Friday, August 24, 2007

Flipflopcity



Would-be President Hillary Clinton (D) NY has turned flipflopping into a new art form with her latest declaration that the surge is NOT working, ...errr she means the surge IS kinda working, but is really not working at all...
FYI- when Democrats say that the surge is working but not really working, what they mean is that IF a Democrat were in the white house and the same scenario were in place, THEN the surge would be working fantastically... that's what they mean.

Exactly like her position on Saddam... is a threat, isn't a threat, ...was a threat, wasn't a threat depending on the crowd she is talking to. When Bill was Prez, Saddam was a threat and was seeking nukes (according to Bill and Hillary), but when a Republican took the whitehouse, suddenly Saddam was not a threat (according to Bill and Hillary).

But, Democrats have painted themselves into a very dangerous corner on this surge deal.

They are against the surge and have invested their entire future on a US defeat in Iraq... so admitting they were WRONG and Bush was CORRECT (again) is a jagged little pill to swallow. (with no apologies to alanis morrisette)
All signs are now pointing to success in terms of the surge plan in Iraq, no matter what the Democrats(and Islamofascists) claim to the contrary... but the next big flipflop should be a whopper.

I can't wait to see which one of them is the first to claim that "I was actually for the surge from the beginning and called for more troops from the start and if Bush would have listened to ME, the war would have been won much sooner"...

Will it be..
Hillary?
Edwards?
Kerry?
alGore?
Dean?
Obama?
Wes Clark?
Bill Clinton?
Teddy Kennedy?
Nancy Pelosi?
Harry Reid?
or
one of these guys...

Colin Powell: Troop Surge Would Probably Not Help. According to an article in the International Herald Tribune, "The former secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday that badly overstretched U.S. forces in Iraq were losing the war there and that a temporary U.S. troop surge probably would not help.Powell was deeply skeptical about increasing troop levels, an idea that appears to be gaining ground as President George W. Bush weighs U.S. strategy options. 'There really are no additional troops' to send, Powell said, adding that he agreed with those who say that the U.S. Army is 'about broken.' He said he was unsure that new troops could suppress sectarian violence or secure Baghdad." [International Herald Tribune, 12/17/06]

Major General Don Shepperd, USAF (Ret.): I Would Not Even Consider Increasing Troop Strength In Iraq. Shepperd, who works as a CNN military analyst, offered his analysis of what should be done next after he was briefed by members of the Iraq Study Group. He wrote, "I would not even consider increasing troop strength in Iraq." [CNN.com, 12/11/06]

Michael Vickers, Former Special Forces Officer: "All The Forces In The World" Won't Change Security Situation In Iraq. Vicks said, "The security situation is inextricably linked to politics. If you can solve some of the Iraqi political problems, the security situation becomes manageable. If you can't...all the forces in the world aren't going to change that." [The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, PBS, 12/12/06]

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: 40,000 Troops Would Make Little Difference. "[Some people are] saying that 30,000 or 40,000 more troops would make a difference. I respectfully disagree. With the tooth-to-tail ratios of the military -- that is combat soldiers versus cooks, people who run the PX's and the bowling alleys and so on -- with the fact that the first thing they have to do is build barracks, which are bullet, bomb-proof to protect themselves, any military guy you talk to will tell you that 40,000 troops will not make that kind of difference." [Charlie Rose Show, 8/14/06]

Here is a post that seems to appear on practically every liberal blog... Survey (among moderates and liberals) is proof that experts agree, surge won't work.
They use a very small, non-scientific survey with the large majority of participants saying they are moderate or liberal to prove that the surge plan won't work while ignoring the fact that as more people come back from there they are all saying one thing... the surge IS working.

Some people are more invested in defeat than others...
-red

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Dave said...

I would love for either Wes Clark or Colin Powell to run. Either would make great Presidents, especially Powell.

9:16 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

uhhh Wesley did run for Prez and Oklahoma was the ONLY state he carried.

As for Colin Powell, he has lost too much credibility with BOTH sides. The right can't trust him to defend the country and the left can't trust him not to.

I just wanna see which one of them claims they were for the surge before George Bush even thought of it... which i promise will happen unless democrats are able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

I don't really count Clark's 2004 run. He joined the race too late to do anything. If he had joined early on, he could have one the nomination and very well could have won the White House.

10:51 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

lmao... you can't be serious.

with such a large military and veteran population, it is easy to see how Oklahoma Democrats would select a military commander... but if you think Wes could carry NY and CA and FL while taking red states away from Bush, you're kidding yourself and me.
But lets just say you're right, I mean can you imagine how Prez W (wes) would have handled 9/11/2001?

Which country would he have flown over and bombed for a while and then retreated?
Afghanistan?
Pakistan?
Saudi?
Israel?
Sudan?
Iran?
N Korea?
Nowhere?

Saddam would still be using the food for oil program to fund whatever his little heart desired and paying palestenians to blow themsleves up...etc.
There would have been NO tax cuts (for the rich) and so the economy would NOT have recovered the way it has, there would be fewer jobs and more people seeking jobs... and I say we would have been attacked AGAIN (were we not on the offensive) and AGAIN.

but hey, we both know that Wes couldn't have won against Bush, because no matter who was running...
BUSH stole the election, remember?

now THATS funny.
-red

11:51 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

Well considering that Clark ran in 2004, your entire argument is null and void. We can't say exactly how Clark would have run the country because he didn't win. It is impossible to know exactly how someone will govern until he/she is in office. Look at Bush for example. In 2000 he ran on a smaller government, anti-nation building campaign and look how well that turned out. We are currently in the process of nation building two countries and the federal government has grown more under this administration than any since FDR (that means more than during the Clinton years). It is impossible to know what any president will face and it is disingenuous to say that you or anyone else knows exactly how someone will react to any given situation. I'm not omnipotent Red...are you?

8:14 PM  
Blogger Redstater said...

I'm basing what Gen Wes would have done base on what Gen Wes has said he would have done.
It's not speculation, unless he is a liar....which of course is possible. Bush HAS governed for the most part exactly as expected... most conservatives wish he were tougher on the border, but we knew he wasn't in the first place based on his record in Texas as Governor... as far as spending goes, ... you'll have that during a war. Liberals LOVE to point out that Bush is a big spender in order to try and get conservatives to throw him under the bus.
The judicial appointments and tax cuts and standing 100% firm on the #1 issue is good enough for me... you'll never get everything you want from a President. I think we all had a good idea how Bush might react to the US being attacked... just as we all have a good idea of how Hillary would react. (blame Bush)

So, I think we should be able to predict how someone (a Prez) would react to certain situations.
That doesn't make us omnipotent, just observant and informed.
-red

But back to Gen Wes...

8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the word you guys are looking for is omniscient. Omnipotent is all powerful.

10:15 AM  
Blogger Redstater said...

no kidding, hmmm... well in that case, ...yes I guess I am.
lol
-oz

1:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home