Quote:
Originally Posted by Detector  I have absolutely no doubt it has at least contributed to the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq by giving the impression America is done with the fight. In my opinion, In the name of politics, the democrats have as much American blood on their hands as the Bush administration. |
The only blood democrats have on their hand for this Iraq morass is their willingness to go in the first place. The Iraq *situation* was brought on not by politics (and somehow you and others conviently forget about the republican criticisms of the lack of strategy). Using some of your logic, then those generals who were testifying to a republican congress pre-election that Iraq was close to a full blown civil war while the President was out saying stay the course and the things weren't as bad as they appeared would then be guilty of treason.
If the troops were fighting another government and they had their Islamic equivalent of Tokyo Rose broadcasting propaganda the US disagreement over the conduct of the occupation then you might have half a basis for your belief.
The Armed services of the United States did their job. They're trying their damndest to do another job that they should not have to be doing. Once given the order to invade and conquer, they did. Their civilian leadership, not the congressional leadership nor the opposition party, were the ones guilty of experimenting with reduced troop levels, not listening to the soldiers need for properly designed equipment, ideology instead of compentency for rebuilding, and an inability to admit/recognize/accept errors in the post war plans. But sadly as if so apparent in this little corner of cyberspace, it is easier to moan and groan about democrats, liberals, lefty-righty, et al than it is to look around and admit this administration has place our service members in a very dangerous situation. As many, if not more, are dead since the overthrow of the Hussein reign then were killed overthrowing it. Setting a time frame for withdrawal and letting the Iraqi's (and now thanks to Bush et al-the Irani's and Syrians) sort it out MIGHT NOT be a bad idea if the new (old) advisors can not come up with a workable plan to straighten this mess out. And again I ask, how come you and others didn't pick up on Bush's desperate last few day election ploy of finally mentioning the need for Iraq oil?
You want to blame Pelosi for something she had no part of? You want to lament that this time a majority of the people who voted decided (finally) that Bush's constant story changing and excuses didn't add up? You want to beleive the party in power fell prey to the very excesses of power that did in the dem's 12 years or so earlier? If it makes you feel better than so be it.