Are we trying to stipulate that your side has been the very picture of calm reason and informed opposition on this issue since March of 1993? Or since January of 2001, come to that?
I can find a lot of examples otherwise. Not all the crap lying around on the ground came from elephants. Much of it is donkey shit. I get a lot more personal abuse on this board than I dish out.
IMO, for far too many people this has never really been about Iraq at all. As I pointed out above, all along the way when things looked good, and when things looked bad, successes in Iraq seemed to infuriate a lot of Democrats more than the failures did. If you are talking about the war or concern for our troops, that makes no sense. If you are talking raw politics, it does.
I'll say it yet again: There are those in the current party leadership in Washington who look like they would gladly see half the planet burn if Bush burned with it.
Unless they are completely stupid--and I'm not ruling that out--they know the consequences of surrender as much as you do. Yet Reid and others are about to make another run at shutting the war down in the middle of Petraeus' operation.
Current Events » in reply to The fields are sewn with salt. And guess who is holding the empty bags of salt?
re: Guess who is holding the empty bags of salt
The whole thread (30 posts)
- The Road Home
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
- A prediction, based on history.
- a draft
- re: A prediction, based on history.
- One last point on history
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- Picking nits.
- When
- Busting
- PS
- re: Busting
- Busting
- When
- PS: see below Regarding 'Foam'
- Picking nits.
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- You are exactly right
- "America is not going to stand for that."
- A prediction, based on history.
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
