Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Evans-Novak Report: Bush Must Begin Redeploying Troops By 2007 To Avoid GOP "Catastrophe" in 2008

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 10:46 PM
Original message
Evans-Novak Report: Bush Must Begin Redeploying Troops By 2007 To Avoid GOP "Catastrophe" in 2008
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 11:08 PM by JABBS
Click here for more.

<snip>

If this prediction came true, that would certainly be "good news" for the country, even if it provided a short-term boost in the polls for the GOP. But it's hard to envision the neocons that have President Bush's ear advocating troop redeployment under Bush's watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. There could still be a disaster for the GOP if the redeployment is
poorly executed and a lot of soldiers die in the process...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hey, I really don't care. ANYTHING that means disaster for the GOP
is MORE than alright by me. And undoubtedly also, VERY good for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Really? YOu don't care if a lot of troops die
as long as the GOP ends up looking bad?

I can't go there. I don't want any more dead Iraqis or Americans--or Brits, Poles, Danes or whoever is left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I agree
I'd rather see the GOP get some short-term political gain, and have a sensible plan for Iraq, than have the GOP continue to look bad, and the casualties mount with no end in sight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The deaths
and injuries are more important than politics. Let's get our troops out now, right away. This carnage does not help the U.S., or Iraq. I hear you, when you say "I'd rather see the GOP get some short-term political gain, and have a sensible plan for Iraq, than have the GOP continue to look bad, and the casualties mount with no end in sight."

As much as I loathe the Republics, I can't be happy that our troops are being ground into Iraq's sand. We should be able to win elections with the issues of raising minimum wage, rolling back the tax breaks for the super-wealthy, and the flood of jobs leaving America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Oh, for Pete's sakes, Of course I do.
However, it would appear as though when the GOP gets its way, gains power, takes the helm, then the chances are greater that more of our troops will be misused, their lives squandered, their sacrifice trivialized. So, the better to nip that in the bud and prevent MORE occasion to screw our troops if the GOP is short-circuited. And if they look bad, FINE. Less of a chance they'll regain power, then. Which means the misdeeds and warmongering and shaking our collective dicks around at the rest of the world and launching wars of aggression and religious crusades that are far MORE likely to be undertaken under GOP administrations than under Dem administrations, have far less of a chance of happening. Seems to me THAT's caring about the troops, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. true
but do you really want two more years of "stay the course" (and then some, because redeployment can't happen overnight)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Nope, I'm one of those loudmouths screaming for IMPEACHMENT.
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 02:00 AM by calimary
Have been since the beginning. IMPEACHING the Number-One republi-CON would, by itself, contribute to making the GOP look terrible, collectively. Remember, after Nixon came thatclose to it, himself, who won the White House the next time it came up for grabs, in 1976? The DEMOCRATS. And this was, mind you, with many prominent Republicans (with a capital "R") joining in, from Barry Goldwater on down. That did little to rehabilitate the entire party as a collective entity. If it had, the voters would have shrugged and said "oh, hey, all is forgiven." But they DIDN'T. Jimmy Carter won and the party of Nixon was FURTHER repudiated. I can remember back then how even Republican candidates for Congress in 1976 were apologizing for their party, and openly regarding themselves as sacrificial lambs, because they knew their chances of winning the hearts and minds of the electorate after Nixon was virtually nil. And most of 'em turned out to be correct about that. Nobody wanted to vote GOP. Nobody even wanted to admit they'd voted for Nixon, either time. Suddenly, you had NO voter base whatsoever. Nobody even wanted to admit they were registered Republican, even when they were and they knew YOU knew they were. It was quite a remarkable time.

I just want to see the whole republi-CON landscape soured, poisoned, sewn with salt, so that none of these vermin can ever rise again, and do ANY further damage. Remember: the neocons did NOT align themselves with the Democrats. It wasn't the Dems they kept playing footsie with, after Clinton laughed them out of his office in 1998, when they presented him FIRST with their PNAC hard-on dreams. So they slithered under their rocks and waited til they had a better prospect to carry their colors. And they found it in the republi-CON party in general and in george w. bush in particular. It is far more a republi-CON tendency to want to force its views, whether political or evangelical or economic OR in foreign policy, on others, rather than invite others to join a broad-based coalition of different views - the TRUE big tent people (who are the DEMOCRATS). It is far more likely that a republi-CON leader will want to do the "tough-love" thing and use force. Which means it's far more likely that more of our troops will be sent into harm's way under republi-CON leadership.

