Very simple. In each instance that a Republican (particularly a President) has an idea that works, the liberals REDEFINE the rules of engagement, point out that even though this is working in the short run, collateral issues will be disasterous, and finally they change the subject with the help of the liberal media.
2007-07-17 06:15:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
First off, big if.
Second off, what would be the terms of success that we are to consider. Is it a reduction in violence? If violence returned to 2005 levels? Would it be a functioning government? Would it be security of oil rigs? This is vital because the surge has not explained what exactly it aims for. There is no clear measure of success in the operation. This is a direct contrivance to the Powell Doctrine (which was good), that said you have clear goals and overwhelming force to achieve those goals.
The problem with this is two fold: first, we won't know if it is working. Second, the democrats will define success in different ways to continue showing how the surge has failed (which it certainly will in certain issues or areas). And likewise, the Republicans can define it differently to show successes. The surge cannot succeed because it has no way for any objective evaluation to occur.
2007-07-17 11:51:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by C.S. 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Silly! They'll take credit for it of course, and STILL find a way to criticize the President!
They are nothing if but predictable. But come election time, we'll have their remarks to throw back in their faces. I can't wait! It will be like Swift Boat Veterans except we'll have way more footage of them running their mouths to down the military, the Iraqis, and the President. There should be no shortage of damning them with their own words--in greater historical context than ever before!
2007-07-17 11:54:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by julie m 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Since nothing this administration does seems to work, and the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
Then I don't think they have anything to worry about.
Unfortunately this war has taken valuable resources and manpower away from the actual global war on terror. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever in Afghanistan and Pakistan - mark down another failure for the Bush Administration.
I doubt democrats could do much better, but I would find it hard to believe that they could do worse (though I'm sure they could find a way).
2007-07-17 11:51:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joe M 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Friend, the military wanted 350,000 troops sent to Iraq for the invasion and Rumsfield said no. Powell told Bush we would be there for 30 years if we toppled Hussein and Bush ignored him. The general in charge of Iraq invasion initially said Iraq oil would pay for the invasion, it didn't. This is NOT a partisan issue, it is, an issue, of our President and all the President's men using very bad judgement born out of arrogance, plain and simple. Gerald Ford republican here.
2007-07-17 11:50:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Thank God that the war is over?
That's what this liberal would do.
Unfortunately, American involvement in the Middle East is always counter-productive. It justifies resistance against America and sows hatred in the hearts of the people.
2007-07-17 11:48:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Right after I decide to do about the sun coming up in the West.
2007-07-17 11:51:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
If the surge works, then it will support their claim that they wanted to see progress by September. If it doesn't work, then it will support their claim that they wanted to see progress by September.
2007-07-17 11:48:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
What am I going to do if it actually does work? Celebrate that the Iraqi's finally stepped up to the plate and we can bring our boys home.
2007-07-17 11:47:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by pip 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
That is extremely funny! "The surge actually work" oh that's rich, that's a list material!
2007-07-17 11:52:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