Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawal?

Navy Pride · 11-15-05, 04:25 PM

Are the democrats in the Senate giving aid and comfort to the enemy for asking for a deadline fro withdrawal from Iraq?

The Mark · 11-15-05, 04:36 PM

Hmm. A few more poll options would be nice.

And this poll is a little biased, cause you worded it in such a way that one would be inclined towards the first one to avoid saying that we should do what we did in vietnam.

scottyz · 11-15-05, 04:43 PM

Were Republicans giving aid to the enemy in 1999?

"[The] President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Navy Pride · 11-15-05, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mark

Hmm. A few more poll options would be nice.

And this poll is a little biased, cause you worded it in such a way that one would be inclined towards the first one to avoid saying that we should do what we did in vietnam.

Hey I just calls em as I sees em.........If we set a date to withdraw we are cutting and running and aiding the enemy just like we did nin Nam..........

UtahBill · 11-15-05, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

Hey I just calls em as I sees em.........If we set a date to withdraw we are cutting and running and aiding the enemy just like we did nin Nam..........

I'd like to think that by doing so he is telling the current Iraqi government that they had better get off their butts and start fighting for themselves, because we are only going to help them so much more, and that is it.
I was in Vietnam, 68-69, and it was very disheartening to see all the young south Vietnamese men in town on their nifty thrifty honda fifty motorcycles instead of out in the field fighting. I spent my first 4 days and my last 4 days in Saigon, and most of the rest of it upriver just below the "parrots beak" or off of Hon Tre Island on an LST supporting PBR's and Huey gun ships.
There were too few locals out there, considering that it was their country.
The Shia need to step up and fight, or they will end up under the Suni thumb again.

shuamort · 11-15-05, 05:30 PM

The flip has been flopped:

Quote:

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.

shuamort · 11-15-05, 05:44 PM

Now Bush's Senate allies demand an exit strategy

Quote:

REPUBLICAN leaders in the Senate called on President Bush yesterday to set out a strategy allowing for a withdrawal of 160,000 American troops from Iraq.

The Senate’s Republican leadership, usually loyal to the White House, demanded that 2006 be a “significant transition” year in which Iraqi forces took the lead in securing their country, so that US troops could begin a phased withdrawal. The proposal by Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Leader, and John Warner, the veteran Virginian Republican and chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, was passed by 79 votes to 19.

It was almost identical to a Democrat proposal, but the Republicans rejected a Democrat amendment calling for “estimated dates” for withdrawal.

So, the same goal, one is just ambiguous about the estimated when. Now how is one that different enough to call it giving comfort to the enemy.

cnredd · 11-15-05, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

The flip has been flopped:

The report is from 2000...

I wonder if anything has changed since then...

I can just imagine somebody in 1980 saying, "I can't just take a phone out of my pocket and call my wife."

I guess you'd bring up that quote today and call him a liar?...

Kandahar · 11-15-05, 05:53 PM

Just a question Navy Pride: Why did you bother to make this a poll? The entire point of a poll is to see where people stand on the issues; if you're going to make such obviously biased choices, you clearly aren't interested in that.

The correct answer, of course, is somewhere in between your two options. We can create a timetable for withdrawing American troops, while still keeping it open-ended enough to not give the insurgents a tactical advantage.

shuamort · 11-15-05, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

The report is from 2000...

What report? That was Bush's quote from 2000 in the presidential debates. He said those words without coercion. He said those words to show how different he was from the Clinton Administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I wonder if anything has changed since then...

Could it be....a flip-flop? A change of heart? New information? Well, same grill was held to Kerry's face and now Bush skates without impunity? Me think not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I can just imagine somebody in 1980 saying, "I can't just take a phone out of my pocket and call my wife."

I guess you'd bring up that quote today and call him a liar?...

No, because at the time he couldn't. Of course, if that person stated in your strawman that "I will never just take a phone out of my pocket and call my wife." And then he did, well, THEN, he would be a liar. That's how the apples stack up.