Newt’s Solution For Iraq

 

1. All is lost - this sounds like a dem - more layers of government bureauacracy - repetitious meetings, more positions.

   Head for the Hills - when Newt becomes a dem the US is sliding downhill so damn fast, it probably can’t be stopped.

   Posted by wardmama4       02/28/2007  at  12:36 PM  



2. Wardmama, I disagree. The problem with the Dems for 6 years has been that they obstruct and object, but offer no actual plan of action to win against the enemy as an alternative to whatever Bush is doing. Their alternative is simply to give up.

   Gingrich presents here a specific list of items that constitute a plan of action, although I cannot support a couple of his ideas; the Chief of Staff for Iraq Implementation vs the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military, for instance.

   This is far more than the Dems have done since 9/11 or, actually, since Gulf War I. A President cannot just “git ‘er done” with no plan and without at least tacit support/non-interference of Congress. The Republicans gave that support, and the Dems are too cowardly to actually withdraw it, tho I think a lot of them are sensible enough to know that an “anti-Bush” plan is not the same as a “pro-victory” plan and so will not support the blithering class of Dem leaders now in charge.

   Posted by Rickvid in Seattle       02/28/2007  at  01:07 PM  



3. A rational approach, but Libs aren’t rational; they are emotional and their emotion has and will be BDS until and after G. W. Bush is gone.

   Posted by dick       02/28/2007  at  02:33 PM  



4. I also have a gripe about #14 too: Foggy Bottom is way too full of Arabists.

   Posted by Macker       02/28/2007  at  06:19 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.