Dems Bring Back Surrender Bill

[red states rule]

My point was: there is nothing we can do to prevent the sectarian struggle that will occur whenever we leave. what part of that does not make it through your thick skull?

and if the slaughter in Iraq will pale to Vietnam, I guess that means it won't really be that bad in any case.

So all the elected leaders, the Judges, and the members of the military and police, have nothing to wory about if the Dems force the US out of Iraq?

and their families as well

 

[red states rule]

the liberal media is upset


'Today': Natalie Knocks W for Reminding Congress He's Commander-in-Chief
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on July 13, 2007 - 08:10.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. -- U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2.
The faces occasionally change at "Today," but the bias remains the same. Natalie Morales sat in for Meredith Vieira this morning, but the show didn't lose a liberal beat, as Natalie knocked President Bush for his temerity in asserting his constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief.

Chatting with Tim Russert at about 7:10 A.M. EDT, Morales offered this take on W's comments of yesterday:

NBC'S NATALIE MORALES: Tim, what was striking yesterday was the aggressive tone the President took with Congress yesterday, with lawmakers, saying it is not their job to manage the war. Not since Vietnam has there been such a clash between the executive and the legislative branches. If the President is trying to build support, did he lose some of that yesterday?
Bonus points to Morales for working a Vietnam allusion in there. But on the larger point, what did the president say that Natalie found so "aggressive"? Here is the relevant passage from his remarks:

I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.
What is "aggressive" about a president fulfilling his constitutional role? If any branch is being aggressive, is it not the House of Representatives that, in adopting a resolution calling for the withdrawal of almost all combat troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008, is clearly exceeding its constitutional perogative?

But Morales saw things only in political, not constitutional, terms, and predictably put the onus on Pres. Bush to make concessions to the Dem-led Congress.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14065

 

[maineman]

So all the elected leaders, the Judges, and the members of the military and police, have nothing to wory about if the Dems force the US out of Iraq?

and their families as well

everyone has something to worry about. Iraq will devolve into sectarian violence. my POINT IS... that our staying there for another six months or six years will not change that fact. Can you even debate anyone, white flag?

 

[red states rule]

everyone has something to worry about. Iraq will devolve into sectarian violence. my POINT IS... that our staying there for another six months or six years will not change that fact. Can you even debate anyone, white flag?

libs will turn a blind eye to the slaughter - or blame Bush for it

 

[maineman]

libs will turn a blind eye to the slaughter - or blame Bush for it

but you yourself said it would pale in comparison to Vietnam....

and I contend that it will happen no matter when we leave. DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

 

[red states rule]

but you yourself said it would pale in comparison to Vietnam....

and I contend that it will happen no matter when we leave. DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

the deaths in Iraq will be huge - and libs will dismiss it

 

[maineman]

the deaths in Iraq will be huge - and libs will dismiss it

the deaths in Iraq will be what they will be....and that will depend on the Iraqi people....and they will happen whether we leave now or leave ten years from now.....

oh...and I noticed WHITE FLAG RSR... that you waved your flag and ran away from this question:

and I contend that it will happen no matter when we leave. DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

 

[red states rule]

the deaths in Iraq will be what they will be....and that will depend on the Iraqi people....and they will happen whether we leave now or leave ten years from now.....

oh...and I noticed WHITE FLAG RSR... that you waved your flag and ran away from this question:

and I contend that it will happen no matter when we leave. DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

White Flag Harry and the surrender crowd would rather hand a victory to the terrorists, then stand up to them and defeat them

The yellow streak down the backs of the Dems (and their supporters) is something to see

 

[maineman]

simple question white flag RSR:

DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

yes or no

 

[red states rule]

simple question white flag RSR:

DO you suggest that America provide the police force for the nation of Iraq for the next century?

yes or no

SPAM ALERT

answered on the other thread

 

[maineman]

SPAM ALERT

answered on the other thread

and you honestly think that sunnis and shiites will be able to form a multi sectarian democratic government for the country of Iraq and that a multi-sectarian army will stay together as a cohesive unit to keep the sunnis and shiites from killing one another?

 

[red states rule]

and you honestly think that sunnis and shiites will be able to form a multi sectarian democratic government for the country of Iraq and that a multi-sectarian army will stay together as a cohesive unit to keep the sunnis and shiites from killing one another?

