Democrats versus Republicans

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

How many of you guys are loving the fact that Obama and Biden are now saying they will remove all 'combat' troops from Iraq in 2 years (essentially what responsible leader's have said all along), as opposed to the original 6 months or so?

Yeah, we've been on to that one since before the election started.

Originally Posted by wind_magic

Even if/when Democrats take control of the White House there won't be a withdraw from Iraq. You heard it here first.

It's a convenient stick to beat Republicans with, and it has been all along, but Democrats and Republicans, everyone, has a stake in what happens in Iraq. No matter who wins the White House we'll be there for a long, long time.

Or to put it another way, they took the place over, then proceeded to spend a few billion $us building a base there, the boundary around which they call "the green zone". You think they've been building all that just to turn around and leave ? D-r-e-a-m .... O-n .....

Source: September 2007 Post

Sck5, are you still convinced we're leaving Iraq ?

[sck5]

chucko

I always thought he said 16 months, not 6. And yes, I am convinced we are leaving. There may be some troops still there in two years but nowhere near the 140,000 or however many it is that are there now.

They may still be guarding the green zone at that point but I hope not. any government that needs a fort like that to protect itself from its own people isnt much of a democratic government to begin with. They may also still be guarding some bases outside of the city at that point but again I sure hope not.

What pisses off the people there and elsewhere in the Arab world is being occupied. Why get halfway out, lose any military advantage we ever had, but avoid getting any of the political advantage by still occupying them? That would be stupid (not that they wont be stupid, but just my opinion) - There are only two ways to do it that have any logic as far as I can see - Either all in or all out. Of course I pick all of them out but even if you disagree we can probably all agree that a halfassed occupation is way worse than either of the other possibilities.

[wind_magic]

We're not leaving Iraq.

We'll be there 20 years from now, 30 years, you just wait and see.

What's really sad is the way politicians [*** EDITED A LOT OF THINGS OUT HERE ***] promising it anew during every election cycle ..

EDIT ...

I am doing a major edit on my post.

Hey, it's Christmas, a New Year 2009 coming on, and our new President elect hasn't even been sworn in yet. I got a little carried away in my post, so I am taking it out, and wishing everyone Democrats and Republicans alike a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[chucklesR]

Me, I'm a reasonable person. I'm convinced we were leaving one way or the other, regardless of who was the name on the executive order.

What I'm not convinced of is that Obama is going to make it one single microsecond faster than any other administration. I'm also convinced of course that our left leaning brethern are convinced otherwise.

I do remember that during this calendar year our buddy Ob said he'd have it done - and good and should do it by say (quote) April 2008.

Idiot's, born every minute, then they get elected.

[chucklesR]

CP,
Make it to Chicago, bring the wild woman, and I promise to donate at least one Rum and coke, if not all you can drink. Best I can do for ya.
We have to talk business, that way I can deduct it.

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

How many of you guys are loving the fact that Obama and Biden are now saying they will remove all 'combat' troops from Iraq in 2 years (essentially what responsible leader's have said all along), as opposed to the original 6 months or so?

I'm not surprised. Politicians say anything to get elected.

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

An Inconvenient Truth ?

RealClearPoliticsRealClearPolitics

- Articles - Myths and Facts About the Real Bush Record

Citing a Conservative web site article as "gospel" is just so typical. This is one more attempt to rewrite history in order to "establish" a Bush legacy. This wasn't even a good effort at revisionist writing. You just can't tell 300 million people they're better off when they are not.

"This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007

"

The Bush economy benefited only the wealthiest Americans. By all measures, the only way to demonstrate income growth was by citing growth in the stock market, which ignores the fact that 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of all stocks.

"From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent"

Patently False. This is the figure which forgets to include real inflation during the period. Incomes decreased during this period for all but the wealthy. At the same time the Bush tax cuts contributed to the largest budget deficits in our history Never has so much... benefited so few.


I'll stop here. This article is a self serving bunch of crap which is completely out of touch with facts and just wasn't worth commenting on in the first place.

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by SailKing1

Hey PB,

Thanks for the article.

Why?

My grand kids could write better fiction

[PBzeer]

Disprove it then Rick. Facts and sources.

I can't say I'm much of a Bush fan, but that article seems far closer to the truth than the pablum from the MSM the past 8 years.

[TropicCat]

Disprove it?

It's already been posted 5 or 6 times on sailnet. Facts, figures, graphs and links. Something that author should have read before writing that piece of tripe.

What's MSM?