ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
He switched parties in 1962, and supported Nixon in 1960. Not exactly the same as Webb but nice try by you, good effort.
Always excuses. Maybe you can blame Clinton?
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I didn't see either speech, and will probably try to gloss over them later today. If Webb is indeed the traditional democrat, the moderate, sane person people said he was prior to the election, then great. My only fear is that party will derail his principles. These days, they always do.
At any rate, I'm still waiting for the Democrats plan for Iraq. GW's moves have been rightfully ripped to shreds to this point, but I've yet to see what it is the Dems want to do. When Webb says "we will be showing him the way", am I wrong to assume he means they have a plan? Well, what is it?
The dems plan has been laid out in general terms (deescalation), but I suspect they have withheld alot of detail until they get a sense of whether the Bush cabal is honest in opening themselves up to bipartisanship. Nothing to date suggests they are.
BTW..the Dems have been given a perfect opportunity to use real bipartisan recommendations...as opposed to the rhetorical that Bush and his neo-con con men have used...by simply supporting what Baker-Hamilton gave them- a defined set of objectives and initiatives to change the Iraq trajectory.
Seems to me that Webb is a very strong pro-military spokesman, like Murtha, and people like PFEIL seem to really hate that. Hows that for irony? Makes one wonder whether politics is clouding their view of what trouble the military is truly in.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The dems plan has been laid out in general terms (deescalation), but I suspect they have withheld alot of detail until they get a sense of whether the Bush cabal is honest in opening themselves up to bipartisanship. Nothing to date suggests they are.
BTW..the Dems have been given a perfect opportunity to use real bipartisan recommendations...as opposed to the rhetorical that Bush and his neo-con con men have used...by simply supporting what Baker-Hamilton gave them- a defined set of objectives and initiatives to change the Iraq trajectory.
Seems to me that Webb is a very strong pro-military spokesman, like Murtha, and people like PFEIL seem to really hate that. Hows that for irony? Makes one wonder whether politics is clouding their view of what trouble the military is truly in.
Deescalation is there plan? They've withheld details? Hmm... We're honing in on 4 years, and they're still waiting for what exactly? Are you trying to tell me that the Dems do have a detailed plan, but that they are playing politics with it? Oh, I sure hope that's not true. Soldiers are dying over there, and if the Dems do have a detailed plan and are withholding it, that'd be reprehensible.
I remember seeing Howad Dean on Hardball the night of the election in November, and Mathews asked him point blank, what is the Dems plan for Iraq, and he refused to answer it. During Dean's response, they cut to Mathews face, and I remember he was shaking his head in frustration. I'm all for people putting idea's forward, but I honestly haven't seen anything put forth by the Dems on this. If their plan is to withdraw, then why don't they all come out and say it? To date, their plan has been to point at how lousy the others guy's is. Sadly, it's worked with the general populace, but has done nothing to help the situation. Remember, I'm for whatever succeeds. GW so far hasn't done to good, but the Dems are non-existent. The war isn't a partisan issue for me. It's an american issue. I don't care if Al Gore ocmes out with a plan, so long as it works.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
perhaps their plan is to merely stop firing generals and let them actually dictate the course of action?
What's comical about your agenda driven, and partisan position, is that GW let his generals run the show, and everyone *****ed he wasn't leading. Now, he fires guys cuz he feels he has a plan that will work (he's leading), and wants people in place who believe in it, and you're criticizing him for not letting the generals dictate the course of action. So which is it Agenda boy? Was he wrong before for letting the generals run the show, or is he wrong now for taking the lead? My guess is that, to you, he's wrong period.
Have a nice day!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
What's comical about your agenda driven, and partisan position, is that GW let his generals run the show, and everyone *****ed he wasn't leading. Now, he fires guys cuz he feels he has a plan that will work (he's leading), and wants people in place who believe in it, and you're criticizing him for not letting the generals dictate the course of action. So which is it Agenda boy? Was he wrong before for letting the generals run the show, or is he wrong now for taking the lead? My guess is that, to you, he's wrong period.
How can you say Bush is letting the Generals run the show when he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him, such as Generals Garner, Casey, Abizaid, Riggs, and other radical, pinko, commie, liberals. Bush is not letting the Generals run the show, and never has; in fact, the war has mostly been run by Cheney and Rove I suspect. Right now, Bush is simply trying to save face, and if it costs a few thousand more American lives, at least he'll be able to leave the embarrassment of withdrawal to his successor. Bush is taking the lead, true, but ignoring the bipartisan consensus that calls for more focus on diplomatic measures.
What's comical about your agenda driven, and partisan position, is that GW let his generals run the show, and everyone *****ed he wasn't leading. Now, he fires guys cuz he feels he has a plan that will work (he's leading), and wants people in place who believe in it, and you're criticizing him for not letting the generals dictate the course of action. So which is it Agenda boy? Was he wrong before for letting the generals run the show, or is he wrong now for taking the lead? My guess is that, to you, he's wrong period.
Have a nice day!
dear plantation owner: please do stop calling me "BOY" before things get truly personal for you...
anyhow, you righties continue to lose the debate when you create an argument that your opponent never said... the very definition of a strawman argument, which you've perfected, RW....
Bush NEVER let his generals fully run the show... never.... you remember when they wanted more troops to START the occupation, don't you? you remember what your president directed?
How can you say Bush is letting the Generals run the show when he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him, such as Generals Garner, Casey, Abizaid, Riggs, and other radical, pinko, commie, liberals. Bush is not letting the Generals run the show, and never has; in fact, the war has mostly been run by Cheney and Rove I suspect. Right now, Bush is simply trying to save face, and if it costs a few thousand more American lives, at least he'll be able to leave the embarrassment of withdrawal to his successor. Bush is taking the lead, true, but ignoring the bipartisan consensus that calls for more focus on diplomatic measures.
Dude, I said, GW was blasted for letting his generals run the show, then, when he devises a plan, since everyone criticized his "stay the course", and fires the guys that were in control when he was being criticized, to hire guys that agree with his plan, people STILL criticize him.
You suspect? You are really funny sometimes.
I don't know why people are so enamored with the Baker Hamilton report. Just cuz two life long political people came up with a report, why would anyone be forced to use it? I really don't understand why, in a country where commissions and reports have had a very checkered history, are we still so demanding of there implementation? I really don't know why people think that Iran and Syria would openly help us.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Dude, I said, GW was blasted for letting his generals run the show, then, when he devises a plan, since everyone criticized his "stay the course", and fires the guys that were in control when he was being criticized, to hire guys that agree with his plan, people STILL criticize him.
You suspect? You are really funny sometimes.
I don't know why people are so enamored with the Baker Hamilton report. Just cuz two life long political people came up with a report, why would anyone be forced to use it? I really don't understand why, in a country where commissions and reports have had a very checkered history, are we still so demanding of there implementation? I really don't know why people think that Iran and Syria would openly help us.
yeah, ummm.... show us all where Bush was "blasted for letting his generals run the show", if you could... a link or three from a non-obscure righty blog would be greatly appreciated...
as for your apparent rejection of commissions, this of course marches right in step with righties' usual stance about the UN... because they've made mistakes, they should merely be ignored from now on... nevermind that such commissions are the best form of independent assessment of a calamity....
how George Sr. even talks to his son anymore is baffling... He's got to be disgusted...
Last edited by PressCoverage; 01-24-2007 at 12:59 PM..
Re: Jim Webb's response: We will show him the way
Linear Mode
