Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.
As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...
Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.
If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.
And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?
-spence
|
"As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage..."
Spence, unlike Obama,and I suppose unlike you, I was there before and after the surge. Everyone knows that the reduction in violence was a direct result of the increased troop presence in the forward areas. You suggest the reduction in sectarian fighting COINCIDENTALLY matched up with the increased troop presence?
Clueless. I mean, clueless.
"Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate. "
Oh, see. So when Obama is as wrong as can be on the economy or on th esurge, it's because these things are, unfortunately, not an exact science. Did you say the same thing about Bush and the start of the Iraq war? That was also a result of incorrect interpretation of data, but you don't seem to be willing to give Bush the same get-out-of-jail-free card that you give Obama.
Bush supported the surge, because vcirtually every single military commander said it would work. Obama, somehow, concluded that he knew better. If Obama thinnks he knows more about these things than the guys with blood on their boots, what does that say about Obama?
The same thing it says about you. You and Obama are both so blinded by ideology that you cannot see facts before your eyes. Obama thinks the best way to address our debt ($60 trillion) is to tweak tax rates on a handful of zillionaires. You agree. Neither of you are swayed by the fact that the math clearly shows that any addiitonal revenue won't even be enough to pay the INTEREST on what we owe. But that strategy is out of the commie playbook, and that's all that matters to you and Obama.
So when conservatives admit the truth, you (and Obama) know you can't respond based on the issues. All you can do is shriek "YUO HATE POOR PEOPLE! VOTE FOR ME, OR THE MEAN REPUBLICAN WILL KICK YOU OUT IN THE STREET!!"
That's literally all you have.
I keep asking you how you'd generate $60 trillion by adding $90 billion of tax revenue, and you keep d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g.