McCain Clinton 08

[tzor]

If a Democrat would join McCain it would have to be Liberman.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. If the party didn't need him to maintain a majority they would kick him out of their caucus. In fact that's the best guess scenario that they will get enough seats to no longer need him. Pitty because he still votes their side on the issues 75% of the time. Once again showing how the Democrats are the party of unity. (NOT)

[gdeangel]

TZOR - That New Yorker piece was really good. Shows how kids lack good judgment... more likely the "racism" here was of the school yard variety when they faked the guys Myspace page and attributed the "rape" threat to an African American. But waving a gun at the face of a drunk teenager, even if he's got a car full of drunk friends, is - I'm afraid to say - pretty gross indifference to human life. I'd convict on manslaughter as well... more so if he was white since there is possibly an excuse that this guys family history in the 1950's south with the klan led him to overreact and wave around his gun a little to freely.

But anyway, back on topic... I don't think Lieberman would be a solid choice for anyone. Look how much good he did on the Gore ticket in 2000. McCain could stay within the party and go for a fellow Maveric like the Governator if he didn't care about pissing off the Huckabee crowd.

[Snorri1234]

Actually sending troops into Iraq had few unintended consequences. The unintended consequences developed from the Rumsfield policy of dealing with the war's aftermath.

You guys didn't send enough troops over in the first place. Civil war was pretty much inevitable.

[tzor]

You guys didn't send enough troops over in the first place. Civil war was pretty much inevitable.

We sent in enough for the war. We didn't send in enough for the post war. But the biggest problem was an end of WWI attitude towards the former members of the Bath party. Not every member was a cause of the problem, but we prevented them from being a part of the solution. They in turn got s turned off that they refused to participate at first and thus became even more isolated. Thus they turned to Al Quaedia who in turned to inter sectarian conflict.

Meanwhile we refused to directly talk to the biggest religious leader from the majority who built up his own forces to solve problems. He too turned to inter sectarian conflict. Eventually he almost lost control and had to ally with Iran.

Still, the Rumsfield doctrine of peace on the cheap was blatently wrong on many levels. It was compounded by the refusal to talk to the people who could have been, if not our allies, at least less hostile about the whole situation so that they accepted us as the lesser evil.

[gdeangel]

Still, the Rumsfield doctrine of peace on the cheap was blatently wrong on many levels. It was compounded by the refusal to talk to the people who could have been, if not our allies, at least less hostile about the whole situation so that they accepted us as the lesser evil.

We kicked Sadam out of Kuwait on the cheap; we did Bosnia and Somolia on the cheap. Hell, we've been running our whole economy "on the cheap" with lots of leverage and the pomise of a big, easy payoff. So it's not really fair to just put it all on Rumsfeld... just like with the whole Ethanol debacle, Mr. Dubbya seems prone to go for the easy option whenever there are two paths from A to B, even if the easy option means selling the cow for a handful of magic beans. The decision to box out the Bathists was a call made by Bush's hand picked "grand vision" guy, Bremmer. Powell didn't leave the administration because of one guy... he left because of a pervasive attitude (and, dare I say, pervasive incompetence). But even the most incompetent boob has to recognize that you can't leave Iraq until the country can stand on its own feet... as the saying goes, we've unzipped, so now we've got to perform.