Liars?

[Ned]

Many who today say they oppose the troops surge in Iraq were just yesterday the leading advocates of more troops. They wanted Rummy's head for not telling Bush the truth about Iraq.

Now they deny they ever held these positions, or refuse to explain their revised positions or new and improved "plans" for "victory?". Whether they lie in the process seems irrelevant to them. And no one in the "media" asks them to explain.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm

It all seems that whatever Bush wants, they oppose. Or is it just that they are pandering to their base?

Regardless of the reasons for their about faces, are these "leaders" or just "liars?"

[Verto]

oh noes

[Rufus T. Firefly]

1) Ever see a really big industrial fire? There are moments, in the fire's early stages, when it makes sense to dispatch every fire company you can to fight the blaze; but there are also moments, later on, when sending one more fire company is a pointless effort and a waste of resources. Many pols supported more troops before the situation deteriorated to this level; as the situation has changed, so has the feeling that more troops is the answer.

2) But some still think more troops are the answer -- but 20,000 is insufficient. Nearly every credible military voice on this subject has said that 20,000 troops does nothing except put 20,000 more men and women in harm's way. They're willing to fight the blaze, but want more fire companies there -- while Bush is offering to send in a guy with a bucket of water.

[DRoseDARs]

3) And many think this blaze makes the building a total loss. Firefighters have at plenty of times allowed fires to burn themselves out while simply preventing them from spreading to adjacent buildings.

If the war in Iraq truly was not unpreventable, then we should have gone in with like 500,000 US and Coalition forces. General Shinseki had the temerity to say as much before the war and was rewarded with a pink slip and a shoe print on his ass as he walked out the door.

[Q Classic]

4. Isn't the Washington Times, rag as it is, still considered part of the "media"? Or does the fact that its editorial board skews conservative and its ownership skews Moonie make it somehow not part of the "media"? For that matter, if that's the case, how do you exactly define the "media"? Are you just using that term in a perjorative sense towards any informational outlet that doesn't support your worldview?

5. It all seems that whoever's against Bush is always somehow evil, wrong, dishonest. Or is it simply a case where those who directly oppose some of the most dishonest crooks in power are just mirror reflections themselves?

[Sava]

6. Why has the debate become about sending more troops or keeping levels where they are? Didn't people elect a Democratic Congress so we could end this stupid ass war?

[chequita guevara]

7. I don't really have anything to add, but I wanted to post a number.

[Sava]

8. I am Sava and I approve of this.

[DinoDoc]

9) Why was General Petraeus confirmed by such a large margin in the Senate when the same Senate is debating repudiating the strategy he had a hand in developing and is being sent to impliment?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
9) Why was General Petraeus confirmed by such a large margin in the Senate when the same Senate is debating repudiating the strategy he had a hand in developing and is being sent to impliment?

10) Probably because Petraeus went on the record saying he thought the pacification of Baghdad -- not Iraq, just Baghdad -- would take 120,00 troops -- thus showing that even he understood the "surge," as proposed, was a joke. He was confirmed for being competent, honest, and knowing what he was talking about -- which is more than you can say for everyone else who's shilled for the war to date.

[Berzerker]

1) Ever see a really big industrial fire? There are moments, in the fire's early stages, when it makes sense to dispatch every fire company you can to fight the blaze; but there are also moments, later on, when sending one more fire company is a pointless effort and a waste of resources. Many pols supported more troops before the situation deteriorated to this level; as the situation has changed, so has the feeling that more troops is the answer.

2) But some still think more troops are the answer -- but 20,000 is insufficient. Nearly every credible military voice on this subject has said that 20,000 troops does nothing except put 20,000 more men and women in harm's way. They're willing to fight the blaze, but want more fire companies there -- while Bush is offering to send in a guy with a bucket of water.

yup

throw stones at Charles Hurt

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
6. Why has the debate become about sending more troops or keeping levels where they are? Didn't people elect a Democratic Congress so we could end this stupid ass war?

Not particularly.

[Berzerker]

hehe, voters got all sorts of reasons

[Verto]

11) Let the record show I for one did not waste time rebutting your lame ass.

[Wernazuma III]

I just saw the thread title and said to myself: Ned.