Did Republics call them "surrender dates" when GEORGE W. bUSH was FOR timelines

[LynnTheDem]

BEFORE George W. bUsh was AGAINST timelines?

Or are Republics just the biggest MFing hypocrites ever hatched?

Yeah, thought so.

[bmcatt]

1. As they say in courts

"asked and answered"...

[librechik]

2. hell no, that was wise and prudent leadership

until the Dems said it. Then Instant Amnesia!

[CatWoman]

3. .......

The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did - on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard M. Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald R. Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final humiliating American evacuation.

In those cases, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long.

What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today.

It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way.

Maybe, at last, they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman14may14,0,3642698.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

[LynnTheDem]

5. What would truly be terrible is to win a war of aggression.

That, imo, would be a tragedy beyond belief.

No nation, EVER, should win a war of aggression.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. only when spineless, yellow bellied democrat party chickens try to raise it.

only to pull it back when Lord George GLARES his GLARE at the minions pretending to have impotent offices in congress.

damn this congress. That 100 hour crap was nothing but show, and nothing to brag about. The real issues are still too hard for them to get a grip on. When the vast majority of the US is willing to support them, they squander all of that like a boozer finding an extra twenty in his pocket after his last shot and a beer.