http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

 

 

Typical drivel from this blowhard idiot. Guys like this would have quit on WW2 because it was too hard, would have quit the Civil War because there were too many casualties and would never have fought the Revolutionary War because it was too difficult.

Do you agree with Howard Dean that the Iraq war cannot be won? 

 

Yes      72%  7919 votes 

 

No      28%  3028 votes 

Total: 10947 votes 

 

Damn those Americans! They'd never have won the revolutionary war or the Civil War!

Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

 

"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.

 

Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml

more at link

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml

more at link

 

 

Thats about right. Howard Dean is a piece of s***.

Thats about right.  Howard Dean is a piece of s***.

And seemingly, 72% of those responding to that CNN poll are also.

And seemingly, 72% of those responding to that CNN poll are also.

 

 

I expect nothing less. Those polls are meaningless.

Another blowhard bleeding heart liberal asshole, i wonder if he fought in 'Nam? Probably not. :finger you Dean.........

 

GO U.S. ARMED FORCES!!!!!!!

 

 

Now, in about 3 or 4 days, expect Hillary to say "we need to stay the course"... it's all orchestrated to see where people stand.

And seemingly, 72% of those responding to that CNN poll are also.

[/quote

 

 

 

Where was the poll taken? BERKELEY????

Another blowhard bleeding heart liberal asshole, i wonder if he fought in 'Nam?  Probably not.    :finger you Dean.........

Because such a high percentage of our current administration also fought in Nam.

OMG what next? Will Dick Cheney say he thinks we will win in Iraq?

OMG what next?  Will Dick Cheney say he thinks we will win in Iraq?

Because such a high percentage of our current administration also fought in Nam.

 

Good point, but then they should know how tough it is to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs, and should be calling for total unrestricted warfare, and end this f***ing thing once and for all, instead of trying to demoralize our troops by saying that we can't win it. Remember that b**** Hanoi Jane? We can win it, and should have already won it.......

 

 

Edited December 6, 200520 yr by SoCalSouthSider59

Good point, but then they should know how tough it is to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs, and should be calling for total unrestricted warfare, and end this f***ing thing once and for all, instead of trying to demoralize our troops by saying that we can't win it. Remember that b**** Hanoi Jane? We can win it, and should have already won it.......

Total Unrestricted warfare? What in the world does that even mean in a counter-insurgency operation? Kill em all and let God sort em out? When you haven't a clue who is an insurgent and who isn't, it's pretty darn hard to wage "Total unrestricted warfare". Hell, the warfare has been so unrestricted anyway that the military has been able to use quasi-chemical weapons out there (WP - call it what you want), but that really hasn't made the situation better.

Total Unrestricted warfare?  What in the world does that even mean in a counter-insurgency operation?  Kill em all and let God sort em out?

 

Pretty much........

 

 

I think he says things wrong but he has a point.

 

Maybe the question should be, "At what point are we winning in Iraq?"

 

Have you ever thought we can't win the war in Iraq because we don't really know who we're fighting now?

two questions...

 

1) Isn't Michael Reagan, Ronald's adopted son. If so, why should I give a rat's ass about what he says???

 

2) What's wrong with questioning the war in Iraq? Or calling it like he sees it? I've got a few friends/relatives who are fighting over there and they constantly tell me that the whole "demoralizing the troops" thing is complete BS.

 

Blind Faith in anything... religion, politics, wars, etc is a dangerous thing. That's why smart leaders surround themselves with people that actually have opinions and may disagree with them.

 

Picture Dana Carvey as George HW Bush saying... "Debate is good... Blind Faith is bad."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

Typical drivel from this blowhard idiot.  Guys like this would have quit on WW2 because it was too hard,  would have quit the Civil War because there were too many casualties and would never have fought the Revolutionary War because it was too difficult.

Typical neocon mudslinging and oversimplification.

 

The president would not have had to spin-doctor intelligence and lie to the American public to support our involvement in WWII, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War. There was no question that those wars were just. Our president got us into Iraq based on statements that, at best, could be described as "half-truths."

double speak much?

I wonder how long it will take Al -Jazera to have that tape loop running on their channel? All manufactured outrage aside, that was a pretty stupid thing for him to say. The only reason HAS to be that he is 'testing' the waters for Hillary to formulate her 'position'.

All manufactured outrage aside, that was a pretty stupid thing for him to say. 

 

I do have to say I pretty much agree with you there. It seems like he could have easily said that he's troubled by what is going on in Iraq, etc. I don't like the use of absolutes.

I wonder how long it will take Al -Jazera to have that tape loop running on their channel?  All manufactured outrage aside, that was a pretty stupid thing for him to say.  The only reason HAS to be that he is 'testing' the waters for Hillary to formulate her 'position'.

Man, I can never figure out why some of you Republicans just assume that everything which happens in the Democratic party has to do directly with the influence of Hillary Clinton.

 

The "Clinton" faction, including a lot of Clinton's old people, were quite strongly opposed to Dean during the primaries, and many of them opposed Dean when he was running for the DNC. I think it's pretty doubtful based on policy positions that Dr. Dean would have Hillary as his first choice for the DNC nomination in 2008. I see no reason at all why we should give any credence at all to the theory that this is somehow related to Hillary's grand master plan.

The president would not have had to spin-doctor intelligence and lie to the American public to support our involvement in WWII, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War.  There was no question that those wars were just.  Our president got us into Iraq based on statements that, at best, could be described as "half-truths."

 

To be fair, I think there's plenty of information to point to the fact that Roosevelt was waiting for an excuse to get into war with Germany in 1941. In fact, they already were moving to a limited shooting war with the Germans over the Atlantic.

 

The Revolutionary War - well there are reasons to argue that it was the opposite of a just war - the colonists who led the charge seemed to be doing so instead of facing a revolt from the working poor. There was a lot of tension between the haves and the have nots in the 1770's and may of the elite colonists saw this as a way to focus this anger away from them and towards the British.

 

Even so, how we got into war doesn't matter when it comes to winning the war. You don't win or lose a war you're currently fighting because of your past. You win it because of what you do now and 10 minutes from now and 10 days from now.

 

I think Dean is right. The way we are approaching our situation in Iraq, I don't think victory is on the table. That being said, I don't think cutting and running is the answer. I think defining what our victory is and whether or not there's even a victory to get is the answer.

 

I think Dean is saying that there's no more victory to have here. We took the horse to water, bent its muzzle into the river but we can't force it to drink.

I don't like the use of absolutes.

 

Like when GWB told the media he didn't think the Global War on Terror was winnable? :rolly