The responsibility for cleaning up Bush's mess or at least extricating this country from Iraq will indeed be on the democrats (assuming Bush cooperates), the responsibility for creating the mess will forever remain yours.
I haven't heard any dems denying responsibility for what will happen under their watch. After all, it hasn't happened yet. It would be kind of hard to deny responsibility for something that hasn't happened yet. Pretty easy, though, for them to deny responsibility for what has already happened. The responsibility for the situation the US military is in right now (that is, in an unwinnable war) lies squarely in the lap of Paul, Dick, George, Donald and Condi. The US has done all it can reasonably do to try to imprint the stamp of democracy on Iraq, short of sending in a hundred thousand more troops and effectively taking over the country. Let's see where Iraq is at 15 years from now. Girls are going to school in Afghanistan now, something that was not happening before the Taliban were routed. Let's also see how long that holds up - hopefully it'll be permanent.
__________________________________________ Just like the dims cooperated with him and the reps over the last 2 or 3 years? Kind of like "Do as we sat not as we do." Much like the personal giving to charity mantra of the dims.
Full on denial. Bush had full control of all branches of legislative and executive branches, as well as the bully pulpit... As the title of this thread says: "When are Republicans&warmongers going to take responsibility for the Iraq disaster?" In the case of republiklowns like Doubter, the answer is never.. For them the buck never stops HERE... It always stops THERE...
You bet they cooperated, they should not have but they did. Bush got his authorization to go to war, he got the money, he got the troops, he got everything, there was not a single thing as far as Iraq was concerned that he wanted and did not get. He got full cooperation on Iraq and therefore what has happened there is his full responsibility. Now, you don't expect the dems to be responsible for what will happen in Iraq if Bush does not cooperate and insists on his own decisions, do you? You're not trying to have it both ways with Bush ignoring democratic proposals and the dems accepting responsibility for failure, are you? You're not that stupid, right? We already discussed it before, charity is not the democratic, it's the republican mantra.
Taking a huge country-sized template marked 'Democracy' and carrying it overseas with a thousand Blackhawks and dropping it on top of a country and hoping that when you lift it off, you'll have a democracy...that's a very optimistic thing to do. At least, 'optimistic' is one way to describe it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin Those who scoff at others who say that there are ulterior motives for these military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan should now at least admit that it is an understandable suspicion. Did anyone really believe that this would work in the long run? Only 500,000 US troops as a permanent occupying force could (maybe) ensure that this worked.
_______________________________________________ For one who will never admit the slightest responsibility or fault on anything ever you are either the champion denier or delusional.
Oh, didn't you know? Z is never wrong. All he needs to do is assert something and it automatically becomes the gospel truth.
Sorry, Nik, I disagree. This has never been tried before in the Middle East. Unless you subscribe to the retarded moonbat war-for-oil theory in Iraq and God-knows-what moonbat theory for Afghanistan (CIA/Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Carlyle Group domination of world opium trade perhaps?), I don't think it's understandable at all. I think it could have been done with less, HAD THE U.S. BEEN WILLING TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY, i.e. take out Al-Sadr and gone into mosques.