Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #1  
    Oh gee....why am I not surprised. From the NY Times, of all places.

    As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts

    As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

    Former Senator John Edwards regularly brings up Iraq, but focuses on his opponents’ judgment.
    Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

    But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

    If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

    “The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

    At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.

    Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president. Former Senator John Edwards, by contrast, has emphasized that he would remove all combat troops from the country, while Mr. Obama favors withdrawal at a rate of one to two brigades a month. Those plans stand in contrast to the latest American strategy of keeping most American combat brigades in Iraq but giving them an expanded role in training and supporting Iraqi forces.

    The Democratic candidates received a boost yesterday from a former American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who delivered the party’s response to Mr. Bush’s radio address. General Sanchez said that despite the security gains, there was “no evidence” that Iraq’s leaders were working toward a peace accord. He endorsed a Democratic measure in the House to withdraw all combat troops by December 2008.

    Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

    This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

    “Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

    “The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks,” she said. “We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it.”

    While the war remains a top issue for many Democratic voters, the candidates are also turning to pocketbook concerns with new intensity as the nominating contests approach in January. Mrs. Clinton devoted a week to her energy plans recently, and spent Monday and Tuesday talking about the economy. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, still draws strong applause from audiences when he criticizes Congress for authorizing the war and Mr. Bush for waging it, but he is increasingly highlighting other concerns.

    **The rest of the article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us...9dc&ei=5087%0A
  2. tirk's Avatar
    Posts
    810 Posts
    Global Posts
    918 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Oh gee....why am I not surprised.
    Go on, do tell us. Which upset you most, terrorists or Democrats?
    PalmPilot Professional...Palm Vx...Treo 600...Treo 680...HTC Touch HD...iPhone 4S...
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    Go on, do tell us. Which upset you most, terrorists or Democrats?
    Haven't you heard (by facing their low-brow subtext head-on)?

  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    Go on, do tell us. Which upset you most, terrorists or Democrats?
    At least it can be said, for the terrorists, is that they are genuine.
  5. tirk's Avatar
    Posts
    810 Posts
    Global Posts
    918 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    Go on, do tell us. Which upset you most, terrorists or Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    At least it can be said, for the terrorists, is that they are genuine.
    So you're saying you'd rather find (someone like) Mohamed Atta in the seat next to you on a plane than Barack Obama?

    (Anyway, if these terrorists are so "genuine" why did Atta and his cronies spend a night out drinking in the week before 9/11 - not very consistent with the Koran, is it?)
    PalmPilot Professional...Palm Vx...Treo 600...Treo 680...HTC Touch HD...iPhone 4S...
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    So you're saying you'd rather find (someone like) Mohamed Atta in the seat next to you on a plane than Barack Obama?
    No - I am saying is that if I find Atta in a plane seat next to me, I would know what his intentions were. As opposed to Obama who is increasingly looking like Jimmy Carter these days: indecisive, non-descript, and seemingly falling into an abyss of apathy even in the eyes of many in his own party.

    Osama doesn't beat around the bush. Obama does.

    (Anyway, if these terrorists are so "genuine" why did Atta and his cronies spend a night out drinking in the week before 9/11 - not very consistent with the Koran, is it?)
    They seemed pretty determined the next day. So much so that they self-immolated themselves for their "cause".
  7. #7  
    It's not about consistentcy...it's about killing infidels.

    The funny thing is, within 10 years, Saudis will own the US .... economic control will trump terrorism.

    Sharia law, coming to your town.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    The funny thing is, within 10 years, Saudis will own the US .... economic control will trump terrorism.

    Sharia law, coming to your town.
    Damn, I just got over the Six Codes from our previous owners in the 80's.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    So you're saying you'd rather find (someone like) Mohamed Atta in the seat next to you on a plane than Barack Obama?
    It must be that Al Queda uniform that gives him away.

    (Anyway, if these terrorists are so "genuine" why did Atta and his cronies spend a night out drinking in the week before 9/11 - not very consistent with the Koran, is it?)
    Probably the same reason our Bible-thumping boys drink heavily, routinely.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #10  
    There seems to be an exchange of hogwash here. I say - feel free to cite a passage in the Bible that forbids alcohol.

    Good luck.
  11. #11  
    As written by King Solomon, Proverbs 20:1 states, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." I'm certain God is sorry he didn't dumb it down to the 10 Commandments. May gojeda forgive Him.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #12  
    Proverbs 20:1 is a verse, like several others in the Bible (in both the Old and New Testament), that speak of moderation - and what happens when moderation is ignored.

    Interesting how the "fundamentalism" comes out in certain people at the most convenient moments.

    So, the challenge remains. Please cite where the Bible forbids alcohol.

    Oh - and for some further education, please refer:

    Matthew 15:11
    "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

    Luke 7:33-35
    "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

    Then there is, of course, 1 Timothy 4:4, 1 Timothy 5:23, Colossians 2:16, the wedding at Cana....so on and so forth.

    Jesus - that sinner!!
    Last edited by gojeda; 12/03/2007 at 03:29 PM.
  13. #13  
    Should've known it was not within Chuckles to forgive Him.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #14  
    ^^
    Yay - another non-answer.
  15. #15  
    Never having made the claim that the Bible proclaims wine/alcohol a sin leaves you asking a disingenuous question. Such an inadequate God to have left it to humans to understand that His will is not dumbed down into black and white mountaintop decrees? Try again, Chuckles.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Never having made the claim that the Bible proclaims wine/alcohol a sin leaves you asking a disingenuous question. Such an inadequate God to have left it to humans to understand that His will is not dumbed down into black and white mountaintop decrees? Try again, Chuckles.
    Yet another manifestation of Shortie's "short" and "selective memory". I can't say it is a surprise. I, too, would try to shovel away the assinine statement of yours, "Probably the same reason our Bible-thumping boys drink heavily, routinely."
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    (Anyway, if these terrorists are so "genuine" why did Atta and his cronies spend a night out drinking in the week before 9/11 - not very consistent with the Koran, is it?)
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short
    Probably the same reason our Bible-thumping boys drink heavily, routinely.
    Chuckles' hatred for all-things-Muslim clouds its judgment to the extent that it cannot understand the relationship between my statement and what I was responding to. Is the hand not reaching high enough to tickle the gray matter, sock-puppet?
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Chuckles' hatred for all-things-Muslim
    Firstly, who is chuckles?

    And secondly, are you finally admitting you are anti-Christian?

Posting Permissions