>>>>>Still, "wanting to lose" is a cheap strawman.
>>>>
>>>>Again you have disregarded my arguement by saying you disagree. There are people who want the US to lose. Denying this is a denial of fact.
>>>
>>>Are there people saying that they want the US to lose? Or are you making an assumption? No sites that i visit that tend to be critical of the admin profess this. If they did they would be labelled nutjobs by others on those sites. They dont say it.
>>
>>I am making a logical equation.
>>Immediate pullout = US defeat
>>People wanting an immediate pullout want a US defeat.
>
>
>Take your "immediate pullout = WANT a US defeat" over to KOS and post it to start a discussion. I would be curious about the replies you get. Your cheap charge dismisses those who see it as the best option at this point. Arguable? sure. "Want to fail"? COMPLETE BS and disgusting. I suspect you'll get a few 'already failed' replies. But i also think you would be surprised about the discussion that entails. In fact, I'd be interested to see how many do advocate an "immediate pullout". I dont think its very popular a position. As far as i know, there's Murtha and maybe one or two other reps calling for an "accellerated" pullout. Not sure thats considered immediate. But tossing around "wanting to fail" sure makes a good strawman.

I agree with you that it is not a very popular option and those that I would label as wanting to see the US fail are very few indeed. I would not label Murtha this way as he suggested a partial withdrawl to the borders, not immediate and complete. Do you think that there is no one who wants the US mission in Iraq to fail? You can continue to call it a strawman but the fact remains that many would be happy if the US pulled out without establishing a stable Iraq democracy.