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"

This is not WWII RSR!

"We are fighting an enemy unlike any we have ever fought before."

Isn't that the standard line whenever Cons try to explain things like why the U.S. doesn't abide by the Geneva Conventions in regards to things like the rights of captured enemy soldiers?

Is this another example of you, in your ignorance and confusion wanting things both ways?
 
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.

Want a kleenex?

Your "support" for the troops shows thru very clearly. You think of them as losers. You support the surrender mentality of your party.

Now anyone who dares to disagree with the great Mainman is a traitor

Selective outrage and typical liberal double standards
 
Did I say all?

Look at posts from Paul and MM for starters

Check out Daily Kos, Progressivesonline, and Democrat Underground

Yeah look at all that First Amendment exercising going on. Funny though, I don't remember reading any of the stuff you allege on any official Democratic Party sites. If you really want to piss yourself laughing check out Free Republic. It's Hugh1! More morans to the square mile than anywhere in real life! I'm series, you're screwn if you don't get there RSR!
 
Want a kleenex?

Your "support" for the troops shows thru very clearly. You think of them as losers. You support the surrender mentality of your party.

Now anyone who dares to disagree with the great Mainman is a traitor

Selective outrage and typical liberal double standards

that is wrong. I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.
 
Did I say all?

Look at posts from Paul and MM for starters

Check out Daily Kos, Progressivesonline, and Democrat Underground

You probably don't know anything about Fascism and that's why you're so bewildered by comparisons of Bush to Hitler.

Why don't you do a little studying and then come back and tell me how these things that have gone on under the Bush administration are NOT Fascist.

Make a good argument for a change and try to gain a little credibility here!
 
Yeah look at all that First Amendment exercising going on. Funny though, I don't remember reading any of the stuff you allege on any official Democratic Party sites. If you really want to piss yourself laughing check out Free Republic. It's Hugh1! More morans to the square mile than anywhere in real life! I'm series, you're screwn if you don't get there RSR!

Point is - Dems have double standards and suffer from selective outrage, selective memory lapses, and selective racism
 
that is wrong. I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.

Back peddling already I see
 
point is: american casualties are soaring, not decreasing my ANY percentage, let alone the inflated bullshit number you put out there and refuse to retract. that is the point. the surge is not working.... the carnage continues at a brisk pace.
 
what the fuck are you talking about? what about my statement is backpedalling in any way? please...use your own words to explain that claim. please.

First you in a state of mouth frothing hysteria, now you are backing off a little

Must be your imitation of Pelosi and Reid

Can't seem to make up your mind which way to go
 
Here is how the Dems are helping the terrorists - FROM THE NY TIMES no less

(This reporter will be fired for this)

Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable To Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." Just wondering: when's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda?

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12261
 
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.


More bad news for MM

Judge Tosses Anti-War Lawsuit

(AP) A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit that raised constitutional concerns in seeking an injunction to bar President George W. Bush from launching war against Iraq.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by six Democratic members of Congress and three unidentified service members and their parents, maintained that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war.

The plaintiffs argued that the resolution Congress approved in October supporting military action against Iraq did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Mr. Bush.

One of the plaintiffs, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, cited the passage of the U.S. Constitution that states: "Congress shall have power ... to declare war."

However, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Monday that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against Mr. Bush.

Tauro said the lawsuit engaged "political questions in the legal sense that are beyond the jurisdiction of the court."

The judge added that, considering the October congressional resolution, he could not find evidence of any conflict between the will of the executive and legislative branches.

"Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war," he said.

An attorney for the government, Joseph Hunt, had argued that the court had no standing to issue an injunction because there was no conflict between Congress and the president. Hunt said it was also premature for the court to become involved because no one could say whether war was truly imminent or whether the president was merely using the threat of war as a bluff.

Congress has not formally declared a war since World War II. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 in response to the war in Vietnam and the actions of President Richard Nixon, requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering military action abroad. It also requires the president to report to Congress.

A similar lawsuit was filed against Mr. Bush's father before the Gulf War by 54 members of Congress but was rejected by a federal judge in 1990.

That judge said the elder President George Bush had not clearly committed the country to a course of action. The judge also noted that only about 10 percent of the Congress had asked for the injunction — a percentage he said was not representative of the entire body.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in540591.shtml
__________________
 
Try how in one ost you say the troops cannot win - then you say you suport them

Keep your support in your mouth and stop telling all of us how you "feel" for them

I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops. If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff. Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might. It is the wrong tool for the job. It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.
 
I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops. If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff. Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might. It is the wrong tool for the job. It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.

White Flag MM agrees with White Flag Reid

No shocker there
 
how does the carnage in Iraq mean the surge is working RSR? are you gonna post that bullshit percentage again? what about that month old press release? when will you admit that the surge is just another stupid idea from a stupid president?
 
I am saying that the situation in Iraq will not be solved militarily by american troops. If I were to point out that the brain surgery being attempted on Operating Room #1 could not be successfully completed by the hospital's maintenance staff, that would not be a statement of lack of support for the maintenance staff. Iraq is a situation that demands the diplomatic talents of the people in Iraq...it demands that politicians come up with a political solution that will be enough of a victory for both sides so that they will want to stop killing each other... Iraq cannot be solved by American military might. It is the wrong tool for the job. It is a great tool... it is a talented tool and a dedicated tool, but it is the wrong tool to use to try to "fix" Iraq.

Okay, this is understandable. And along way from "I want out of this stupid war". It is almost constructive.
In order for any politician in Iraq to survive don't you think a military presence is required? Something to form a secure and stable platform to speak from, so to say?
 
Okay, this is understandable. And along way from "I want out of this stupid war". It is almost constructive.
In order for any politician in Iraq to survive don't you think a military presence is required? Something to form a secure and stable platform to speak from, so to say?


perhaps...but not OUR military. The Sadr army could do that job quite nicely...and we are kidding ourselves if we think that the end result will be anything other than a shiite quasi-theocracy anway... but americans have been kidding themselves about iraq for four years now so I really don't expect them to get serious all of a sudden.
 
perhaps...but not OUR military. The Sadr army could do that job quite nicely...and we are kidding ourselves if we think that the end result will be anything other than a shiite quasi-theocracy anway... but americans have been kidding themselves about iraq for four years now so I really don't expect them to get serious all of a sudden.

But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top