was that moving your primary would make it so that you "wouldn't count." And now, they're rethinking that....
I'm caucusing tomorrow here in Nebraska.

[UGAalum94]

How do you implement a time line without telegraphing the same time line to the people you are fighting? And although we don't generally occupy countries, we did stay in Western Europe a mighty long time.

I would like us to get out too, but I think the positions that the Democratic candidates for President are advancing are delusional about how quickly we can really get out and about how committed we need to be to fixing what we screwed up in Iraq.

I don't think that withdrawing would produce fewer terrorists. As a matter of fact, I think leaving sends the message that they can expect to win and accomplish their goals with similar efforts elsewhere.

As far as the President, you're kind of nuts if you think that the President has the kind of power to single handedly addressed the issues listed in Skylark's post, exception of foreign policy, which I agree Bush has been especially bad at.

But global warming and hurricane Katrina? No. Were his FEMA appointments an issue, no doubt, were they the single most important element? No.

CEO pay? Really now.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

As far as the President, you're kind of nuts if you think that the President has the kind of power to single handedly addressed the issues listed in Skylark's post, exception of foreign policy, which I agree Bush has been especially bad at.

I never said he "single handedly" addressed the issues, and hey, sister, I didn't call you names. If you re-read my post, my point is that saying that the Executive Branch has "nothing" to do with those things is patently incorrect. By structure, the appointments made from the Executive Branch into the bureaucratic branch absolutely have an impact on every area of policy.

But global warming and hurricane Katrina? No. Were his FEMA appointments an issue, no doubt, were they the single most important element? No.

But do his appointments and then their appointments within the EPA and FEMA shape and have an impact on US policy and progression toward or away from solutions or changes? YES.

CEO pay? Really now.

I have no idea what this is in reference to, I'm assuming you're responding to someone else.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

Then my suggestion is that you are misinformed.

[UGAalum94]

I really didn't think I was calling you nuts as much as the position that Bush was single handedly responsible for the items of Skylarks list, but I apologize.

I don't really think Skylark is nuts either, but the list is.

And I think the suggestion that Bush serve another terms was either made in jest or reflects that SECDomination is nuts.

I don't deny that executive power could have been used better than Bush used it. But of the items on her list, with the original exception of foreign policy, most don't seem to me to be fundamentally issues that the executive controls, and the ones that were were not particularly better run pre-Bush, as near as I can tell.

I don't believe that had a hurricane like Katrina hit New Orleans during Clinton's term or had Gore been in office when it hit that the damage to New Orleans would have been significantly less and while I don't dispute the FEMA response was pathetic, I don't think it has been the critical factor in recovery.

But I sure hope I'm wrong. I'd love to look forward to years of no natural disasters, no government bureaucracy, economic prosperity and excellent health care for all as soon as Clinton or Obama is elected. I can, right?


ETA: In hindsight, Nittanyalum, I can see that I quoted you earlier when largely I'm still responding to Skylark's post. Read that post, and I think you'll see what I found over the top although I acknowledge that I overstated at first in my response to her, but you can see when the edit was made too.

[AGDee]

There is no way we are going to pull out of there without the insurgents knowing whether we publicize a timeline now or not. It's not like we can sneak out of there overnight and leave the Iraq military in charge. They are going to know. We aren't going to be able to rid the country of them. There are so many Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that pretty soon, the majority of the population will be the insurgents. It makes sense to me that if the Iraqi's knew the timeline, then they would have to step up and do what they need to do to save their country instead of just being dependent on us. And, maybe the ones who are considering fleeing would stay because they would have hope that it would get better. The blogs I read of Iraqi's who have left for Syria and Jordan all say that they hope to go back home after we leave.

And, if we want to talk about the war on terror, then why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan and where the heck is Osamba Bin Laden? Why did Bhutto refer to someone in an interview as "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" and NOBODY from any "reliable" news source picked up on her saying that at the time and investigated it further? Yet, the interview is on YouTube.

This world frightens me.

As for the power of the Executive branch and who takes the blame.. ultimately, the CEO of the company takes the blame for what happens with company. Bush is our CEO. His veto pen has been swift. His insane addendums to bills that state that they do not apply to him are shocking. His refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and the fact that he is in the back pocket of the oil companies do affect global warming. I would love to see a President put together a cabinet made up of people who are qualified to do the jobs rather than from their good ole boys network. I'm not saying he's the first president to do that, but it would be nice if he were the last (I know, that would be a utopia).

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

CEO pay? Really now.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

Do you mean Skylark's reference about Bush lining the pockets of energy CEOs? Um, do a google search for "Bush tax cut" and oil companies. Originally passed back in his first term.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

Do you mean Skylark's reference about Bush lining the pockets of energy CEOs? Um, do a google search for "Bush tax cut" and oil companies. Originally passed back in his first term.

Are you saying that had the tax cut not been passed we'd be all set with social security and health care?

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut into law? Who would have been responsible for making sure that the money in the federal coffers, had the tax cut not gone into effect, went to shoring up Social Security or God forbid, Federal health care benefits? What evidence can you point to of a willingness on the part of Congress to any of the things necessary to yield the results that Skylark wanted to see?

Certainly, a reasonable person can conclude that Bush provided bad leadership, but so much more than that went into it.