Which is why I would rather see such leadership hobbled, permanently, so it can't ever find itself back into a position of power, to do more damage and exercise more short-sightedness - and, sadly, get more of our soldiers killed unnecessarily. I think what's needed is to try to nip that in the bud. Fewer republi-CONS calling the shots? Probably means fewer wars of aggression and choice for hidden agendas and oil. If it had been Al Gore standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center (and probably far sooner than at the end of the frickin WEEK), you would have seen a different call to arms, a call to launch a REAL New American Century - one of wiser use of natural resources, energy resources, and a national challenge akin to the race to the moon - to get us OFF of fossil fuels. That was 2001. By now, if Al Gore had been standing on that rubble pile back then, we would have been FIVE YEARS FARTHER ALONG toward energy independence spearheaded by the wholesale encouragement of, and research into, and development of, alternate energy sources. Correspondingly, we would have been FIVE YEARS FARTHER AHEAD in meeting the challenge of global warming, and perhaps even preempting it. But under the republi-CON mentality, what we got is war, war, and more war, and squandering of our resources, and our money, while at the same time being told to go shopping. We got the same old crap about letting the free market forces go, unfettered, rather than tempering those runaway pirates with civic and social responsibility and obligation to the common good.

THAT'S why I would rather go, first, toward anything that would short-circuit all things GOP. Because the GOP is the root cause of all the rest of the shit we're going through now, including all our troops who've been forced to sacrifice unnecessarily and die in vain. The GOP is the source, the hatchery, where all this shit is born, to begin with. The GOP is the center toward which all the pirates and the war mongers and the death-traffickers and the trickle-down lovers and the have-mores and the robber barons and the oily boys and the war profiteers tend to gravitate. And the GOP is the springboard from which they're far more likely to launch their evil into the rest of the world. They don't tend to flock to the Democrats. They just don't. I'd rather go to the root and rip the root out before the weed has a chance to grow and spread and choke the life out of the whole garden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. "GOP is the springboard from which they're far more likely to launch their evil into the ...
...rest of the world."

And now, in just a few days, we have to instruct our newly-elected Democratic leaders that they cannot come out and play with the GOP types (or any types) who have brought us to our current low pass. Lying down with dogs does have its consequences, and reaching across the proverbial aisle to squeeze the hand of any congressperson who is not on board to end this illegal war, and, as you say, Calimary, dig out the root of this thing that is growing on and choking out our freedom, is strictly verboten.

We voted, on November 7, for a new day (to borrow a Repub colloquialism which they probably borrowed from us in the first place), and we don't want any bipartisan "harmony" that reeks of the criminality we have been enduring for so very long.

My daughter's paternal grandmother was from Alabama, lived to age 98, and had a favorite saying which she inherited from her own mother (who had a very difficult life): "You can live with *anything* -- even a turd in your hat."

Colorful, huh? But it occurs to me that We the People have been tolerating a stinking thing "in our hat" for far too long. As one loudmouth to another, it's time to put away clever strategies, crystal ball gazing, and go forward, carefully and legally, with impeachment. To suggest there isn't anything to impeach for is simply disingenuous.

People like former President Ford don't get to, any longer, call on their personal religious views (not to mention the possible political benefit involved) and decide that love and forgiveness are the order of the day, in lieu of the laws of our land, and issue orders to let a high-level criminal walk away.

I resort, yet again, to my mantra for my country: Before healing can take place, the wound must be cleaned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes. The wound MUST be cleaned.
GOOD one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
11. It really pisses me off that war strategy is determined by what
will play best politically. Soldiers are being killed while the GOP plans include what works best, war wise, for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. i don't know if that's the case
I think it's more that the reality of the situation is that the GOP will get trounced if "stay the course" prevails.

That doesn't mean the Bush Administration will respond accordingly to help the party. It just may be the reality of the situation if Bush DOESN'T care about his party's chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chieftain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. Republicans and pundits all believed that W would reduce
troop strength going into the '06 elections and they were wrong. The little prince doesn't give a rat's ass about the GOP, he just doesn't want to be shown to be wrong about one of the defining acts of his regime. Republicans and their shills can hope that troops will be coming home in 2007, but events on the ground and Bush's psyche will determine the number of our women and men who will remain in the shooting gallery that is Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. I share your view.
He couldn't care less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chieftain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. This is but one more example of "Bush Family Loyalty"; it's
all one way. There was a joke about the Kennedys motto being " Ask not what the Kennedys can do for you, ask what you can do for the Kennedys". The Bush Cabal has taken that sentiment to an exponential level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. Republicans are gonna shoot Bush down - not the Democrats...
They are not going to wait until 2007. They see the writing on the wall. They are not going down for George W Bush and his ill-conceived war. Even if Democrats do nothing, the Repubs willput a leash on the Boy Emperor, rather than go down to defeat in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. From what we are hearing these days
it looks like even the neocons are calling for re-deployment of troops. But GW does not want to listen to any of this. Out of all the advice he got about getting the troops out soon. He decided that only one thing made sense & that was to send more troops. It has become more about his ego to show he can win this battle than what is good for the US, Iraq & the ME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. some the President will put the Repigs to the test--will they fold?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. Bush has been so stubborn on this
I don't see him doing anything. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC