Dr_Phibes wrote:
Actually everyone on the planet knew what was going to happen in Iraq except you. You just didn't want to listen.
And what terrorists are you referring to? I was under the impression that they were all killed in the aircraft on 9-11. Is it safe to assume that they're not zombies?
Yeah, everyone knew what was going to happen. That was why we had stacks of alternative proposals from Kerry, Kennedy, Clark, and the rest of the apparent all-knowing chattering class. :roll:
D,
This is not all all about "Why didn't the opposing party solve the problem"
It is about "what is THIS administration going to do to solve the problem?
And if you don't think Iraq is a problem, you are on the whitehouse payroll.
Who has said that Iraq is not a problem?
And this certainly is about the opposing party using hindsight to butcher this administration day in and day out. How nice is it to be in a position to use hindsight to base your criticism on???
And yet, even now, with hindsight in mind you people still have no alternative proposals....except the clearly impractical, i.e., leaving now, mobilizing a million more Americans for war so we can "control the bordersof Iraq."
mvscal wrote:
What do you call the Agreed Framework with North Korea?
Diplomacy--albeit failed diplomacy.
What do you call the Oil for Graft while Saddam was in blatant violation of the cease fire agreement?
Is that an American policy, are you just using the scattershot approach, or are you simply knee-jerking again?
Sorry, Miss D, but giving North Korea thousands of tons of fuel oil and assisting them with the construction of a nuke plant in return for a mere promise of stopping nuke development is what I would call appeasement.
The dangerous part of this is that John Kerry proposed the very same policy with Iran....and you people ate it up.
BSmack wrote:
Appeasement was never a policy. Those who suggest that it was only confirm their ignorance.
RACK! you for being right for once, B_Monica.
The correct term for the Previous Administration's Iraq Policy is "Denial"
Absolutely. Saddam was denied the ability to be a threat by the Clinton administration. They were so effective at this task that the current administration has finaly conceeded that they were unable to find ANY WDMs.
As Kay and Duelfer both concluded,the programs were there and Hussein was just waitng for the sanctions to be rescinded....which France and Germany and Russia were working hard on....the sanctions regime was collapsing. Hussein was ready to restart development...you're way off on this.
War Wagon wrote:It's pretty goddamn easy to sit back and 2nd guess now. What were you thinking two years ago?
I was thinking the exact same thing two years ago -- and it was a very easy decision then, also.
I remember the pile-ons from the myopic conservatives about how we were going to find WMD, how much better things would be right after Saddam Hussein was captured, etc. :roll: Our approach was so obviously flawed that it's not even funny.
So, now, as we try to "make the best of it" -- who do you think should win the Iraqi presidential election scheduled in the next two weeks? You do know who's running don't you, and what their platforms are about, right? I mean, it's only just a couple of weeks away, and this is such a huge event in the history of our foreign policy....
Well, at least it's a good thing that we don't have to worry about security with all of the trained Iraqi forces in place.
WAR BEING NOWHERE NEAR AN IRAQI VOTING BOOTH IN LATE JANUARY
Out!
I wonder how it feels to look this stupid and uninformed.
Let us know when you fucking wake up Lawman.
Need smelling salts?
