[goMac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/...eut/index.html

Bush said he would listen to the recommendations this panel makes. Let's see how closely he decides to listen.

[Spliffdaddy]

When you tout something as 'non-partisan' - it's a surefire indication that bias is alive and well.

Here's a question for you:

If, tomorrow, a 'non-partisan' panel recommends staying in Iraq until victory is achieved - why wouldn't that panel's opinion carry as much weight as the one you quote?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When you tout something as 'non-partisan' - it's a surefire indication that bias is alive and well.

Here's a question for you:

If, tomorrow, a 'non-partisan' panel recommends staying in Iraq until victory is achieved - why wouldn't that panel's opinion carry as much weight as the one you quote?

"Recommendations of the panel, which is co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker -- a close Bush family friend --and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, will be much harder for Bush to resist than if the group were divided, experts and study group advisers say."

Man, how much more partisan can these formed by the Republicans panels get. The Republicans should be ashamed they created such a partisan panel.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oh I see. You're trying to tell me that politicians aren't partisans.

Excuse me while I laugh.

Well if another group of politicians forms a non-partisan panel and suggests we stay in Iraq....

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Oh I see. You're trying to tell me that politicians aren't partisans.

Excuse me while I laugh.

Well if another group of politicians forms a non-partisan panel and suggests we stay in Iraq....

a) The politicians were appointed by a Republican Congress. That's why this is big news. They were the group put together by the government to come up with a recommendation, which is why Bush said he would listen.
b) Secondly, the group was made up of people from both parties, and the decision was unanimous/

[ironknee]

spliffdaddy man,

this is bush sr's team...republican lead...daddy bailing out his son...oedipus rex

and if a panel suggests that we stat in iraq to victory, i'd say they're as nuts as gwb

[macintologist]

This "panel" is highly politicized therefore I am skeptical of anything they come up with.

[Spliffdaddy]

so it isn't partisan if you agree with their conclusion?

Listen, my point was that if a non-partisan panel (and I'm sure we could find one) suggested that we stay in Iraq - that panel's opinion would have no merit. BUT this particular 'non-partisan' panel somehow *has* merit?

I'm sorry, but this country isn't governed by a handful of politicians on a panel.

The Democrats are in the majority now. If they wish to withdraw US troops from Iraq then they can do so.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

so it isn't partisan if you agree with their conclusion?

Listen, my point was that if a non-partisan panel (and I'm sure we could find one) suggested that we stay in Iraq - that panel's opinion would have no merit. BUT this particular 'non-partisan' panel somehow *has* merit?

I'm sorry, but this country isn't governed by a handful of politicians on a panel.

The Democrats are in the majority now. If they wish to withdraw US troops from Iraq then they can do so.

Ahhhh. So we'll ignore a panel formed by the Republicans that advises a pullout, but you're all eager to blame a pullout on the Democrats.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

so it isn't partisan if you agree with their conclusion?

Listen, my point was that if a non-partisan panel (and I'm sure we could find one) suggested that we stay in Iraq - that panel's opinion would have no merit. BUT this particular 'non-partisan' panel somehow *has* merit?

I'm sorry, but this country isn't governed by a handful of politicians on a panel.

The Democrats are in the majority now. If they wish to withdraw US troops from Iraq then they can do so.

not news: "non-partisan" panel recommends stay the course: probably has more rebublicans on the panel

not news: "non-partisan" panel recommends leave: probably has more dems on the panel

News: "non-partisan" panel recommends leave: AND has more rebublicans on the panel

[olePigeon]

[deleted]

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

so it isn't partisan if you agree with their conclusion?

Listen, my point was that if a non-partisan panel (and I'm sure we could find one) suggested that we stay in Iraq - that panel's opinion would have no merit. BUT this particular 'non-partisan' panel somehow *has* merit?

Bush approved of the panel and agreed to adhear to its findings. It had a Republican majority, I think he thought they would side with him.

About 2 weeks before the results came out, he created yet another panel (made up completely of his own cronies) that would obviously vote the other way. That way he can pick and choose which elements he wants to choose from.

He did the exact same thing about the results of studies on global climate change so he could withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement.

The guy's a f*cking turd.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...us-withdrawal/

Ahem.

Originally Posted by olepigeon

Yesterday, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by gomac

Yesterday, 12:31 PM

Ahem.

Yesterday was a good day for you and duplicate threads, I guess.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Ahem.

Yesterday was a good day for you and duplicate threads, I guess.

Weird, I swore mine was posted first. Oh well.

[Rumor]

I've recommended the same thing to some peoples parents...

