'The Plan'
The Democrats' new method of opposing the war on terrorism while pretending not to oppose the war on terrorism is to keep demanding that Bush produce a "plan." Wesley Clark recently complained that Bush had put American troops in harm's way, "without a plan." Of course, Clark's "plan" would have been to create a quagmire, just like in Bosnia.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the difference in how he would have prosecuted the war in Iraq is: "I would have planned." Yes, the invasion of Iraq was the usual unplanned, spur-of-the-minute thing that took 14 months.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., noted for the record that when he voted for war with Iraq, "I said at the time that it was critical for us to have a plan. ... This president has no plan of any kind that I can see." Maybe it's that Beatlemania mop-top that's blocking Edwards' view.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

All of your assertions are laughable, but my favorite is definitely this one:

"The same questions were asked of FDR over and over again by the American people after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. "How much will this cost?" "My husband's a sailor

[quote="joebordenrebel"] All of your assertions are laughable, but my favorite is definitely this one:

"The same questions were asked of FDR over and over again by the American people after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. "How much will this cost?" "My husband's a sailor

Sounds like an evil leftist conspiracy to me, shall I purchase a tinfoil hat for you?

No just stick your head in the sand and let the real americans protect your @ss.

I have to agree with JBR on this one. To compare FDR's world with GW's world is LAUGHABLE.

To counter JBR's claim by calling him a "liberal" is not a counterargument at all. It amounts to nothing more than saying "booooo" in response.

With that said, feel free to "boooo" me. C'mon, I know you will do it, go boooooooooo.

Anyway, while we're on comparisons here, I think the Iraq situation is certainly turning out to be a quagmire. And I think the rhetoric today is quite similar to the rhetoric during the first year American ground forces were in Vietnam, 1965-66.
Reading newspapers from the era (early 1966), you have McNamara telling the press it's not as bad as it looks. You have the joint cheifs of staff claiming that we are "victorious" and you have a president claiming major combat is over. When some troops of ours die over there, you have the military claiming it is the work of "terrorists, and outside insurgents" and that the people of South Vietnam are "happy with the arrival of American forces."
Other press of the day shows Vietnamese kids going to school, others getting inoculations. Now, as the months of 1966 progress, you see more bombings, helicopter crashes, RPG attacks, mortor attacks, riots in Saigon and other important S. Vietnamese cities. And all the while you have a military and a president saying that the "press is focusing on the negative" and "it's getting better everyday." When things really start to unravel back in summer of '66, you have a president saying "we are democratizing the region."
In this era you have Republicans saying "we need international support" and eventually you have some saying "we need to pull out....get NATO involved."

Not only does this look like Vietnam, coming from the politicians' mouths, it sounds like Vietnam.

So, your assertion of quagmire could easily be argued about the situation we are in now in Iraq.

Fact of the matter is, Iraqis were not a threat to us (thanks to the no-fly zone) until we took over their country. Now, Iraq is a threat to us, to our security, to the region.
And, going to war for the sake of democracy is an ancient policy as the Athenians did it circa 500 bc. It turned out badly for them as it will for us.

We go to war to counter a threat. Saddam wasn't a threat to us. Bush went to war for 'regime change' and the whole notion of that is contradictory to the goals and values of democracy.

.....in summation........the Democrat's plan:



"AHHHHH The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!"