Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually the name for someone who supported the war when it was convenient then lied their way out of it and switched sides when it was expedient isn't libertarian ... it's Democrat ...
And once again, you're an idiot who doesn't know what a "neocon" is. You think "neocon" is someone you don't like. Even if I had once been for the war, I wouldn't have been a neocon because I'm a fiscal conservative. You think neocon is someone you don't like. Actually, a neocon is someone you vote for because our president is one.
I know exactly what a Neo-Con is. And those who occupied the past administration all claimed to be fiscal conservatives, also.
Obama inherited Bush's security apparatus, constructed by Bush. He cannot, for instance, ignore Bush's giant Federal creation, Dept. Homeland Security.
Speaking of which, who in the teabagger Congress has tried to eliminate that Federal bureaucracy, since they are all such fiscal conservatives?
"INHERITED"
YAWN
left-wing nutjobs are so boringly predictable in their excuse-making
Actually the name for someone who supported the war when it was convenient then lied their way out of it and switched sides when it was expedient isn't libertarian ... it's Democrat ...
And once again, you're an idiot who doesn't know what a "neocon" is. You think "neocon" is someone you don't like. Even if I had once been for the war, I wouldn't have been a neocon because I'm a fiscal conservative. You think neocon is someone you don't like. Actually, a neocon is someone you vote for because our president is one.
I know exactly what a Neo-Con is. And those who occupied the past administration all claimed to be fiscal conservatives, also.
Obama inherited Bush's security apparatus, constructed by Bush. He cannot, for instance, ignore Bush's giant Federal creation, Dept. Homeland Security.
Speaking of which, who in the teabagger Congress has tried to eliminate that Federal bureaucracy, since they are all such fiscal conservatives?
I know what a neo con is too. It's code word for Jeeeeeeeeww!
Easier to call them neocons to hide the antisemitism.
Who would have thought one would see the day when the 'Conservatives' would be cheering for the naked aggression of Russia? It seems that if they think that it might in any way be a detriment to our President, they are for it. Even to the extent of cheering for the re-instatement of the old Russian and Soviet empire.
There is a name for this, and it is treason. To work against the interests of the United States and, indeed, the civilized world, is treason of the highest sort. These are the people that would have joined the Bund. An embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to humanity.
speaking of embarrassments, what a bladder of psychotic blather.....really, even for you this is, well...ignorant as will get out.
I was wondering how the taking points would shake out to cover for the fact that the complete lack of coherence of a Obama foreign policy ( even the editorial staff of the Wash Post calls it like it is; President Obama?s foreign policy is based on fantasy - The Washington Post ) has crumbled our soft power and working on crumbling the United States hard power to the point where Putin (and wait they'll be more ) will do exactly what Joe Biden said they would do, test him.
I'll just name 2 tests- First there was Obama hostility to Bush or McCain stepping up to Putin over Georgia in 2008, you think Putin didn't remember that? then the self inflicted idiocy of the Red line and Syria.,...? Abracadabra...here we are...tested and failed. It is what it is.
The talking points now?useful idiots abound, semantical jiujitsu to change the focus of story only works with a healthy measurable portion of truth to the claim, you'd have been better off just blaming Bush
You can pray if you want. Good chance God won't know what you are talking about or at least be scratching his or her head about why folks like you think the securtiy of the world is at stake over a former chunk of Russia that got given to Ukraine and is now being taken back by Russia.
i doubt anybody thought a beef over the assination of an Austrian archduke by a serbian nationalist would trigger WWI
To be fair, I doubt he has a clue what you are talking about.
As much as I dislike the posters on this board cheering Putin there is someone who trumps that, Representative Rogers. That a sitting U.S. Representative would go on a Sunday talk show and openly and blatantly criticize the President while a major international incident is occurring. Rep. Rogers himself states how significant the crisis is. I would love to see him in front of a Congressional hearing. Anyone with even the smallest concept of national security knows that one does not openly criticize the Commander in Chief in time of national crisis. This is why we must defeat as many Republicans as we can possibility can this fall. They have lost any regard whatsoever for national interests and national security. Trying to grab a little personal gain at the expense of national security? Disgusting. One really has to question where his priorities really lie.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Sunday the crisis in Ukraine presents another situation in which President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, Putin is playing chess, and I think were playing marbles.
Its not even close, Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News Sunday.
Rogers: Putin 'running circles' around the United States | Fox News
2004-05-20 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.
"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader," Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."
U.S. kills 40 civilians in village attack / BLUNT ASSESSMENT: S.F.'s Pelosi calls Bush 'incompetent' and lacking in judgment - SFGate
I don't have a problem with drone strikes on known terrorists.
I was here for 9/11, I see what they can do.
And I'd much rather have a surgical drone strike, than a full on invasion.
At least water boarding a captured known terrorist in an interrogation you can extract useful information that can save American lives, can't say as much when they're dead from a drone strike.
Yet you will cite the Constitution with regard to the use of torture to extract information from terrorists overseas, even though the Constitution really only applies towards those within the boarders of the United States - not foreigners captured in foreign lands. That is where you get confused. The Constitution would apply in a case, such as an administration which would actually allow the use of drone technology on our own citizens IN the United States. Do you understand the difference?
