Surge this!

Got this in an email

Sums up what libs are ignoring



As I have to sit here and listen to the BS being spewed by a majority in the MSM and in our government that always supported freedom and liberties, that somehow Iraq was a mistake because you have a bunch of morons who want a religious fight forever.

Get over it. Murder is murder. Religious fighting in Iraq has been going on now for over 30 years. Claiming America started it is absurd.

The legislation drafted by both republicans and democrats listed many reasons for going to war with Iraq. One that you do not hear talked about in the MSM and these boobs in Washington is liberating the Iraqi people and having them form a democratic government.

Well guess what. That is what Iraq is today even with the religious fighting that has gone on now for over 30 years.

Iraqis have a right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of the press (this includes getting non international censored news) freedom to travel, freedom to protest Americans being on their soil, all freedoms that you enjoy.

If Iraq is such a failure, how did these people have 3 elections, monitored and recounted and legit, insurgents not really able to stop this government from forming, not able to remove American and foreign troops, not able to stop Iraq from moving forward?

They do seem to be murdering Iraqis that is only forming more opposition against Iraqi terrorists and insurgents.

I see Iraqis closing the door on the insurgency and terrorism because it has no legitimacy. There is no religious legitimacy to murder.

No giving Iraqis the right to choose their future via a free voting process and giving them Western Style freedoms will historically never be a mistake.

Something American Democrats need to think about that.

Why?

That is what their future holds.

Who wrote that? Christopher Hitchens? David Horowitz? Homer Simpson?
 
why can't you debate me? why must you always hide behind the editorials of others? YOU have made statements about our casualties that are flat out lies and you do not have the grace to admit it...you make statements and accusations which I take the time to respond to and then you ignore the responses. what is up with you? do you want to carry on a discussion or do you just hang out here with the express purpose of annoying people?

I think because he's a troll MM.

I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.
 
I think because he's a troll MM.

I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.

RSR is the "Perfect" Bush supporter, a babbling idiot.


idiot-genius.jpg




Can you picture two of him debating each other???

It would look something like this............................















Idiot%2061006.jpg
 
Does anyone notice how words matter. The word anti-war, traitor and anti-american are now replacing the word racist as the new 21st century mccaryism. If someone calls you that, how do you prove your not, same as the word racist. Are you now or have you ever been against the war?. Tar and feather him.

Anyone who serves their country by definition, UNLESS they commit an actual treasonist act for which they are tried and committed are not a traitor or anti-american.

Second, unless an american, gives al queda, or any other terrorist group, money, or material support, which doesnt mean saying, I am mad at america, or i hate america, which is not a crime, even if they did, they would have to say, here is something that CAN help you commit a terrorist attack, not simply saying i disagree with a war, and bring our troops home.

Some examples of materials support are money, maps, recruiting fighters (suicide bombers or jihadists to fight in iraq or afghanistan) for their cause.

I cant stand what some believe, but it doesnt give me the right, to personally smear their integrity or character. It takes guts to stand up for what you believe in, and we must all challenge each other and our government (peacefully) when we disagree, WHICH :), is the very reason I try to be friends with all of you.
 
Do you like reading George Orwell? I mean not just Nineteen Eighty-Four but all his work? I'm reading Coming Up For Air right now and it's remarkable how his ideas about the misuse of language (which reached its zenith in Nineteen Eighty-Four with Newspeak) permeate his writings.

That's my tortuous way of agreeing with you.
 
I think because he's a troll MM.

I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.

The terrorists are happy to see the Dems wanting to surrender in Iraq

Now they can step up their attacks

Report: Al Qaeda Plans 'Large Scale' Attack on U.K.
Monday, April 23, 2007

Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al Qaeda planners as a “change in the head of the company”.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shiite regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain.

The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center (JTAC) — based at MI5’s London headquarters. It draws a distinction between Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s core leadership, who are thought to be hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated organisations elsewhere.

The document states: “While networks linked to AQ [Al Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other areas, particularly AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq].”

The report continues: “Recent reporting has described AQI’s Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be a large-scale attack against a western target.

The report says there is “no indication” this attack would specifically target Britain, “although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK”.

The Home Office declined to comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267826,00.html
 
The terrorists are happy to see the Dems wanting to surrender in Iraq



Monday, April 23, 2007
Reid defends calling Iraq war 'lost,' calling Bush 'a liar'
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended his past comments calling the Iraq war "lost" and President Bush a "liar."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended calling the war in Iraq "lost" in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash Monday.

"General Petreaus has said the war cannot be won militarily, he's said that," Reid said. "And President Bush is doing nothing economically, he's doing nothing diplomatically, he's not doing anything even the minimal requested by the Iraq Study Group, so I stick with General Petreaus. I have no doubt the war cannot be won militarily and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that."

His comments have triggered angry backlash from the White House and a number of Republican congressmen. Some have said that his comments send the wrong message to the troops.

"I do what I think is right, and I think this war is headed in the wrong direction," Reid said. "And I'm going to speak out as often and as regularly as I can."

Reid has been an outspoken critic of the president, calling him a loser and a liar in the past.

"I don't back off that at all," he said. "So if you say something that is untrue to me and in the right circumstances, I will call you a liar. I have no regret having called him a liar, because he lied."