[Macrobat]

It recommends a phased pullout, with NO set completion date. This is different from current Administration policy in what way?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It recommends a phased pullout, with NO set completion date. This is different from current Administration policy in what way?

Good question, considering Bush completely disagrees with it and is looking for a different opinion. Stay the course, wasn't it?

[MacNStein]

Iraq: "Pull out! Pull out!"

Bush: "Just 30 more strokes, I'm almost there!"

[Dakar²]

[Macrobat]

Sorry, olePigigeon, but you're full of it. The President has NOT disagreed with it, and has stated he will "take it under advisement." Gee, the ISG recommends he do EXACTLY what he's already doing, yet you somehow construe that to a "disagreement."

What color is the sky on your planet?

As a matter of fact, if you deigned to be more than your usual disengenuous self, you would freely acknowledge that the only part of the report the Administration has issues with is the suggestion of bringing Syria and Iran into the mix.

But, feel free to spout your own propaganda in your own way, who am I to stop you?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, olePigigeon, but you're full of it. The President has NOT disagreed with it, and has stated he will "take it under advisement." Gee, the ISG recommends he do EXACTLY what he's already doing, yet you somehow construe that to a "disagreement."

"Take it under advisement" is the polite way of telling people you disagree, especially when you form a group that will provide results contradictory to the first.

Besides, I don't think he's not going to pull out. I know he will. It's part of the plan that was so damn obvious from the beginning of this war.

[Macrobat]

I see, so now, not only are your full of it, you're psychic, as well?

I would agree about the last sentence in your link, with the ommission of the word "on."

Haven't personally seen ONE "prediction" of yours that was "dead on." Please feel free to provide links to enlighten me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I see, so now, not only are your full of it, you're psychic, as well?

I would agree about the last sentence in your link, with the ommission of the word "on."

Haven't personally seen ONE "prediction" of yours that was "dead on." Please feel free to provide links to enlighten me.

You haven't been around long enough, apparently. I used to make monthly Apple Predictions way-back-when in the lounge up until the switch to Intel which broke my winning streak. I tried a search, but I'm sure they're all gone by now. Too old, not even archived. I'm not psychic, but as with any "psychic" who makes a lot of money, it's all about observation of trends and personal character. That's why there's good money to be made as a Market Analyst and, incidently, risk assessment and analysis contracts for the government.

I wasn't the only one who saw where this war was headed. From day one I've stated as such. Do all the searches you want on the Political Lounge, my opinions on the war still haven't changed. This wasn't even a prediction, really, as it was more of a face-palm of a foreign policy. People had to be really thick to believe otherwise.

[Sky Captain]

I think the administration was under the impression or led to believe if we removed Saddam and handed the government over to the people, it would go smoothly.
We got critisized for not taking him out in 1991 and handing Iraq to the people then.
But it has been the opposite.
Remove Saddam and they slaughter each other.
Well just let them wipe each other out.
I don't care which genocidal murderer we buy our oil from.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It recommends a phased pullout, with NO set completion date. This is different from current Administration policy in what way?

That's an excellent question. It would be easier for me to answer if this administration had a #$%^ing policy.

[Macrobat]

LMAO! The Administration has a policy. It's what the Democrats ran AGAINST, since they have no demonstrable policy of their own!

And olePigeon, your Apple prognostication carries exactly ZERO weight in the political arena. Thanks for playing, tho.

[Spliffdaddy]

I must have missed it...

what is the Democrats' plan to win in Iraq?

[Sky Captain]

It's called "Operation Somolia".

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I must have missed it...

what is the Democrats' plan to win in Iraq?

See thats a trick question.

Iraq was lost from the moment the US marched into Baghdad. The only option now is an orderly withdraw and admit the whole adventure was a disastrous mistake.



It will be interesting to see Bush negotiate with Iran and Syria over the coming 2 years. I foresee many awkward handshakes and photo-ops.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's a trick question? What you're saying is the Democrats have no strategy for winning?

Hellfire, anybody can come up with a strategy for losing - especially the French.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

It's a trick question? What you're saying is the Democrats have no strategy for winning?

The Democrats are advocating winning via diplomacy instead of whack-a-mole military action

"Winning" is going to require a cohesive Diplomacy plan across the Middle East to build good will. We won't win Iraq or any other country without heavy use of diplomacy and less use of military force.

[Sky Captain]

Like in Mogadishu?
Let's not forget the two love notes sent to Japan either.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Like in Mogadishu?

We're talking Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially other countries. If you'd like to fill those countries with troops, good luck. Democrats are going for the more realistic approach, while Bush has his head in the clouds.

