It is pretty easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback this situation as it looks like every single pundit is now doing.
And as far as the picture of Rumsfeld with Sadam, your saying directly applies to that. Sadam was the greatest things since sliced bread when he was gassing Iranians. Of course if Sadam had invaded Jordan or Iran instead Kuwait we would not be having this conversation.
I am not a pundit, I was against Mr. Rumsfelds appointment from the minute George Bush announced it. I knew about D.R.'s involvement in the Mid-East and most especially his puppet work with Sadam. Labeling me aas a pundit is a short sighted statement.
Sure Sadam was the best thing at the time, but apparantly politicans never learn from history. Did we use the Russians to help us defeat Germany in WWII? Yes, but did it turn around to bite us in the ass? Yes. Did the Reagan Whitehouse use Noreiga as a puppet in Panama? Yes, did it bite us in the ass? Yes. Did we use the Mujahadeen to help defeat and drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 80’s, yes, did it bite us in the ass? There is a hole in lower Manhattan that says yes.
You are missing my point. Had Rumsfeld and others looked at the bigger picture and measured the threat posed by Iran better, they might have found it unnecessary to prop up Sadam in the first place.
Please look at history as a whole, not fractionally when measuring the “good” that Sadam did for us. When he gassed the Kurds and killed all Shities in the 80’s, couldn’t we have intervened then, recognizing that we had made a big mistake. It wasn’t until after Sadam threatened our oil interests in the Mid-east that we took action against this “mad man”.
If you ask me, now that we know there are no WMD’s and Al Queda training camps in Iraq, I say give Sadam the keys back, and bring our men and women home. Do you honestly think that there will be a recognizable form of Democracy in Iraq in our lifetime? Not a single drop of gas is worth the loss of another single American life in Iraq. If we had a plan, a goal and an exit stragedy, I would parrot like Bush and say “Stay the course”, however, much like Viet Nam, we entered Iraq without a clear understanding of a tangible goal, hamstrung by an ineffective SoD, and have no clearly defined, no strike that, ZERO IDEA of an exit stragedy:
How long will it be before this image repeats itself, only this time it will be Blackhawks, Chinooks and Osprey’s, with Mosques and minarets in the background.
Do not label me a a peace-nick, a hippie, a democrat or any other slur. Becasuse I am against the war in Iraq, do not label me a pacifist. I am a realist. There is a difference. Fighting for an attainable goal is one thing, feeding our best and brightest into the meat grinder is criminal. My father was a Marine, he went to Viet Nam in 1968, he was there for Tet, I was a Marine, I went to Desert Storm and Somolia, My brother was a soldier, he went to Iraq, and was in the Armored Spearhead in March of 03 with the 3rd ID. My family is full of patriots and we all risked our lives for our country and our beliefs. Calling me a pundit or arm-chair-quaterback is just plain silly.
SOPMOD,
Not trying to call you a peacenik by any means, but there are some problems with simply pulling out of Iraq. As you probably know, Saddam claimed he beat us after Desert Storm. If the ME spins crushing defeats into victories, what do you think an actual defeat would come out as? I don’t agree w/ every twist and turn of our policy, but one good thing is that we are rebuilding our image as fighters after 8 years of BJ-Boy. How are we going to show our faces in the ME and conduct any type of policy when everyone knows we got whipped by a bunch of ragtag idiots? What about all the translators and other personnel that are going to swing (literally) in the wind?
I think Republicans are as clueless about the conflict in the ME as Democrats, but they don’t piss their pants at the idea of someone getting a bloody nose and are less likely to meddle in military affairs. I say this without any hint of hyperbole, but the Pelosi’s of the world genuinely believe that we can sit down with the Bin Ladens of the world at a french restarant and work this all out like decent “progressives”.
Maybe we need to restructure our plan, but leaving would be the wrong call.
Who called you anything?
Not all news stories are as they seem or even true.
It may sound ugly but every once in a while we just have to let everyone know we’re running the show. The problem is that we need to actually run that show, not just fuck around.
I never saw so many people cry for the resignation of Rummy until the day after his resignation was announced.
Ever think that many military professionals didn’t feel free to express their opinions until now?
No, not really. It is a good excuse though.
It’s not an excuse. You would have been surprised to hear opinions of military professionals behind closed doors over the last several years.
However, they don’t go around bashing the SECDEF in public. It’s just not done, and for officers, it’s illegal.
So it’s not an excuse, it’s the truth.
Who said anything about bashing? You brought soldiers into this not me.
As far as I’m concerned there are far too many people jumping on the band wagon just so they can be another me-too instead of ever being critical in the first place. That is the point.
You did, you called me " Monday-Morning-Quarterback" and a “pundit”.
Your quote: “It is pretty easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback this situation as it looks like every single pundit is now doing.”
Party faithfuls operate under much the same philosophy. You don’t undermine the administration, especially this one. They have problems with undermining themselves, such as the timing surrounding Rummy’s resignation. Perhaps one of the most politically tone deaf moves I’ve seen in my lifetime. I’m trying to think of another one, and would probably have to go back to Carter to find one.
I will have to agree 100%. Even a first year Political Science major could have told them this was a bad idea.
Doing it two weeks before the elections might have made a big difference in the out come.
Doing it immediately after only made the current administration look even more defeated & weak. It only compounded their already bad situation. It also helped to fuel the Dem’s boldness and even the current GOP in fighting. Newt Gingrich’s boldness in attacking the President is only the beginning. He might have started a GOP civil war that will only weaken the current administrations position even further. It’s a bad situation.