Our country learned to live with each other after the civil war

Even though some on the left would like to have another one

 

[maineman]

Our country learned to live with each other after the civil war

Even though some on the left would like to have another one

our country was not made up of two sects of Islam who have been battling one another for 1200 years.

please address that point

 

[red states rule]

Name-Calling Cafferty Criticizes Boehner's ‘Wimp' Comment on CNN
Posted by Matthew Balan on July 13, 2007 - 11:59.
Sometimes, the hypocrisy of some in the mainstream media knows no bounds. On Thursday's "The Situation Room," CNN's Jack Cafferty lamented how "the debate over the Iraq war has degenerated to name-calling now, "and criticized House Minority Leader John Boehner's "wimp" comment that was directed against some Republican members of the Senate during a private meeting. This is the same Jack Cafferty who resorted to calling attorney general Alberto Gonzales a "glorified water boy" and a "weasel" only a few months ago.

Video (1:53): Real (1.39 MB) or Windows (1.16 MB), plus MP3 audio (861 kB)

At the start of the regular "The Cafferty File" on "The Situation Room," host Wolf Blitzer and Cafferty discussed the previous segment on a possible congressional vote for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. In an not-so-subtle wink and nudge to congressional Democrats, Cafferty hypothesized that "if you don't renew the funding, at some point, there is no money to conduct the war," that "the money would just run out. Just a thought."

Cafferty then went on to his criticism of Boehner:

The debate over the Iraq war has degenerated to name-calling now, among some of the not-so-distinguished members of our Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner referred to Senate Republicans who favor a change of course in Iraq as ‘wimps.' This is the same John Boehner, you may recall, who once asked that the House be adjourned so he could go to a football game. The so-called wimps that Boehner refers to include some distinguished members of the U.S. Senate, like Pete Domenici, Richard Lugar, and George Voinovich. They've all had enough of President Bush's war and they want to start reducing the military's role in Iraq. As for the wimp comment, House Republican sources tell 'The Hill' newspaper that Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt are simply calling for solidarity among party members, so they distinguish themselves from their Senate colleagues. Boehner's spokesman says the comments, ‘were intended to illustrate the fact that we just recently voted to give the troops our full support, including ample time for the Petraeus plan to work, and that too much is at stake for Congress to renege on its commitment now by approving what can only be described as another partisan stunt by the Democrats.'

http://newsbusters.org/node/14071

 

[maineman]

how does more mindless cut and paste answer my question?

the article has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

do you even TRY to stay on topic or do you just spam 24/7?

 

[red states rule]

how does more mindless cut and paste answer my question?

the article has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

do you even TRY to stay on topic or do you just spam 24/7?

Ask a question worth answering

I was poining out more liberal media bias

 

[maineman]

Ask a question worth answering

I was poining out more liberal media bias

so...let me get this straight: you ask me questions all the time and I almost always try to give you thoughtful answers.

But when I ask YOU questions, you get to run away from them by claiming they are not "worth" answering?

Is that right?

 

[red states rule]

so...let me get this straight: you ask me questions all the time and I almost always try to give you thoughtful answers.

But when I ask YOU questions, you get to run away from them by claiming they are not "worth" answering?

Is that right?

When have you ever given a "thoughtful answer"?

 

[maineman]

When have you ever given a "thoughtful answer"?

If I go find them, will you then start answering my questions?

Because we both know they are out there.... and we both know that if I spent some time digging, I could find several...and we both know that, when asked to produce ONE thoughtful answer to any of my questions, all you can do is claim that you have.

So...before I go looking, will my listing of thoughtful answers to your questions bring about a change in your behavior where you will start giving thoughtful answers to mine?

yes or no

 

[red states rule]

If I go find them, will you then start answering my questions?

Because we both know they are out there.... and we both know that if I spent some time digging, I could find several...and we both know that, when asked to produce ONE thoughtful answer to any of my questions, all you can do is claim that you have.

So...before I go looking, will my listing of thoughtful answers to your questions bring about a change in your behavior where you will start giving thoughtful answers to mine?

yes or no

Thoughtful to who?

Other kook lefties?