The Constitution is pretty clear on how to act on both persons within our jurisdiction an entities that choose to wage war against the US.
I don't know why you think it's clever to make some assertions to the contrary.
Do you need the clauses sited for you?
Which I doubt will help..because even when spoon fed those, you folks find either something unrelated to the point, or go completely into a very unique understanding on what the words mean.
It doesn't say "borders". It's says "jurisdiction". That's an extremely different thing. And it was deliberate. Most of the founders were Lawyers and were keenly aware that reciprocity between nations begins at home.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Does not specify enemy COMBATANTS captured outside the US during time of war.
That's a prohibition on torture.
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That's how this nation prosecutes war.
If that weren't enough? There is the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration really did violate all three protocols.
I know exactly what a Neo-Con is. And those who occupied the past administration all claimed to be fiscal conservatives, also.
Obama inherited Bush's security apparatus, constructed by Bush. He cannot, for instance, ignore Bush's giant Federal creation, Dept. Homeland Security.
Speaking of which, who in the teabagger Congress has tried to eliminate that Federal bureaucracy, since they are all such fiscal conservatives?
I know what a neo con is too. It's code word for Jeeeeeeeeww!
Easier to call them neocons to hide the antisemitism.
It's Jewwwwwwww.....elongating the "W" sound....not the "E" sound.
As much as I dislike the posters on this board cheering Putin there is someone who trumps that, Representative Rogers. That a sitting U.S. Representative would go on a Sunday talk show and openly and blatantly criticize the President while a major international incident is occurring. Rep. Rogers himself states how significant the crisis is. I would love to see him in front of a Congressional hearing. Anyone with even the smallest concept of national security knows that one does not openly criticize the Commander in Chief in time of national crisis. This is why we must defeat as many Republicans as we can possibility can this fall. They have lost any regard whatsoever for national interests and national security. Trying to grab a little personal gain at the expense of national security? Disgusting. One really has to question where his priorities really lie.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Sunday the crisis in Ukraine presents another situation in which President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, Putin is playing chess, and I think were playing marbles.
Its not even close, Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News Sunday.
Rogers: Putin 'running circles' around the United States | Fox News
Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?
2004-05-20 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.
"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader," Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."
U.S. kills 40 civilians in village attack / BLUNT ASSESSMENT: S.F.'s Pelosi calls Bush 'incompetent' and lacking in judgment - SFGate
In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.
As much as I dislike the posters on this board cheering Putin there is someone who trumps that, Representative Rogers. That a sitting U.S. Representative would go on a Sunday talk show and openly and blatantly criticize the President while a major international incident is occurring. Rep. Rogers himself states how significant the crisis is. I would love to see him in front of a Congressional hearing. Anyone with even the smallest concept of national security knows that one does not openly criticize the Commander in Chief in time of national crisis. This is why we must defeat as many Republicans as we can possibility can this fall. They have lost any regard whatsoever for national interests and national security. Trying to grab a little personal gain at the expense of national security? Disgusting. One really has to question where his priorities really lie.
Rogers: Putin 'running circles' around the United States | Fox News
Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.
Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.
Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi knows dick about military tactics.
She needed to keep her trap shut and stick to telling us to pass it so we can find out what's in it.
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi knows dick about military tactics.
She needed to keep her trap shut and stick to telling us to pass it so we can find out what's in it.
So you agree with President Bush that troops going into combat did not need that Kevlar lining?, that you and President Bush know more about military tactics then Rep. Pelosi? So what is your tactical opinion on what a team should do when they lose a couple of their team do to wounds suffered because of lack of that equipment. Does personal lose in combat build character or something?
i doubt anybody thought a beef over the assination of an Austrian archduke by a serbian nationalist would trigger WWI
To be fair, I doubt he has a clue what you are talking about.
Well, to be fair, I doubt that God doesn't have a clue about WWI. I would imagine that in the big picture and time line, WWI would be like a few minutes ago for God. But if for any reason he puts an angel on the case that might need an update, they are welcome to visit me. My WWI history book collection starts with a 1919 New York TIMES collection that weighs in at just a shade over 5 pounds. Lots of cool pictures too.
Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi knows dick about military tactics.
She needed to keep her trap shut and stick to telling us to pass it so we can find out what's in it.
So you agree with President Bush that troops going into combat did not need that Kevlar lining?, that you and President Bush know more about military tactics then Rep. Pelosi? So what is your tactical opinion on what a team should do when they lose a couple of their team do to wounds suffered because of lack of that equipment. Does personal lose in combat build character or something?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or7Vc9vv6e4]Obama on Troop Surge - YouTube[/ame]
At least water boarding a captured known terrorist in an interrogation you can extract useful information that can save American lives, can't say as much when they're dead from a drone strike.
Yet you will cite the Constitution with regard to the use of torture to extract information from terrorists overseas, even though the Constitution really only applies towards those within the boarders of the United States - not foreigners captured in foreign lands. That is where you get confused. The Constitution would apply in a case, such as an administration which would actually allow the use of drone technology on our own citizens IN the United States. Do you understand the difference?
