red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
If anyone needs advice on how to post under multiple names - you would be the best person to ask
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If this is progress...
- Thread starter Bullypulpit
- Start date
If anyone needs advice on how to post under multiple names - you would be the best person to ask
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
anyone who posts a thread where he claims that the word "if" is not in a sentence and then follows that with the sentence in question which unambiguously contains the word "if"....that person is not very far from stupid, by any reasonable measure.
I have always said you were hoping for defeat - you proved my point
Thank you
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Cheney bets Democrats will chuck war timetable
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 16, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney said he is "willing to bet" that Democrats will acquiesce to the White House's insistence on a supplemental-spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that does not include a timetable for withdrawal or binding benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
"I think the Congress will pass clean legislation," Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation." When asked what would happen if Democrats don't pass a bill the White House accepts, the vice president remained optimistic.
"I'm willing to bet the other way, that in fact they will," he said.
"I don't think that a majority of the Democrats in the Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves," he said.
Despite Mr. Cheney's confident forecast, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said the vice president has lost credibility with the American people and that Democrats will continue pushing an emergency war supplemental bill with benchmarks even if they don't have the votes to override a veto from President Bush.
"We are very, very serious about what the American people said in November," the Michigan Democrat said. "They want a change of course."
Mr. Levin also rejected the vice president's criticism of the Democrats' bills.
"[Mr. Cheney] has misled the people consistently on Iraq," he said. "He has misstated. He has exaggerated. And I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people."
However, despite his pledge that Democrats would continue to challenge Mr. Bush on the war bill's language, Mr. Levin last week acknowledged that his party would eventually have to pass a bill with funding for the troops that Mr. Bush would sign.
Mr. Bush's refusal to accept a withdrawal timetable was supported yesterday by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, a frequent war critic.
"I think it's clear, though, that we cannot leave the region, we shouldn't naively think we're pulling out, that this is Somalia or Vietnam," Gen. Zinni said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I think the debate should be, among the candidates, is how do we redesign the strategy for this region, protect our interests, create the kind of coalition involvement that would help support this and share the burden," he said.
Mr. Cheney's interview covered several other topics related to the administration's track record, besides Iraq. The vice president twice used virtually identical language when pressed on past statements and actions that have been largely criticized in political circles.
On his 2004 assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes, Mr. Cheney said, "Well, partly we have to respond to questions from the press. And we do the best we can with what we know at the time."
Nonetheless, he refused to admit the statement was inaccurate. "I still think in the broad sweep of history, those will have been major turning points in the war in Iraq," he said.
Then, when asked if the administration had a "credibility problem" surrounding the Justice Department's firing of several U.S. attorneys and other perceived administration gaps, he said, "I think, obviously, we've got issues we need to work through, but you do the best you can with what you've got, obviously. And I think that on reflection that indeed the record of the president and his administration will stand up well to scrutiny."
Finally, Mr. Cheney said he has not spoken with his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, since the aide was found guilty of perjury for lying to federal prosecutors about his role in outing former CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"There hasn't been occasion to do so, but I have enormous regard for the man," Mr. Cheney said. "I believe deeply in Scooter Libby. He's one of the most dedicated public servants I've ever worked with. And I think this is a great tragedy."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070416-121920-9161r_page2.htm
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 16, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney said he is "willing to bet" that Democrats will acquiesce to the White House's insistence on a supplemental-spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that does not include a timetable for withdrawal or binding benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
"I think the Congress will pass clean legislation," Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation." When asked what would happen if Democrats don't pass a bill the White House accepts, the vice president remained optimistic.
"I'm willing to bet the other way, that in fact they will," he said.
"I don't think that a majority of the Democrats in the Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves," he said.
Despite Mr. Cheney's confident forecast, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said the vice president has lost credibility with the American people and that Democrats will continue pushing an emergency war supplemental bill with benchmarks even if they don't have the votes to override a veto from President Bush.
