Dude, she's a neo-con. Sorry. A stinkin', evil neo-con.

And when did either Java or myself claim to support Hilliary or say she had any answers to anything?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Stop using the term "neo con" to tarnish members of the republican party. She's a decent person, a good ambassador and someone you guys need in the heart of the battlefield if your to acieve your longterm goals.

So who is gonna be the president?

Back Condi for president!

"Neo-con" tarnishes the Republicans no more than "liberal" tarnishes Democrats. It is the label given to a particular philosophy... one shared by most members of George W. Bush's administration.
As much as I disagree with neo-cons, I honestly don't see what your problem with it is. It's a very specific philosophy, not a gushy one like conservative or liberal.
I'm not denying her decency or credentials. You assume my longterm goals match hers and that I feel her policies will actually work the way she thinks they will. Wrong on at least the second account... the first depends on how loosely you define it, I suppose.

We'll have a better idea when the candidates are announced. One thing I'm sure on: Not Condi, because SHE ISN'T RUNNING!

Why? She's not running.
Or do you mean I should provide her emotional support for a personal crisis?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I'm not using the term to tanish or not tarnish anyone. It's merely a political label for people holding certain views. If it fits I apply it. If not I don't. (Shrug).

I'm sure she's quite decent. But if you don't know what my goals are, how can you be so certain she can achieve them?

Do I look like Nostradamus to you? As long as it's not a neo-con I can live with it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

90% of Iraqis Say 'Worse Off Than Under Saddam'

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1004B3185A.htm

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

No, I could not vote for Condi either.

As far as getting out of Iraq, I don't believe in stuck.
Since this administration has decided to fight this war in the likeness of Viet-Nam a pull out is not all that undesirable to me.
I would not like the obvious fallout that will ensue from pulling out but the politics is killing our troops.

I have to face the fact. GW has an overall problem with securing borders. There or here. That is killing our troops.

Also, when at this late date we still have a shortage of body armor, and ground units have to radio for permission to fire on a mosque with anything larger than an M-16, even though they are under sniper fire from that mosque, then screw it. Bring them home. I am sick of it. That is killing our troops.

I can only imagine what combat is like, but to put our troops into that kind of
situation how can we wonder when some of them freak out and break the PC boundaries.

I have all respect for our troops, and if we send the into harms way we should not define their mission with PC etiquette, and ROE which ties one hand behind their backs. If it is worth doing then it's worth doing right.
If not bring them home.

If the Dem's will help our troops then they may do well.
I will not hold my breath though.

If you believe we simply cannot ever win there, then I see the logic of leaving. No need spending billions we don't have every day if we can't win.

The interesting thing is that W was talking about more troops there. Who knows if that's really a plan, but assuming it is, how will the GOP and Democrats deal with sending more troops in if 68% of the people want the troops out?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

really hate being in the majority, but in this case I glad of it. And the neocons seemingly can't accept that they got trounced and Bush was completely rejected. Even to the point that they are hoping there will be one less Democratic Senator. I believe the neocons are an anti-democratic force within our country.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

Not unless the Democrats can field a better list of Candidates than they have now. Here come da polls:

It was not universal, but when even the LA Times poll is predicting a Republican victory by 14 points, things cant be good for the Democrats. Time to keep digging; Hillary aint gonna cut it. You cant coast on the anti-Bush vote this time.

Only someone like you would consider Al Jazeera a legitimate source, heh heh

Condi would actually have been my first choice. I consider McCain a compromise candidate. The biggest problem I have with McCain isnt foreign policy related. It is his Nazi-like support of ridiculously restrictive copyright laws. But McCain is by far preferrable to any Democrat candidate I have seen so far.

That is exactly why I dont believe the majority of voting Americans want us out. Because if they did, they would not keep electing politicians that dont want to take us out. Even the majority of democrats dont want us out.

Exactly. Yet the vast majority of our elected representatives (and by proxy, the people that elected them) seem to favor continued spending. Therefore they must believe we can win.

Link please. Thats the 2nd time I have seen someone on here make that claim without posting evidence. The only people I have seen calling for more troops so far are Democrats.

If 68% of people really wanted troops out, then Congress would now be dominated by a majority that reflects that opinion. since that didnt happen, it is reasonable to assume that the figure is lower than 68%.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

While I desperately want to get our troops out of a completely no-win situation where they are being murdered relentlessly for no good cause, I also happen to believe in the policy/philosopy: "You break it, you buy it."

W. broke Iraq. To simply leave would be not to buy the problem but to hand it over to the poor Iraqi people who will pay and pay and pay for our breaking their country.

But I simply do not believe that Democracy will work in Iraq. The tribal differences between the sunnis and the shias (I call it tribal because it's really beginning to remind me of what happened in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis) make any form of democracy ethnically divided and weak. I suspect only a strong dictatorship (preferably military and secular) is the best result the US could hope for in Iraq.