Rolling Stone, long the mouthpiece for the liberal bent, seems to be turning on the hands that feed them. That this dead-on assessment of the Democrats using the anti-war movement purely for political gain is coming from this publication is both shocking and refreshing...

Rolling Stone article

Its smart really. No ground will be gained with Bush in office anyway. The war will finally be able to end and our troops(including some close friends) can come home safe once a dem is in office.

If the past year has taught us anything, it's that the Dems are just as incapable of acting on their promises as the Republicans are. They were going to do all these things in the first 100 days in control of Congress, and they have done little, if any, in 100 days + 265 since then.

If you REALLY think electing ANY of the Democrat or GOP candidates is going to end the war, you are only kidding yourself.

Hey, the only reasons I provided that link are because A) It's pretty darn funny. The guy's reaction at the end and the graphic of 12,008 as a withdrawal date about made me wet myself and B) To find out from other people--is this guy for real? Who says that? I mean, think it, but say it during an election year???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SlvrHwk,

Mike, that's a good article--very interesting take. I can't agree more. What's become evident is that one party lied to get the war started, the other one said they'd stop it, and well, here we still are...........

Lewis Black had a great take back in the 04 election about how both the GOP and Dems need to sit a Presidential election out and, instead, have somebody drop a monkey from an airplane, have the monkey parachute to earth and, when he lands, take the hand of the first person he sees. THAT person, then, would be our next President.

Considering what we have to work with right now, that's not a bad idea, IMO.

Yea, I saw that special on Comedy Central, "Red, White, and Screwed." It's great stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Dru:
Its smart really. No ground will be gained with Bush in office anyway. The war will finally be able to end and our troops(including some close friends) can come home safe once a dem is in office.

So, lets see if I have this right. By precipitously withdrawing from Iraq, as you suggest we should do, you advocate:

1.) Handing Al Qaeda a huge psychological victory.
2.) Letting the terrorist state of Iran control the majority of the world's oil supply
3.) Going against former Secretary of State James Baker who said in the Baker-Hamilton report that a precipitous withdrawal would result in "the biggest civil war you've ever seen."
4.) Very likely having those same friends you speak of have to go back to Iraq in 5-10 years and fight a more dangerous enemy?
5.) Having the Saudis go nuclear to defend themselves against Iran?

Seems to me, your cut and run strategy doesn't make any sense young Padawan. Its similar to Vietnam except this enemy will follow us back home and we'll be fighting them here. Just a quick history lesson-do you feel the least bit sorry for the million or so Cambodians that were murdered when the hippies forced us out of Vietnam, when we were on the verge of winning?

America has to finish this the right way. We need to ensure that Iraq is a "state" in every sense of the word. In government terms, a "state" is defined with four characteristics: population, territory, soverignty, and government. Soverignty being the most important of those characteristics. If we leave Iraq now, Iraq will not be soverign within five years. If we leave Iraq now, all of the work that has went into making a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east will be undone and bigger problems will happen. I don't agree with why we went there in the first place and I never will, but a bigger mess will be around for my kids to clean up someday if we don't do this right, right now.