"We are very, very serious about what the American people said in November," the Michigan Democrat said. "They want a change of course."
Mr. Levin also rejected the vice president's criticism of the Democrats' bills.
"[Mr. Cheney] has misled the people consistently on Iraq," he said. "He has misstated. He has exaggerated. And I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people."
However, despite his pledge that Democrats would continue to challenge Mr. Bush on the war bill's language, Mr. Levin last week acknowledged that his party would eventually have to pass a bill with funding for the troops that Mr. Bush would sign.
Mr. Bush's refusal to accept a withdrawal timetable was supported yesterday by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, a frequent war critic.
"I think it's clear, though, that we cannot leave the region, we shouldn't naively think we're pulling out, that this is Somalia or Vietnam," Gen. Zinni said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I think the debate should be, among the candidates, is how do we redesign the strategy for this region, protect our interests, create the kind of coalition involvement that would help support this and share the burden," he said.
Mr. Cheney's interview covered several other topics related to the administration's track record, besides Iraq. The vice president twice used virtually identical language when pressed on past statements and actions that have been largely criticized in political circles.
On his 2004 assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes, Mr. Cheney said, "Well, partly we have to respond to questions from the press. And we do the best we can with what we know at the time."
Nonetheless, he refused to admit the statement was inaccurate. "I still think in the broad sweep of history, those will have been major turning points in the war in Iraq," he said.
Then, when asked if the administration had a "credibility problem" surrounding the Justice Department's firing of several U.S. attorneys and other perceived administration gaps, he said, "I think, obviously, we've got issues we need to work through, but you do the best you can with what you've got, obviously. And I think that on reflection that indeed the record of the president and his administration will stand up well to scrutiny."
Finally, Mr. Cheney said he has not spoken with his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, since the aide was found guilty of perjury for lying to federal prosecutors about his role in outing former CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"There hasn't been occasion to do so, but I have enormous regard for the man," Mr. Cheney said. "I believe deeply in Scooter Libby. He's one of the most dedicated public servants I've ever worked with. And I think this is a great tragedy."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070416-121920-9161r_page2.htm
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
This may be part of the falling approval ratings for the Dems
Congress Develops Its Own Foreign Policy
By Peter Brown
Once upon a time in Washington, D.C. there was an informal agreement that partisan political differences within the United States did not extend to America's dealings with the rest of the world.
Congress' current attempt to offer its own foreign policy marks the end of that doctrine, which, truth be told, has been on life support for some time.
How one sees this development almost certainly depends on his or her view of President George W. Bush, but clearly the once-universally accepted notion that America speaks with one voice, that of the president, to foreign nations, is no more.
The informal agreement that once existed between the two political parties not to offer conflicting signals to America's friends and foes is another casualty of the "D.C. disease" that has made bipartisan cooperation on virtually everything an anachronism.
In fact, as the Washington Post, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, recently editorialized, the Democratic Congress seems intent on developing its own foreign policy.
Consider:
* Congress has publicly told the world that it, not the president, makes foreign policy. Both the House and Senate have passed versions of spending bills that limit Bush's power to wage war and force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the nation's highest ranking Democrat, rejected White House pleas to follow Bush's policy against any high-level contacts with Syria, a country he says sponsors terrorism.
* Steny Hoyer, the House's second-ranking Democrat, did much the same in meeting with the leader of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, whom U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused to meet.
Of course these developments are not the first to demonstrate that the notion of a bipartisan foreign policy has gone the way of the dinosaur. During the Vietnam-era and the Cold War there were obvious policy differences between the two parties. But, for the most part, Democratic and Republican leaders gave lip service to the ideal of the president speaking for America.
Two decades ago, it would have been impossible to imagine House Speaker Tip O'Neill, every bit the Democratic partisan as is Pelosi today, meeting a foreign leader against Ronald Reagan's wishes.
Whether Congress can accomplish anything other than demonstrating to the rest of the world the internal divisions that exist within D.C.'s halls of power is unclear.