This isn't an "Iraq" problem. We'll only be able to fix the Middle East with cooperation from most sides involved. We current don't have that.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Let's not forget the two love notes sent to Japan either.

Yeah. That's practically guaranteed to start a holy war.

[Spliffdaddy]

Diplomacy - a stall tactic used to buy time until you can get your hands on a weapon.

see also; Jimmy Carter's failed efforts

Diplomacy is a pointless endeavor unless there is a promise of reward or threat of violence.

So what are we offering as a reward?

[Sky Captain]

I've said before, Iraq had the chance to finally be rid of Saddam.
Like they wanted in 1991.
But they've squandered the chance with senseless slaughter.
Time to let them sort it out on their own.
And let them cry for wasting their chance.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Diplomacy - a stall tactic used to buy time until you can get your hands on a weapon.

Gee. Military action would be great and all if it was realistically sustainable. In other words, you'd like to solve the problem with an impossible solution. I'd like a flying unicorn but I'm not getting that either.

No wonder the right bungled this completely.

Sky Captain's last comment is right. We gave them the chance, they turned it down (ignoring that it was dumb to invade to begin with). We're not going to get any better than that. Yes, there are people in Iraq who want Democracy, but until a significant amount of the country is interested in Democracy, military enforcement is not going to work.

Diplomacy can shore up the situation we're in by getting other countries to pressure groups they have relations with to stop.

Bush is running out of time to sort out the situation. The Korean Peninsula isn't looking too good either, with the under the table stuff going on between N. Korea and Russia. And I hope you're not suggesting we lob a nuke at Russia.

[Spliffdaddy]

Diplomacy by itself won't accomplish anything.

What you're suggesting is we ask Syria and Iran for assistance.

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by assisting the US.

When the answer comes back as a resounding "no" - what steps do you take then?

Damn, you're acting like we're dealing with reasonable people.

PS, you have exactly one more month to blame Bush. After that, the Democrats run the show. And we all know they don't have any idea what to do.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Diplomacy by itself won't accomplish anything.

What you're suggesting is we ask Syria and Iran for assistance.

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by assisting the US.

When the answer comes back as a resounding "no" - what steps do you take then?

nothing to gain? how about power? how about a snub on america? "look the big and powerful america needs our help now." and after bush calling one of them part of the axis of evil

it's america who is now begging for help

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Damn, you're acting like we're dealing with reasonable people.

PS, you have exactly one more month to blame Bush. After that, the Democrats run the show. And we all know they don't have any idea what to do.

no, with the mess bush has made in iraq, generations will still be blaming bush for making us all suffer because of his personal oedipus complex issues

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

nothing to gain? how about power? how about a snub on america? "look the big and powerful america needs our help now." and after bush calling one of them part of the axis of evil

it's america who is now begging for help

Again, I ask "what are we going to give them for helping us?" *or* "what do we threaten them with for not helping us?"

no, with the mess bush has made in iraq, generations will still be blaming bush for making us all suffer because of his personal oedipus complex issues

You're assuming we're going to lose. I'm assuming we're going to win. How Dubya is remembered will be greatly affected by the outcome of the Iraq war.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Again, I ask "what are we going to give them for helping us?" *or* "what do we threaten them with for not helping us?"






You're assuming we're going to lose. I'm assuming we're going to win. How Dubya is remembered will be greatly affected by the outcome of the Iraq war.

money? power? teritory? i don't know but they have the better hand right now

i agree, bush's legacy is tied to iraq and what happens. it's the defining issue in his presidency

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Diplomacy by itself won't accomplish anything.

There have been many historical examples of conflict resolved by diplomacy. Suggesting otherwise is ignorant.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

What you're suggesting is we ask Syria and Iran for assistance.

They have the power to change what is going are. Are you suggesting we purposefully ignore options that could end the war?

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by assisting the US.

Spliff, meet Carrot. Carrot, meet spliff. Carrot is from Diplomacy 101.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When the answer comes back as a resounding "no" - what steps do you take then?

I'm not sure you understand diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Damn, you're acting like we're dealing with reasonable people.

Spliff, meet carrot...

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

PS, you have exactly one more month to blame Bush. After that, the Democrats run the show. And we all know they don't have any idea what to do.

Last I checked, Bush still calls the military shots. No, Bush isn't off the hook yet.

[Rumor]

You can get the report here.

Iraq Study Group: United States Institute of Peace

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And olePigeon, your Apple prognostication carries exactly ZERO weight in the political arena. Thanks for playing, tho.

OK, now go back and actually read my post.

[Macrobat]

I read it - I think you're full of it - I posted the same.