The Constitution is pretty clear on how to act on both persons within our jurisdiction an entities that choose to wage war against the US.
I don't know why you think it's clever to make some assertions to the contrary.
Do you need the clauses sited for you?
Which I doubt will help..because even when spoon fed those, you folks find either something unrelated to the point, or go completely into a very unique understanding on what the words mean.
It doesn't say "borders". It's says "jurisdiction". That's an extremely different thing. And it was deliberate. Most of the founders were Lawyers and were keenly aware that reciprocity between nations begins at home.
That's a prohibition on torture.
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That's how this nation prosecutes war.
If that weren't enough? There is the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration really did violate all three protocols.
The United States Constitution makes no reference to prisoners captured outside the United States on foreign soil of having any Constitutional rights. How ignorant are you with respect to the Constitution? Perhaps this below will help educate you on United States Constitutional rights towards captured enemy combatants overseas.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luHfwlPehYc]Senator Graham Nails AG Eric Holder - YouTube[/ame]
As much as I dislike the posters on this board cheering Putin there is someone who trumps that, Representative Rogers. That a sitting U.S. Representative would go on a Sunday talk show and openly and blatantly criticize the President while a major international incident is occurring. Rep. Rogers himself states how significant the crisis is. I would love to see him in front of a Congressional hearing. Anyone with even the smallest concept of national security knows that one does not openly criticize the Commander in Chief in time of national crisis. This is why we must defeat as many Republicans as we can possibility can this fall. They have lost any regard whatsoever for national interests and national security. Trying to grab a little personal gain at the expense of national security? Disgusting. One really has to question where his priorities really lie.
Rogers: Putin 'running circles' around the United States | Fox News
Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.
Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.
It's not about criticism of a President. It is the job of congress to challange and criticize. Some here are just trying to deflect from the issue of the timing of the criticism. THAT IS THE ISSUE, THE TIMING. The tradition has been to wait and hold public criticism for a short period while discussions go on behind closed doors so as to present a united front to the enemy and for the various agencies and bracnchs of government to organize and decide how to handle a crisis. The President is given the temporary lead since it is the President who has to make snap decisions as chief executive and Commander in Chief.
Pelosi and the Democrats had made it clear about their feelings in regards to high amounts of collateral civilians casualties and the failure of the DoD and administration to equip soldiers with body armor and armored vehicals. Immediate action to resolve these issue's were being demanded by the world community in regards to the high civilian collateral causaulty rates and on the domestic front in reqards to soldiers being maimed and killed due to lack of proper equipment. Back room discussions had long been rejected by the administration and their failure to address the issue's brought about the only tactic available. Public embarrassment and pressure to force the administration into affirmative action on the issue's.
Republicans should have been banging on the administrations door about the failure to provide body armor to troops and the necessity for families to hold bake sales and car washs to privately pay for their kids body armor. Instead Republicans tied the funding to an overall defense funding bill with all the bells and whistles and the inclusion that would forgive all of Iraq's foriegn debt, an issue being hotly debated with the Democrats.
And now some folks are pissed off that Pelosi spoke up about that disgrace and compare it to the Putin love fest by conservative Americans
Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx
It's not about criticism of a President. It is the job of congress to challange and criticize. Some here are just trying to deflect from the issue of the timing of the criticism. THAT IS THE ISSUE, THE TIMING. The tradition has been to wait and hold public criticism for a short period while discussions go on behind closed doors so as to present a united front to the enemy and for the various agencies and bracnchs of government to organize and decide how to handle a crisis. The President is given the temporary lead since it is the President who has to make snap decisions as chief executive and Commander in Chief.
Pelosi and the Democrats had made it clear about their feelings in regards to high amounts of collateral civilians casualties and the failure of the DoD and administration to equip soldiers with body armor and armored vehicals. Immediate action to resolve these issue's were being demanded by the world community in regards to the high civilian collateral causaulty rates and on the domestic front in reqards to soldiers being maimed and killed due to lack of proper equipment. Back room discussions had long been rejected by the administration and their failure to address the issue's brought about the only tactic available. Public embarrassment and pressure to force the administration into affirmative action on the issue's.
Republicans should have been banging on the administrations door about the failure to provide body armor to troops and the necessity for families to hold bake sales and car washs to privately pay for their kids body armor. Instead Republicans tied the funding to an overall defense funding bill with all the bells and whistles and the inclusion that would forgive all of Iraq's foriegn debt, an issue being hotly debated with the Democrats.
And now some folks are pissed off that Pelosi spoke up about that disgrace and compare it to the Putin love fest by conservative Americans
YAWN
idiotic left-wing Monday morning quaterbacking and feel good stupidity.
i was on that first wave into Iraq; i didnt have the kind of IBA (individual body armor) they have now. that doesnt mean Republicans werent trying. it takes some gall for a left-wing nutjob to even talk about a Party tying this or that to a Defense authorization bill; seeing as dems tried to put AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS on at least two bills funding the Iraq War
idiots and hypocrites