In a speech in Washington Monday, Reid said Congress would sent a war supplemental spending bill that would require a withdrawal of troops to be begin by October 1 and be completed by April 1, 2008, according to the Associated Press.

President Bush on Monday reiterated his vow to veto any legislation that includes a withdrawal timetable.


-- CNN's Dana Bash and Lauren Kornreich

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/reid-defends-calling-iraq-war-lost.html
 
How does Harry know what is going on in Iraq when the Dems skip the briefings?


Democrats Skipping Military Briefings -- Where's the MSM Outrage?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 23, 2007 - 14:34.
A few sources, not the least of which is Michael Barone, are reporting that the Democrats are ignoring important Iraq briefings conducted by General David Petraeus in an apparent effort to stymie efforts in Iraq. It is well known that they are not supportive of the troops in Iraq and the president's "surge" plan they are currently conducting, but whether they like the plan or not, to skip these briefings is an act of blatant negligence that borders on the criminal. So where is the MSM's outrage? Why are we not being told of this Democrat negligence?

Barone, one of the best political pundits out there today, closed his recent Real Clear Politics Report with the following:

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

It has also been reported that one recent meeting with Gen. Petraeus on the Hill only saw one Democrat in attendance, that being Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

It might be too early to say directly that it is some concerted effort or plan of the Democrat leadership to steer clear of Iraq briefings, but at the very least it certainly reveals their collective feeling that the war is already lost and that it's time to move on past it all.

But here is the thing; they simply cannot claim to "support the troops" if they won't even attend briefings held by the General in command of those troops. If the Democrats don't attend these briefings they simply cannot claim to have the knowledge they need to make decisions necessary for policy direction. Unless, that is, they have fully decided, regardless of what is actually going on on the ground where our troops are facing the enemy, that all is lost.

If they have, indeed, completely quit wanting to have the discussion of what is actually going on in theater, then it is downright abusive of our troops for Democrats to ignore them in this way. This unconcern over what is happening to our forces simply makes it impossible for the Democrats to claim they support the troops.

It should be remembered that General Petraeus was given a unanimous vote in Congress and he never made any bones about the fact that he intended to implement the president's surge plan, so Democrats simply cannot claim they didn't know he was going to do so. But, it appears that the support they gave him for the surge was a cynical attempt to allow the plan to crash and burn if their ignoring his efforts to inform them of the actual accomplishments of the plan is any indication.

I have seen a few pundits and commentators claiming that the Democrats are somehow putting themselves in a bad position by ignoring these briefings and to that I say pish tosh. They have surely weakened their moral position and made their claims of supporting the troops untenable, but this will probably not harm them at all -- not that it shouldn't. The problem with the feeling that this will harm the Democrat Party is that no one, by and large, will ever hear of this betrayal of our troops. It is doubtful whether the story will ever break through the din of the cycles controlled by a news media supportive of the Democrat agenda.

In any case, the Democrat Party is acting irresponsibly to say the least, criminally at the worst. The biggest question, however, is will the News Media allow the American people to become aware that the Democrats are so badly falling down on the job? Will they be held accountable for the harm they are causing our country, cause and our troops not to mention the harm they cause the Iraqi people by this turning away from their needs and concerns?

Sadly, my guess is no.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12244
 
how is it that a "surge" can be deemed successful when the carnage keeps getting worse? what the hell would an unsuccessful surge look like that is any different than this? We lost TEN soldiers YESTERDAY alone! April is shaping up to the be bloodiest month for coalition troops in over two years! Surge this!
 
how is it that a "surge" can be deemed successful when the carnage keeps getting worse? what the hell would an unsuccessful surge look like that is any different than this? We lost TEN soldiers YESTERDAY alone! April is shaping up to the be bloodiest month for coalition troops in over two years! Surge this!

You would have been such a confidence boost on Omaha beach MM

You would have been one the first to tell Ike, "Lets get the hell out of there - besides Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor sir"
 
You would have been such a confidence boost on Omaha beach MM

You would have been one the first to tell Ike, "Lets get the hell out of there - besides Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor sir"

World War II analogies are disrespectful to those who fought and died in that honorable and just war. This war was never the right thing to do.
 
World War II analogies are disrespectful to those who fought and died in that honorable and just war. This war was never the right thing to do.


Libs have no problem comparing Republicans to Hitler (as you have) so is this another example of your selective outrage?
 
Libs have no problem comparing Republicans to Hitler (as you have) so is this another example of your selective outrage?

apples and oranges. I am outraged at this war. I am not outraged at everything. My outrage IS selective...it is confined to this war. That is the only issue that outrages me. Global warming, abortion, tax cuts, attorney general firings...NONE of those issues outrage me. The war outrages me. It infuriates me. It sickens me. It breaks my heart to see the carnage we have so senselessly unleashed. It breaks my heart to know that humpty dumpty has fallen off the wall and we will not be able to put him back together again...we have fucked up the middle east...we have unleashed the beast...and we cannot unfuck it...we cannot put it back in its cage. I think that THIS war is wrong. I think YOu are wrong when you tell us how much better things are for everyone since we put 28K more troops into the breach. I think YOU lie about the success... I think YOU run away from your lies and refuse to admit when you have misspoken. I think YOU are a traitor to your country and your love for party and president over country makes me sick to my stomach.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top