Bush has pledged to veto any measure which would set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and his opponents are far short of the votes to override him.
Neither the Pelosi nor the Hoyer trips are likely to change U.S. policy, especially toward Syria, which has been implicated in the 2005 assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.
But that is not the point; the Democrats understand Bush's ability to veto their legislation, or denounce their trips. They are just making sure everyone - from Moscow, Idaho to Moscow, Russia -- knows they have their own foreign policy.
All of this begs the question of whether an outspoken role for the U.S. political party that does not hold the White House in dealing with the rest of the world is permanent, and good for the country.
Democrats argue that Bush politicized the war on terror and the war on Iraq, trying to cast those who disagreed with him as wrong-headed if not unpatriotic, and they are just responding now that they control Congress.
They are doing this because the United States does not have had a parliamentary system like many European countries, in which a majority of lawmakers can effectively force the chief executive to resign and call a new election. If America had that system, then lawmakers could effectively force a change in foreign policy.
But the American electoral system gives the president four years to do pretty much what he wants as long as he does not commit an impeachable offense, which is what frustrates the Democrats, and has led to their votes and trips.
The war-limiting legislation and the Democratic trips underscores just how much things have changed. Although hope may spring eternal, it is unlikely we'll see Congress reverting to its historic role in foreign affairs any time soon.
Peter A. Brown is assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._own_fore.html
Congress Develops Its Own Foreign Policy
By Peter Brown
Once upon a time in Washington, D.C. there was an informal agreement that partisan political differences within the United States did not extend to America's dealings with the rest of the world.
Congress' current attempt to offer its own foreign policy marks the end of that doctrine, which, truth be told, has been on life support for some time.
How one sees this development almost certainly depends on his or her view of President George W. Bush, but clearly the once-universally accepted notion that America speaks with one voice, that of the president, to foreign nations, is no more.
The informal agreement that once existed between the two political parties not to offer conflicting signals to America's friends and foes is another casualty of the "D.C. disease" that has made bipartisan cooperation on virtually everything an anachronism.
In fact, as the Washington Post, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, recently editorialized, the Democratic Congress seems intent on developing its own foreign policy.
Consider:
* Congress has publicly told the world that it, not the president, makes foreign policy. Both the House and Senate have passed versions of spending bills that limit Bush's power to wage war and force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the nation's highest ranking Democrat, rejected White House pleas to follow Bush's policy against any high-level contacts with Syria, a country he says sponsors terrorism.
* Steny Hoyer, the House's second-ranking Democrat, did much the same in meeting with the leader of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, whom U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused to meet.
Of course these developments are not the first to demonstrate that the notion of a bipartisan foreign policy has gone the way of the dinosaur. During the Vietnam-era and the Cold War there were obvious policy differences between the two parties. But, for the most part, Democratic and Republican leaders gave lip service to the ideal of the president speaking for America.
Two decades ago, it would have been impossible to imagine House Speaker Tip O'Neill, every bit the Democratic partisan as is Pelosi today, meeting a foreign leader against Ronald Reagan's wishes.
Whether Congress can accomplish anything other than demonstrating to the rest of the world the internal divisions that exist within D.C.'s halls of power is unclear.
Bush has pledged to veto any measure which would set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and his opponents are far short of the votes to override him.
Neither the Pelosi nor the Hoyer trips are likely to change U.S. policy, especially toward Syria, which has been implicated in the 2005 assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.
But that is not the point; the Democrats understand Bush's ability to veto their legislation, or denounce their trips. They are just making sure everyone - from Moscow, Idaho to Moscow, Russia -- knows they have their own foreign policy.
All of this begs the question of whether an outspoken role for the U.S. political party that does not hold the White House in dealing with the rest of the world is permanent, and good for the country.
Democrats argue that Bush politicized the war on terror and the war on Iraq, trying to cast those who disagreed with him as wrong-headed if not unpatriotic, and they are just responding now that they control Congress.
