The War, Anti-Americanism & the Media

[maineman]

In your dreams son

answer the four simple yes or no questions and prove him wrong!

 

[red states rule]

answer the four simple yes or no questions and prove him wrong!

I have again and again

 

[maineman]

I have again and again

you are a liar. you have never answered the questions. not once..why are you so afraid of them?

 

[maineman]

here...in case you forgot:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[red states rule]

you are a liar. you have never answered the questions. not once..why are you so afraid of them?

You would never see the truth if if bit you on the ass

 

[maineman]

You would never see the truth if if bit you on the ass

try me...just truthfully answer those four questions.

 

[maineman]

coward.

 

[red states rule]

coward.

You want to see cowards look at the elected Dems on Capitol Hill

You can pick them out of a crowd by the yellow streak running down their backs

The terrorists however, love them so much - they will kill them last

 

[maineman]

You want to see cowards look at the elected Dems on Capitol Hill

You can pick them out of a crowd by the yellow streak running down their backs

The terrorists however, love them so much - they will kill them last

If I want to see cowards, all I gotta do is look at you! Just quit your hemming and hawing and tap dancing and answer the four simple questions!!!

 

[red states rule]

If I want to see cowards, all I gotta do is look at you! Just quit your hemming and hawing and tap dancing and answer the four simple questions!!!

Try taking your blinders off, put down the glass of Kool Aid, read the posts,a nd try to do something different - accept the truth

 

[maineman]

Try taking your blinders off, put down the glass of Kool Aid, read the posts,a nd try to do something different - accept the truth

truthfully answer the four questions and I will

come on...it is not all that tough....

here...in case you forgot:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[red states rule]

truthfully answer the four questions and I will

come on...it is not all that tough....

here...in case you forgot:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

cutting and pasting the same posts on dieerent threads now?

When a lib cannot debate the topic at hand they change the subject

Cuttung and running from another fight MM?

 

[maineman]

cutting and pasting the same posts on dieerent threads now?

When a lib cannot debate the topic at hand they change the subject

Cuttung and running from another fight MM?

I only ask you to stand up and defend what you have said. I asked you four questions several days ago and you have cut and run away from answering them time after time after time.

WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF??????

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

In your dreams son

LOL!!!!!! Maineman is exposing the BRAINWASHED CHILD that you really are. All you have is the typical right wing talking points and you can't even answer his simple questions.

 

[maineman]

LOL!!!!!! Maineman is exposing the BRAINWASHED CHILD that you really are. All you have is the typical right wing talking points and you can't even answer his simple questions.

thanks for reaffirming my take on it all.


It really is pathetic. He claims that he has answered them but he knows it is a lie. He knows that to answer the question is to expose the shallow nature of his position and his inability to back up his bluster with any sort of factual underpinning.

 

[red states rule]

ABC'S Weir: Why Don't Dems Fight President, End War?
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 17, 2007 - 08:41.
Interviewing anti-war Senator Russ Feingold this morning, Good Morning America weekend co-host Bill Weir offered his interpretation of the mid-term election results and virtually taunted Democrats for being insufficiently aggressive in confronting President Bush:

"Do you hold your party responsible, not only for the authorization, but for the seeming inability to muster a unified front to fight the president on this, to get what you want, and apparently what the American people wanted with the mid-term elections, and end the war?"

Feingold, in full pass-the-buck mode: "This is George Bush's war without a doubt."

He continued: "Those Democrats who voted for it made a mistake, and many of them have said they shouldn't have done it [nice little Hillary jab, Russ], but the key now is, are the Democrats going to continue this momentum? Having this special session Saturday is the way to show that we're serious. But it has to be followed by very aggressive action to actually end the war."
http://newsbusters.org/node/10887

 

[red states rule]

The party of defeat

By Robert J. Caldwell
February 18, 2007

Democrats have struggled for a generation to escape the crippling public perception that they are soft on national security. Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives have now revived their party's electoral curse.

The House vote Friday for a Democratic leadership resolution opposing President Bush's plan to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq was lopsidedly partisan. Nearly all Democrats voted for it. All but a relative handful of Republicans voted against it.

Yes, it is a nonbinding resolution, meaning it has no force in law. Bush is free to ignore it, as he already has said he will. And, yes, it contained political cover language expressing support for American troops in Iraq. Thus, as virtually all Democrats proclaimed during the House's four days of debate on the resolution, Democrats can claim that they “support the troops.”