IMO – Newt is a scumbag opportunist. He fully supported the war from the very beginning, even right up to the mid-term elections. But now that he smells Bush blood in the political waters he has unsurprisingly (for a politician) changed his tune. I expect him to run for President in 2008. He has shown his true colors with this behavior. I would not piss on his head if he were on fire.
Politicians suck (Damn near every last one of them) - Finding even a “Decent” one is the equivalent of seeing a Unicorn or Bigfoot.
What did Newt say?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/11/09/1110metnewt.html
Gingrich says Bush, GOP to blame for defeat
By TOM BAXTER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/09/06
After having watched the majority he engineered in 1994 crumble in this week’s elections, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich laid into President Bush and congressional Republicans in an Atlanta appearance Thursday.
Taking questions after a medical forum, the former GOP congressman from Cobb County said four c’s — an absence of competence in Republican performance, an absence of candor, corruption and the bad advice of consultants — led to Tuesday’s defeat.
But Gingrich saved his strongest words for President Bush’s performance at the Wednesday press conference announcing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. Bush told reporters that he had planned to replace Rumsfeld since before the election, despite praising the unpopular defense secretary a week ago and saying he would remain for the duration of his presidency.
“If the president had decided to replace Secretary Rumsfeld he should have told us two weeks ago,” Gingrich said. "I think that we would today control the Senate and probably have 10 to15 more House seats. And I found it very disturbing yesterday in the press conference, the explanation that the President gave.
“We need candor, we need directness,” said Gingrich, a potential 2008 presidential candidate.“We need to understand the threats we faced with are so frightening and so real, the danger that we’ll lose two to three American cities so great, that we cannot play games with each other, cannot manipulate each other, we have to have an open and honest dialogue, and I found yesterday’s staments at the press conference frankly very disturbing.”
He condemned Bush’s admission that in making last week’s statement about Rumsfeld, he had known he was being misleading.
“It’s inappropriate to cleverly come out the day after an election to do something we were told before the election would not be done,” Gingrich said. “I think the timing was exactly backwards and I hope the President will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor.”
He contrasted the euphoria of 1994, when his Contract with America agenda helped ended decades of Democratic rule in the House, with the bitterness of Tuesday night’s Democratic sweep.
“I remember what it felt like the night we were at the Cobb Galleria and for the first time in 40 years we won control of the House and (there was) the Contract with America and people were very exicted about welfare reform and cutting taxes and balancing the budget and all those things, and I have to say 12 years later that I’m very disappointed, but if you look at what I’ve said all year, I’m not surprised.”
As for whatRepublicans should do now, he said, “I believe the House and Senate Republicans and the White House need to take a deep breath and think very seriously about this election result, because I think we’re at a very important turning point this is either a temporary interruption of what has been a gradually consolidating center-right majority, or this is a breakdown of that center-right majority leading to a significant effort to establish a center-left government majority.”
As usual, he couldn’t be more right. :mad:
Edit - It seems Bulldog posted one of his statements.
IMO: Gingrich is positioning himself for a Presidential run in 2008.
It’s not that I totally disagree with Gingrich’s statements. It’s the timing. It clearly shows he will change his position for whichever way the political wind is blowing. That’s not a leadership trait in my book.
It wasn’t inteded that way but I guess if the shoe fits…
Party faithfuls? Thats a laugh.
Gingrich has an extremely sharp political mind. Personally, he has alot of baggage, especially in the woman department. If he’s all there is I’ll vote for him, of course I would vote for my maglite before I would vote for any current Democrat.
I remember Gingrich making a comment to the effect that Liberalism is all about feeling good about yourself, like you’re some kind of crusader, not about getting results. Since I heard that, I usually turn the volume up when I see him on TV.
What does that mean? All I see is another opportunist politician who will change his position depending on which way the political winds are blowing. That’s not my definition of “Sharp”. Any moron can read the paper each morning.
His time has come and gone anyway.
I’m not following your train of thought on this one.
Let’s keep this conversation civil.
Milkman, the reason some of these guys can’t (or couldn’t) say anything about Rumsfeld until after is resignation is because they are active duty. Doing so while he was SoD would be a violation of CoC.
That hardly constitutes arm chair quarterbacking.
[QUOTE=VA_Dinger]What does that mean? All I see is another opportunist politician who will change his position depending on which way the political winds are blowing. That’s not my definition of “Sharp”. Any moron can read the paper each morning.
I agree that his recent comments do appear to be opportunistic. I call Gingrich sharp because he engineered the Republican resurgence in Congress in the early 90’s - something that had not occurred in the previous 30 years, including during the Reagan era. He put together a comprehensive package of Conservative legislation and was running with it when the focus shifted to trying to nail Clinton. As Newt had allegedly screwed around on his wife, he had to step out of the limelight as he would not make an effective front man.
It is this record and the way he comports himself in interviews and his ideas and the clarity with which he gets his points across that makes me calll him “sharp”.
As to not getting my train of thought on Gingrich’s comments on Liberalism, allow me to elaborate.
Gingrich was making the point that American Liberalism doesn’t really solve anything, that they keep using the same tired old policies and get the same mediocre results, often at the expense of our rights and our fibre as a society. He explains that this is because the true endstate of being a Lefty is self-congratulation, feeling superior to people, and the ability to manage people’s lives.
I heard this, matched it up to every Liberal I have worked with, dated, or argued with and thought “The man has a point”. I find his ideas interesting and pay attention when he’s on TV. I don’t think he’s always right or the ultimate Conservative, just a “sharp” guy.
I hope that helps clear things up.