Problem?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I read it - I think you're full of it - I posted the same.

Problem?

Perhaps he is full of it, but he is also right.

[Macrobat]

Nicko, I only think he's full of it. You, on the other hand . . .

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I read it - I think you're full of it - I posted the same.

Problem?

Not with reading, apparently; then perhaps with comprehension. As I mentioned quite clearly that market analysist share a common thread with risk assessment on how to determine possible outcomes.

In any event, my prediction is well on the right path regardless if you think I'm full of it.

[Spliffdaddy]

My prediction is that diplomacy with any Middle East nation - except Israel - is a pointless endeavor. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

[marden]

Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan'
Reaction to Study Group: 'Allah and his angels' responsible, 'era of Islam and of jihad' declared
Posted: December 6, 2006
7:40 p.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


JERUSALEM – A high level U.S. commission's recommendations for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq and for dialogue with Iran and Syria proves "Islamic resistance" works and America will ultimately be defeated, according to senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND.

The militants, from the largest Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, welcomed the policies outlined by the Iraq Study Group, which they claim recognizes Islam is the "new giant of the world."

WorldNetDaily: Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan'

That the US government had to go these lengths to get the liberal/Democrat segments of RESPONSIBLE (!!! !!!) Americans to unite behind the US Government is a disgrace and those Democrats and liberals who now come on board, as misguided as you have been, are a damn sight better than those who STILL reject the president and anything he does.

HOW IN THE HELL SHOULD THE RESISTANT IRAQIS UNDERSTAND HOW TO WORK WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IF THEY DON"T SEE HOW WE DO IT???

One day when the situation is at it's bleakest and blackest and most dire you will wake up and wonder what you can do to help make things better.

The answer then will be the same as it has been the whole time.

Unite behind your President.

But some of you will wake up on that day and instead of looking to make things better will do what you have done all along, and that is to look at who to blame, and once again your sights will settle on the President. And that should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as it always seems to have in the past.

Except that just as in the past, blaming the President WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING.

Just know that the ONLY thing you can do that won't serve the enemy's purpose, or will LEAST serve the enemy's purposes is to unite behind your President.

Glenn Beck provides an interesting way of looking at the ISG report.

Let me give you another example of why I think, in this case, it's actually appropriate to criticize the way they did their research.

Let's say you run a business that's not doing well. So you go out and hire a team of consultants with no actual experience in your business to come up with some solutions. The consultants come back and tell you to cut all your prices in half, close four stores and set up meetings with your competitors. Well, wouldn't you naturally want to know how they came up with those ideas? Did they go out and visit your stores and watch your customers and employees firsthand, or did they sit in the office and make phone calls?

When you hear frightening recommendations like the one the study group made about engaging directly in talks with Iran and Syria it's only fair to ask how they came up with them.

Perhaps not coincidentally, today is December 7th - it's the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor; an attack that finally woke this country up to the fact that we could no longer avoid war. So, with that in mind, the Real Story today is that appeasing our enemies in Iran and Syria and compromising on our demands in the hope of peace will end the same way it did 65 years ago.

I've been telling you for a while that I think we're now in the year 1938 and the clock is ticking. Well now I can be even more precise: the exact date is September 26, 1938. That's just three days before Prime Minister Chamberlain signed the infamous Munich agreement with Hitler; an agreement that, to this day, stands as a shining example of how appeasement does not work.

With Chamberlain visiting Hitler in a futile effort to save the peace, it was Winston Churchill who stood up and appealed directly to the United States to get involved. Listen closely to his words on that day...

"If the Government and people of the USA have a word to speak for the salvation of the world, now is the time and now is the last time when words will be of any use...It will indeed be a tragedy if this last effort is not made in the only way in which it may be effective to save mankind from martyrdom."

Nine days later, after the Munich Agreement had been signed and the world cheered, Churchill spoke again...

"I will...begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing...what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat..."

At the time he made that speech in the House of Commons, Churchill could count on one hand the number of friends he had in Parliament. Who will stand up today and willingly face that same kind of abandonment and alienation? I will; and I hope you will, but which of our leaders has the guts to say what no one wants to hear: There is no appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Whether or not we want to go to war is irrelevant; the war is already on -- the only question is if we'll fight back now or wait for the next December 7th.

The Real Story

[Macrobat]

Please, Spliff, don't confuse the issue with realities, olePigeon and Nicko need the comfort of their fantasy lives.

When I saw this article

PARIS' PEACE PLAN By JOHN PODHORETZ - New York Post Online Edition: Seven

I just had to add the quote of the year to my signature!