Why do Democrats want it both ways?

Question

Dick Durbin made a speech after Bush's last night that said that

The 20,000 was too many lives to risk in Bahgdad
AND that 20,000 was too little to control the situation.

If anyone can convince me that the liberals are not hypocrites, then I will give you $100.

The 20,000 is not enough to win, but we want to pull out. So which is it?? Do you want to win or pull out?

Answer 1

Of course they're hypocrits. Just look back to before the election. They were hollering that we should have sent more troops to Iraq. It was all Bush's fault because he didn't send enough troops to do the job. Now they holler about sending more troops. Let's face it, if Bush pooped gold bricks, they would complain cause they wanted silver ones.

Answer 2

The senator from Illinois's remarks are a reference to the fact that, if the plan is to keep our forces in Iraq, then a surge of a measly 20,000 troops will do nothing to fix the situation. (A more appropriate remedy would be a surge of something like 70, 000+, a figure that an already-stretched-thin military would be ill-equipped to supply.)

By saying that 20,000 troops was too many to risk in Baghdad, Durbin was pointing out that such a move would be futile and utterly gratuitous. At best, the surge would merely get violence levels back to the way they were in early 2004.

Finally, as far as liberals being hypocrites, no one in their right mind would think that conservatives are doing any better in that department. (For proof, take it up with mssrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Foley, and Haggard, among others.)

Answer 3

Why bother? it is more truthful to say the sky is pink with green polka-dots than to say the far left is not full of hypocrites.

I won't put that tag on all lefties, but it does fit the bill and the same argument can be made for a lot of the far righties.

remember these are the people who ask why did Bush send in troops with no equipment when it was their savior Clinton who chopped the hell out of military spending during his entire tragic tenure as the president.

shoot.... i say take the $100 and go buy beer, it makes it all the funnier to hear the loopy left talk.

Answer 4

I'm an idependent and don't want to take sides, but I do understand what he is saying. Basically, he is saying that 20,000 more troups will not be enough to allow us to "win." They will just drag things out longer, and thus we will have more American lives lost. His point is that if you could somehow send in 200,000 more troups, that would, indeed, make a difference. This, of course, is not feasible, as that many troups are not available. This, in his opinion, leaves only one option, which is to pull the troups out as soon as possible.

When examining all these option, it is interesting to look at the history of the Vietnam war, and the choice we had to make there. There are several similarities.

Answer 5

not somewhat both concepts they favor a Public decision and something concerning authorities Its having It both concepts Its Having the authorities in touch it is the objective,shouldn't enable Republicans Doing This because like In Massachusetts Romney changed into attempting get on Liberals solid side, now to not decrease expenditures or Telling human beings to save their coverage. I say Democrats understand better then Romney on standard wellbeing care

Answer 6

Its not the point of wanting it both ways. By that statement I am sure that he meant if we are going to increase troops it needs to be done to the point where it would make a significant difference. I believe it was suggested that troops need to be increased at a rate of 10 troopers for every 2000 Iraqis. That would make increase of 250,000 to totally contain the fighting. Putting just 20,000 more troops would work like putting a band-aid on a severe wound. Basically, it would help but not do much. If the US should increase troops it needs to do so to the point that it would make a significant difference. Otherwise, it really is just wasting our tax dollars and elongating this terrible situation.

Answer 7

THINK....dummy........

20,000 troops going into a complete civil war will NOT get the job done...........they will die without more help. The existing help isn't enough.

Therefore, 20,000 more troops is definitely too many lives to risk in Iraq today. Just watch the death count rise....oops, Bush won't let you see that, will he?

Send more........or send none and get out...........but don't send just enough for target practice!

What's both ways about that?

Answer 8

20,000 ADDITIONAL troops are too many MORE to risk their lives in Bahgdad. 20,000 additional troop is like pouring a glass of water into the ocean. Same effect, ZERO. You can not unscramble an omelet, and Bush has scrambled one hell of an omlet.

Answer 9

I can't convince you of anything your stubborn ignorant mind is already made up.I don't want any troops in Iraq period. I'm here to defend my country on my soil,not go and intervene in every one elses bull**** .We have plenty of BS right here like illegals,& people who think like you.

Answer 10

You obviously are looking only at the surface of those words.

Why are Republicans forever bashing the Democrats? Are you feeling guilty for voting a moron into office TWICE?