Posted on 11/08/2007 6:51:57 PM PST by RDTF
Do elderly fags lurk in the handicapped toilet?
No religion is of peace, but Bush wouldn’t understand that.
Condi is feeding the fish here. Wish she would spend more time with John Bolton.
So much wasted time on whether to call something an "insurgency" or "civil war".
IMHO, the largest mistake was underestimating how utterly destroyed the People of Iraq were by Saddam. You can't take people who have lived such a nightmare, give them freedom, point them at democratic government, and expect it to work itself out. Democracy can flourish but it requires basic Rule of Law and Human Rights to be in place first. The occupation of Japan after WWII is a good example of such a conversion.
You can't take people who have had to lie and steal for thirty years just to feed their families and expect them become law-abiding citizens overnight. They have to see some benefit of being good citizens and significant detriment to committing crimes. Also, the torture and murder inflicted by the Sunni government on the Shia and Kurd population would not, could not be simply forgiven.
Now, could the President have convinced the American People that Saddam had to go if we knew it included a prolonged occupation as part of the package?
No, you didn’t. My mistake.
That is true. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dems.
There was only one key mistake made, and it occured between the end of the 2004 election cycle, and the day after the 2006 election cycle.
The Administration played ‘not to lose’ in Iraq during that time frame, instead of playing ‘to win’.
The success of the ‘surge’ demonstrates this conclusively in my opinion.
When dealing with religion based fanatics determined to die and take you with them, there are only two viable options.
1. Kill them.
2. Surrender
We tried a ‘third way’ for the 2 years between November 04 and November 06. The results were predictable.
As are the results we are seeing today, because to be blunt they are based on #1.
LOL!
She did spend a lot of time with John Bolton. She was the one to suggest him for UN Ambassador post, was his superior when he was UN Ambassador, and was supporting his nomination for permanent position until it was obvious that that was no longer feasible (due to, first to Sen. Voinovich and later, 2006 elections).
As a private citizen now, John Bolton can says things that he couldn't and wouldn't say were he still in the employ of State Dept, even if he were Secretary of State today. Different jobs, different obligations, different standards, different approach... same goals.
Agree with all of your post but, IMHO, the word "mistake" is a bit strong here - these things just have to take time, in some circumstances longer than others. Took us long enough to "recover" (if one can say that) or at least get used to post-9/11 world, because it was entirely different than "September 10" world that [unfortunately] far too many people still think we are in.
I think that is the point that Rumsfeld was trying to hammer time and again in his pressers, very effectively, in my opinion, if anyone cared to listen and understand.
> . . .the MO here is crucial. . .still; despite Condi’s familiarity with Bolton’s MO; even by agreement; do not see them singing, from the same page. At least by methodology on how to accomplish it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.