They are doing this because the United States does not have had a parliamentary system like many European countries, in which a majority of lawmakers can effectively force the chief executive to resign and call a new election. If America had that system, then lawmakers could effectively force a change in foreign policy.
But the American electoral system gives the president four years to do pretty much what he wants as long as he does not commit an impeachable offense, which is what frustrates the Democrats, and has led to their votes and trips.
The war-limiting legislation and the Democratic trips underscores just how much things have changed. Although hope may spring eternal, it is unlikely we'll see Congress reverting to its historic role in foreign affairs any time soon.
Peter A. Brown is assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._own_fore.html
- Banned
- #85
I do not see the word IF here..........
I, for one, hope that, if this war continues to slip into carnage and chaos
Every once and awhile, libs let the truth slip out
really??? check again
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
really??? check again
So I am off your ignore list...........again?
- Banned
- #87
So I am off your ignore list...........again?
sometimes your ignorance is just too funny to pass up.
(do you see the word "ignorance" in the sentence above?
)moron
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
sometimes your ignorance is just too funny to pass up.
(do you see the word "ignorance" in the sentence above?
moron
You are like your party - can't make up your mind what you want to do or when you want to do it
- Banned
- #89
did you ever finally see that "if" you missed?You are like your party - can't make up your mind what you want to do or when you want to do it
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
did you ever finally see that "if" you missed?
It took you long enough to admit you want failure in Iraq
- Banned
- #91
It took you long enough to admit you want failure in Iraq
I never said that at all....
you can't read, obviously.
IF you could, we would have an entirely different relationship....
IF you could write, it would be even better.
IF you weren't a moron, that is....
- Banned
- #92
I do not see the word IF here..........
"I, for one, hope that, if this war continues to slip into carnage and chaos"
Every once and awhile, libs let the truth slip out
tell me...what words DO you see there?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Voters know where Dems stand on the war
Dems Hope for Failure?
The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.
48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.
The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244739,00.html
Dems Hope for Failure?
The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.
48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.
The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244739,00.html
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Fox News released a new poll measuring attitudes on President Bush, Iraq, and the planned "surge" in troops. The results are interesting.
When asked: Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? (Q 19), only 63% of respondents answered yes. By party affiliation, 79% of Republicans said yes, as did 63% of independents. Only 51% of Democrats said that they want his plan to succeed, while 34% came right out and said they want his plan to fail. One wonders how many of the 51% were simply being discrete about their feelings, since its remarkable that anyone would come right out and state their desire for failure.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/286B9035-84F1-4FB0-B530-981CA4A220CD/
When asked: Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? (Q 19), only 63% of respondents answered yes. By party affiliation, 79% of Republicans said yes, as did 63% of independents. Only 51% of Democrats said that they want his plan to succeed, while 34% came right out and said they want his plan to fail. One wonders how many of the 51% were simply being discrete about their feelings, since its remarkable that anyone would come right out and state their desire for failure.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/286B9035-84F1-4FB0-B530-981CA4A220CD/
- Banned
- #97
Fox News released a new poll measuring attitudes on President Bush, Iraq, and the planned "surge" in troops. The results are interesting.
When asked: Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? (Q 19), only 63% of respondents answered yes. By party affiliation, 79% of Republicans said yes, as did 63% of independents. Only 51% of Democrats said that they want his plan to succeed, while 34% came right out and said they want his plan to fail. One wonders how many of the 51% were simply being discrete about their feelings, since its remarkable that anyone would come right out and state their desire for failure.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/286B9035-84F1-4FB0-B530-981CA4A220CD/
I wonder why the other 21% of REPUBLICANS did NOT want the plan to succeed? That IS interesting!
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
I wonder why the other 21% of REPUBLICANS did NOT want the plan to succeed? That IS interesting!
RINO'S
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Trying to take back your confession?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 454
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 401
- Locked
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 79
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 424
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 323
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 102
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 69K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-