Could Iraq EVER been a success?

[maineman]

Alot of your elected Dems have smeared them - you defend them (as always)

You openly hoped for failure in Iraq

Some support from the left

that is a lie...I most certainly have NEVER hoped for failure in Iraq. why must you smear me like that all the time?

 

[red states rule]

that is a lie...I most certainly have NEVER hoped for failure in Iraq. why must you smear me like that all the time?

You have a strange way of showing support

Or is that the Dem's version of support?

 

[maineman]

I support our troops.... every day every week in real and substantive ways... I do NOT support morons who send them into the breach on fool's missions.

morons like you...and your beloved president.

 

[red states rule]

I support our troops.... every day every week in real and substantive ways... I do NOT support morons who send them into the breach on fool's missions.

morons like you...and your beloved president.

Support which troops? Ours or their's?

 

[maineman]

Support which troops? Ours or their's?

ours. the maine national guard is well aware of my efforts on their behalf.

 

[red states rule]

ours. the maine national guard is well aware of my efforts on their behalf.

By telling them they really arn't serving?

That is what Dems said about Pres Bush and his service

 

[maineman]

By telling them they really arn't serving?

That is what Dems said about Pres Bush and his service

no.... by telling them that I appreciate and honor their service. by raising funds to send them phone cards each month. by collecting items for care packages at my office every week.... by serving as a pallbearer when they don't come home alive....by emailing them...by standing outside in the rain to greet their bus when they return...by tying yellow ribbons around all the trees in my yard. That is how I support the members of the maine national guard.

so... I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further comments that suggest that I don't support our troops, because I certainly do.

 

[Shogun]

jesus fucking christ...

stop feeding the troll.

 

[maineman]

do you honestly think he would go away if I did? or even if all of us did?

 

[maineman]

I must admit it is an almost perverse pleasure kicking his ass and rubbing his nose in direct questions that he refuses to answer...... sort of like clubbing a baby seal... a very nasty, meansprited, retarded baby seal.

 

[Shogun]

honestly, yes I do... starve the weed.. this is the reactio he is looking for to feel relevant anyay.

I know how fun it is to hold his head underwater but the result becomes a cross section on various threads where the same poo is thrown in the sme directions..

I assure you that the question you keep asking him is being ignored for the very same reason that you think it is.

he knows it. you know it. we all know it.

 

[red states rule]

I must admit it is an almost perverse pleasure kicking his ass and rubbing his nose in direct questions that he refuses to answer...... sort of like clubbing a baby seal... a very nasty, meansprited, retarded baby seal.

WHo knows - one day you might actually come close to that goal

 

[maineman]

WHo knows - one day you might actually come close to that goal

and who knows, someday you might actually carry on an adult conversation with me using your own words to talk back and forth. As time goes on, however, I doubt it,

 

[red states rule]

and who knows, someday you might actually carry on an adult conversation with me using your own words to talk back and forth. As time goes on, however, I doubt it,

Provide me with an adult to talk to and I will

 

[maineman]

Provide me with an adult to talk to and I will

talk with your own words and not cut and paste and see what happens

 

[Mariner]

This whole concept is circular.

As commander in chief, Bush gives the troops their orders. Yet the constitution wisely gives Congress power of the purse. Therefore the legislative branch can thwart the will of a president if it disagrees with his decisions. This was one way the founders helped make sure the presidency would not become a kingship. It requires the president to work with Congress to achieve his aims. If you disagree with this idea, go live in a monarchy somewhere.

Supporting the troops and supporting the president are two entirely different things. If Bush ordered the troops to march off a cliff, would Congress be "undermining" the troops by refusing to pay for their marching boots? Some people might argue that the best way to support the troops is to remove them from the civil war we've unleashed in Iraq.

Is that surrender? No. I think it's like leaving a dinner party when the hosts start throwing plates at one another. Anyway, the new defense secretary apparently doesn't support the troops--he's making it clear our commitment is not open-ended. And the Republican governor of Nevada has said he can't criticize Reid's assertion that the war is lost.

Besides, if Bush really supported Petraeus and the troops, he would have asked for the 80,000 troops Petraeus requested, and he would have been far more invested in armoring the troops for the past 4 years.

Republicans at the moment find themselves in a situation similar to Democrats when we felt betrayed by Clinton's immorality in office--only a lot worse. Those of us who said from the beginning, "Umm, Saddam is not Osama... umm, the generals are saying you'll need 300,000 to 400,000 troops to pacify Iraq... umm, those "centrifuges" and "yellow cake" reports sound bogus--can we see the actual evidence, please?... umm, Hussein stayed in power by repressing the Shi'ites, who will create a civil war if we bring him down, empowering Iran.... " Well, we dumb "libs" and "Dems" can only say, "We told you so."

Blue States Rule, as least for the moment.

Mariner

 

[roadhouse158]

I like what Richard Burr(NC Senator), who supports the war, said. He said he would be ashamed to live in a country that didn't protest wars. That being said, I think people, mainly Democrats, are calling the wrong people stupid and moronic. The people of Iraq have a great opportunity to build a great country. The sectarian killings going on is what is the Moronic actions. George Bush wasn't alone in thinking that Iraq could become a successful democracy....This is a quote by Bill Clinton, former U.S. President from the Iraq Liberation Act that President Clinton signed into law OCT 31, 1998.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

We succeeded in establishing a public voted government and constitution. Now there are outside influences at play that is destroying it. Lets focus in on who the real problem is. The President is not a moron. That does nothing but feed the Anti-American rhetoric. I know the same people say they don't have to support the President to support America....That's not true. You don't have to agree with the President, but support is vital. When our democracy starts to fail because of national conflict, as is the case, it just makes the enemy stronger. It makes our enemies case against us even stronger.

 

[red states rule]

talk with your own words and not cut and paste and see what happens

Translation - stop with the facts and go with something else

 

[red states rule]

Anti-War Liberals in House Weary of Opposing Iraq Funding Bill
Friday, April 20, 2007


WASHINGTON — Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.

Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.

The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.

Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.

In the Senate, the debate on the war grew sharper Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that Bush's troop buildup is not stemming violence in Iraq. That statement prompted Republicans to declare that Democrats don't support the troops in Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.

The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.

The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267381,00.html

 

[maineman]

Translation - stop with the facts and go with something else

no. translation: show the intellect necessary to articulate your own ideas