Congratulations to the Democrats
First let me say that I am an American first and a participant in the political process second. Translated, I put my belief in the American system of government before any political party.
So, having said that, the Democrats have won a victory in securing both of the houses of Congress and they did it by the voting process. They did not “Disenfranchise” any voters, they did not “hack” into the voting machines, they won fair and square and I respect their right to gloat.
We, the ones who were defeated, will do self-examination and introspection to determine how to better convince our fellow voters that we have the better message. We will blame the people who deserve blame for not winning…us…. and try to do better.
Congratulations Dems.
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 12:39 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Last night in Canada Bill Clinton said...
"They thought that the government has gone too far to the right, is too unaccountable," Clinton said. "So what they voted for was not necessarily to legitimize the whole Democratic agenda but to give us a chance to build the vital centre of America and to get things done and come together."
He might have something there.
FAR.
Aww the great middle ground. Lets wait and see how close to the center they stay. The honeymoon is still in progress
Pappy,
Actually I generally cannot stand compromise, especially if it is about values.
The legislative process was meant to grind slowly but finely and compromise was not seen as a good thing when this nation was young.
It is like saying, Stealing is bad, but let's compromise and say that a little stealing is O.K.
I think having the Left and the Right remain very clear, and then letting the voters decide what kind of government they want and deserve is the right answer.
My statement about Clinton was to merely say that he is probably right about the reasons the R's lost.
Clinton: "was not necessarily to legitimize the whole Democratic agenda"
FAR.
it isn't necessarily about compromise, it is about focusing on our common values. too often we argue about where we disagree, and don't pay attention to where we do agree.
What a difference an election makes.
Last night on Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was asked to explain the midterm election results. Frist answered, “clearly, number one, the fact that we were not winning in Iraq dominated.”
And as recently as last month, Frist said the U.S. was making “tremendous progress” in Iraq.
I’m confident that we are making tremendous progress in hunting down and killing the murderers of Islamic fascism, in stabilizing the democratic governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and in winning the generational struggle that is the War on Terror.
T or C,
I think Frist is/has been a terrible leader for the R's, he and other Republicans have not done a good job of expressing the views of the Conservatives in the Rep party.
Most Americans want us to Win in Iraq, meaning not leaving too soon.
Most Dems want us to loose in Iraq because they want us to leave too soon.
I feel for the 14 Million Iraq voters who risked their lives by voting to "prove" that they do want to have a Democratic government, because by us leaving too soon, (just as we did in Viet Nam), we will see another "Killing Fields" as we did in Viet Nam and Cambodia because of some of the people in the U.S. who "when the going gets tough, they turn tail and run."
There are many who don't really care about those Iraqis who will be slaughtered because they dared to stand up to those terrorists.
Those people who want us out of Iraq too soon are two groups, the terrorists and the Dems.
The Dems don't support the Terrorists, but the Terrorists sure do support the Dems. :)
FAR.
FAR you really are out there.
Most Dems want us to loose in Iraq because they want us to leave too soon.
Ridiculous.
Stay the course and five years from now Iraq will still be worse off than before the war. Baghdad has only a couple of hours of electricity a day. Oil, water, electric, unemployment and all infrastructure is far worse than before the war and worse than two years ago and this year is worse than last. Stay the course if you like regressing.
The killing in Iraq (civil war) will happen whether we are there or not. We need to slowly move to Kuwait and the permanent bases(for now) to take our face off the occupation while bringing more Iraqi army (Iraqi police comprise most of the Shia death squads) and foreign troops in to help with security and to try and stem the civil war.
Bush has lead America into a war that has left us with few options and all the options are bad in terms of consequences.
You will see the Baker group saying the same. Bush knows this and after meeting with them created a little white house group that will say the same thing before Baker goes public that way Bush can say it was his idea.
Bottom line is there are no good answers for Bush's mistaken war. All options mean more Iraqi's are going to die. The question is how many more US troops are also going to die while we throw money down the corruption hole?
T & C,
You say things that are true. Facts are always true by definition.
it is the "conclusions" people draw from those facts that may or may not be true.
Here is the thing that I believe we should do...
Slowly become more of an advisory unit and make the Iraqis take more of the lead in the security for what most experts say is needed...12 to 18 months, with milestones that they must meet. Not "timetables" but "milestones" just as in business where milestones are goals that must be capable of being "measured."
Just 12 - 18 more months. But the problem with that statement is the more we publisize those numbers, the more the terrorists will be given hope to just hold out.
The upside is that, (12-18 months), is when the experts say we will acheive our goals....An Iraq that can take care of it's own law and order problems and security.
This war is unlike any other we have ever dealt with.
Our soldiers are not normally attacked directly, the terrorists know they loose that battle. Instead they blow up themselves and we somehow think that should cause us to turn tail and run so they can do more of it.
FAR.
FAR The upside is that, (12-18 months), is when the experts say we will acheive our goals....An Iraq that can take care of it's own law and order problems and security.
That was going to happen once we had 300,000 trained army and police but things have only gotten worse.
These are the same experts that have been wrong on every single aspect of Iraq. Pfft
A small percentage of people can be fooled all the time.
In 12-18 months things will be worse than they are now. Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of our country. We could have won the hearts and minds (remember that) but mistake after mistake after mistake threw that away too.
None the less Bush will declare mission accomplished and start pulling out within 1 year. Before we are done more Iraqis will have died from our liberation than from Saddam but there will always be those that don't give a damn about Muslim lives and just dismiss the fact that the average Iraqi is worse off than under Saddam.
No I am not defending Saddam who will get what he deserves but the average Iraqi is paying for Bush's illusion of grandeur.
but there will always be those that don't give a damn about Muslim lives
That is a two sided coin.
I have said the exact same thing about those who don't want to wait those 12-18 months, that they don't care that 14 million voted but will be slaughtered.
How may Muslims per month are getting killed now?
Increase that by an order of magnitude if we leave before we should, and then see who cares most about the Muslims.
P.S. What scares me is that I think that there is also a big chance that the Iraqis will never be ready, but I am a big believer in at least giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when the "killing fields" will surely follow.
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home