President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 14, 2007 02:42 AM UTC

This isn't going to go over well...

  • 6 Comments
  • by: Phoenix Rising

President Bush is expected tonight to announce a “Permanent Mutual Defense Agreement” with Iraq, with no draw-down of troops included.

It “leaked” to the press, and the talk shows are already all over it, surprising some of the Republicans who were scheduled to be on the shows.  Responses so far are pretty much stunned.

Is this when someone finally declares the President insane?

Comments

6 thoughts on “This isn’t going to go over well…

  1. I was listening to a late-night radio guy I kind of know – actually a *ahem,* “progressive” – a few days ago, and they were doing this bit where they ask the callers a question first.  One of the questions was “When should we get out of Iraq?”

    I spent the rest of the drive home trying to figure out my answer, and I came to a stunning conclusion:

    “Getting out of Iraq” is the language of defeat. 

    The only other country and theater we “got out of” after a war was Vietnam.  Beyond that, we’ve always maintained security and protected our interests, whether it was Clark AB, Okinawa, Germany, or England.  The assumption that we ought to leave anywhere is part of the peacenik paradigm I’ve seen discussed – the peaceniks have decided that after Vietnam, they created the primary viewpoint that America should never fight a war again for any reason; and anything less is simply foolishly fighting against their obviously superior views.

    I think the President’s take is a pretty clever attempt to take back the language and the views on the war to a paradigm more historical in its root and, indeed, more sane in itself. 

    He has to do something to win, and to make sure that we can win any other war when we need to in the future, too.  Otherwise, the 21st will be a century of American Submission.

    Crazy?  Crazy like a fox.

    1. “the peaceniks have decided that after Vietnam, they created the primary viewpoint that America should never fight a war again for any reason”

      I think anyone would agree with me that the thinking is a little more restrained than that, i.e. – you better have a damn good reason to start a war.  WMD wasn’t one.  We’re caught in a civil war that’s not even in our interest to fight anymore and OBL is alive and well.

      And now people like you Yokel are still caught up in a semantic fog about victory and defeat, when any chance of winning this war was lost when we made foolish decisions about de-baathification and dismantling the entire Iraqi army.  It’s not even our war anymore.

      Don’t give in to defeat.  Victory is just right around the corner, even though we can’t even define what that is.  Beat the dead horse a little more…

      1. So are you saying that victory in Iraq is unpossible? 

        What *would* you have defined “victory” as, back in the mysterious past when you think it might have been possible?

        Also, are you saying that between the options of developing a secure and strong ally in the Middle East and the War on Islamism and leaving behind us a failed state and a tinderbox for a wider regional war and an ideal place to train Al Qaeda forces to go out into the wider world, that you think “Defeat”  equally classifies them?

        1. I would have defined in the “mysterious past” a victory of getting rid of Saddam and leaving a stable, operating country in his wake.  Not a power vacuum.

          Iraq will never be a secure and strong ally in the Middle East.  Shocked that I said that ?  I repeat: Iraq will never be a secure and strong ally in the Middle East.

          Leaving behind a failed state and a tinderbox for a wider regional war and an ideal place to train Al Qaeda forces to go out in the wider world IS EXACTLY WHAT BUSH HAS DONE, and that is his responsibility and legacy.  However, no amount of money and involvement by us can change that now. Welcome to Western Iran.

          W can try to delay and delay until he can lay this horrendous disaster on the feet of the next president, which is precisely what he is going to do.  I really don’t think the guy gives a shit about anything other than that.  Then 20 years from now Carl Rove can say “It wasn’t Bush’s fault, it was ____’s fault”.  Sick.

    2. Think Britain.  Same reason.  Oil.  Will be the same result, except they couldn’t ship their bodies home.

      Think Russia in Afghanistan. 

      You call it defeat.  I call it sanity. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!