But House Democrats are now on record as formally opposing the troops' mission – a potentially decisive effort to stop the violence in Baghdad and defeat the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province.

It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the entire American campaign in Iraq rides on this mission, and on the parallel effort to prompt political reconciliation among Iraqi factions. Unless U.S. and Iraqi forces can at least greatly diminish the terrorist carnage convulsing Iraq's capital city, the paramount U.S. objective of creating a stable, democratic Iraq won't be achieved. The complementary struggle in Anbar province is equally decisive. Defeating the Sunni insurgents and their allies, the terrorists of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is vital to the hopes of stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to permit American forces to begin withdrawing.

The Democrats' passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop reinforcements that Bush and his Iraq commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, say are essential to American success is damaging enough. If Democrats now use their power over appropriations to defeat the troop surge before it can be fully implemented, the political risk to Democrats will be greatly compounded.

Starkly put, Democrats risk making “Bush's war” their war, and then losing it.

If you think Democrats wouldn't be that foolish or reckless, think again.

Rep. John Murtha, the blustery Pennsylvania pol and anti-war ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is already pledging to use his power as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's appropriations subcommittee on defense to stop the surge by restricting the deployment and funding of U.S. forces.

Here's what Murtha said in an interview Thursday with the MoveCongress.org Web site, which represents a coalition of anti-war groups:

“They (the troops) won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind ... we're going to stop this surge.”

Does Pelosi, smarter and smoother than Murtha, agree?

“I fully support that,” Pelosi said of Murtha's remarks.

What's building, then, is not only a political crisis for the Democratic Party but a constitutional clash over the president's, any president's, express powers as commander in chief of America's armed forces.

The Constitution wisely vests the power to command the armed forces in the president, not Congress. That's especially true in time of war. If Bush decides that sending another 21,500 troops to Iraq is necessary, that's his call under the Constitution. Congress' constitutional authority lies in deciding how much to appropriate for the military. Deputizing 435 House members and 100 senators as armchair generals to micromanage the movement of troops and the military conduct of a war isn't in the Constitution for a reason. It couldn't possibly work and would be folly to attempt.

But that, apparently, is what Pelosi, Murtha and the House Democratic leadership intend. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, scrambling Friday to push a comparable resolution in the Senate, seems to be similarly misguided.

Have the Democrats learned nothing from history?

In 1973, a heavily Democratic Congress voted to prohibit U.S. air support for Cambodia's pro-American army, then desperately fending off the communist Khmer Rouge insurgents. In early 1975, Congress cut off all U.S. military aid for Cambodia.

Predictably, Cambodian government forces were soon defeated by the Khmer Rouge, then backed by Communist China and North Vietnam.

What followed was one of the great horrors of the 20th century – the genocidal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge of 2 million Cambodians, roughly 40 percent of Cambodia's population.

In 1974-75, an even more heavily Democratic Congress drastically cut U.S. military and economic assistance to our ally South Vietnam, even as the Soviet Union was illegally flooding North Vietnam with heavy weapons. The subsequent North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam overran our ally, took Saigon, and promptly imposed a Stalinist dictatorship that resulted in the deaths and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, constantly, but selectively, invoked by Democrats last week as a blueprint for a phased U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, also lent support to a “temporary surge” in U.S. forces if deemed necessary. In addition, the ISG report warned ominously of the dire consequences – Iraq as a failed, terrorist state, a destabilized Middle East, and spreading regional conflict – of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that many Democrats favor.

If Pelosi, Murtha and Reid succeed in crippling the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and thereby contribute to defeat and disaster, Democrats would spend another generation rightly deemed weak and feckless on national security.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caldwell is editor of the Insight section and can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...18caldwel.html
__________________

 

[maineman]

ho hum...another day...another bunch of cut and paste crap from rd stats rul and STILL he won't just answer four simple questions posed to him.

Does anyone ELSE know what he is so afraid of?

 

[red states rule]

ho hum...another day...another bunch of cut and paste crap from rd stats rul and STILL he won't just answer four simple questions posed to him.

Does anyone ELSE know what he is so afraid of?

Ah, did your rubber boat spring a leak?

 

[maineman]

Ah, did your rubber boat spring a leak?

you should perhaps stick to cut and paste.... the above sentence is unintellligible.