|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Here's a crazy idea, MEM.
If the Democrats don't want Republicans to point out that democrats say silly, defeatist, even dangerous, things about the war and the troops....
THEY SHOULD STOP SAYING SUCH THINGS!
So you're all done supporting the troops & want to make some political hay? Good for your party but what do you think that does to troop morale? Wasn't it Bush that said the war on terror could never be won? Guess it's only hurts the troops if a Dem says anything like that.
Bush has made no defeatist remarks that have hurt military troop morale.
The comment you quote of Bush where he allegedly said "the war on terror could never be won" was a liberal media distortion where he was asked by reporter Matt Lauder in an interview aboard Air Force One: "Can the war on terror be won?"
And Bush in a word before he was interrupted said: No.
But if you saw the full interview he clarifies to say, no, it won't be won decisively in a single battle. Because there are terror cels spread all over the world, and no single battle will make the rest surrender.
That's the context of that remark.
As on-the-pulse of the daily events in Washington as you appear to be, I find it hard to believe you don't already know the true context of Bush's remark in that interview.
It is only through such deliberate distortion that Bush can be made to say, even once a year or so through liberal misrepresentation, what the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy flatout say, in no uncertain context every single day, that our troops are losing in Iraq.
Not Democrats saying : "We need to change strategy to win in Iraq"
Not Dem's saying: "If we make these changes, we can turn this around."
Not Dem's saying: "Our courageous troops have accomplished x, y, and z, but Bush is holding them back by not doing this..."
No.
Democrats are saying that our troops are comparable to : "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian Pol Pot regime."
( Dem Sen. Dick Durbin)
They are saying there's : "NO WAY we can win in Iraq..."
( Dem Campaign chairman Howard Dean )
And similar statements from Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.
Every single day.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Someone's not listening... 
Ya think? 
Apperantly when we take the side of the troops over the sacred Dems then we're somehow no longer supporting th troops? The Dems say the troops are failing and that they terrorise women and children iunder cover of night, we say "bull-shit" and somehow we're no longer supporting the troops? That's the problem when your playbook is too thin. You just fail to make sense and in order to make you look bad the opposition need only play a comercial feturing your own words.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Kerry's quote was taken way out of context. There is another thread where G-man brought it up.He didn't say anything bad unless you totally ignore the context. I've only seen the one snippet of Dean's. He's claiming it's being cherry picked. Personally I would like to see a transcript of the radio show he was on to see what he said.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Kerry's quote was taken way out of context. There is another thread where G-man brought it up.He didn't say anything bad unless you totally ignore the context. I've only seen the one snippet of Dean's. He's claiming it's being cherry picked. Personally I would like to see a transcript of the radio show he was on to see what he said.
Palpatine used many Jedi statements that were taken out of context to manipulate Annakin.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Kerry's quote was taken way out of context. There is another thread where G-man brought it up.He didn't say anything bad unless you totally ignore the context. I've only seen the one snippet of Dean's. He's claiming it's being cherry picked. Personally I would like to see a transcript of the radio show he was on to see what he said.
In what way was Kerry's quote taken out of context. He accused the troops of terrorising women and children. In what context was that missunderstood. As far as Deans quote. I've heard it in it's entirety juxtoposed with his backpeddaling. Frankly he's full of crap, but because I've heard it I can't post it. I honestly think he says things like it was taken out of context because he knows the faithfull will believe him and not acctually look at what he said to see if it really could have been. If you were to see the entire quote and the context which Dean describes doesn't exist would that change your opinion or are you just stalling in hopes of moving on?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Here's what a fellow Dem says of Dean:
Quote:
Pomeroy to Howard Dean:Shut up
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.
On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.
Pomeroy later told the Associated Press that he is tired "of the overblown rhetoric on both sides."
"We have young men and women with their lives on the line," he added. "The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."
Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.
"He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats," Pomeroy said. "As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."
Dean backtracked on his statements somewhat Thursday, saying his assertion that the United States cannot win the war was reported "a little out of context," and that Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on Pomeroy's remarks.
Pomeroy said he also is frustrated with Republicans who have politicized the war and a recent House debate on Iraq that became heated and angry. During that debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt implied that Democratic Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was a "coward" because he called for troops to pull out of Iraq. Schmidt later said her remark about Murtha was a mistake.
"I thought the debate on the House floor was shameful," Pomeroy said. "It was loud, strident and partisan."
Pomeroy, who has visited Iraq three times, said he believes the United States must stay in the country for now to achieve progress on national security, the creation of a stable government and the establishment of a functioning economy.
In 2002, Pomeroy joined 215 Republicans and 80 other Democrats in voting to authorize force in Iraq.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...
In what way was Kerry's quote taken out of context. He accused the troops of terrorising women and children. In what context was that missunderstood. ...
I pointed this out on page one with G-man.
Quote:
You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,
terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.
What Kerry was speaking about is pretty well documented, I've seen news footage myself of our troops going into homes looking for hiding insurgents. Our troops after being fired upon understandably don't enter these homes under the best circumstances. How do you think a family feels with their home flooded with foriegn armed troops...happy? Kerry is just saying it would be better that it was Iraqis doing that.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
I realize that you think Kerry's additional langugage somehow vitiates what he said. However, as I pointed out, at best this makes it sound as if Kerry thinks terrorizing women and children would be okay if the Iraqis were the ones doing it.
Which, come to think of it, has been their stated policy belief for some time.
The democratic leadership (but not Joe Lieberman) has been bemoaning the idea that we removed Saddam from power for quite some time now. Saddam terrorized Iraqi women and children. Saddam was Iraqi. Therefore, the democratic leadership must think that terrorising women and children is okay if an Iraqi is the one doing the terrorizing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I realize that you think Kerry's additional langugage somehow vitiates what he said. However, as I pointed out, at best this makes it sound as if Kerry thinks terrorizing women and children would be okay if the Iraqis were the ones doing it.
Which, come to think of it, has been their stated policy belief for some time.
The democratic leadership (but not Joe Lieberman) has been bemoaning the idea that we removed Saddam from power for quite some time now. Saddam terrorized Iraqi women and children. Saddam was Iraqi. Therefore, the democratic leadership must think that terrorising women and children is okay if an Iraqi is the one doing the terrorizing.
Sorry I missed where the Democratic leadership said anything other than that Saddam was an evil person. Considering how you guys take things out of context for political spin I'm not surprised anymore that you can present something loony like "Therefore, the democratic leadership must think that terrorising women and children is okay if an Iraqi is the one doing the terrorizing. " as a serious arguement. Shame on you.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Whenever President Bush, or any republican, excuses the failure to find WMDs by pointing out that at least we removed a dictator, the Democratic leadership counters that said removal was an insufficient basis for the war.
If the Democrats feel that removal of an Iraqi who terrorized women and children from power is an insufficient basis for war, it can be argued that the Democrats do not have a problem with said Iraqi's acts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Thats bullshit G-man. By using your logic then I could say Bush approves of all the other ruling despots who commit attrocities everyday because he doesn't remove them as was done with Saddam. It's hard to understand how you can see that as a reasonable arguement.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Appearing on CBS's " Face the Nation" in August, Dean said, "It looks like ...women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
That was Dean talking about Iraqi women losing the right to vote in their constitution. At the time that was a real possability.
So would it fair for me to say Bush really supports North Korea's leader & all his evil deeds because he isn't taking him out of action using the military? Or does your logic only come into play for Dems?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I realize that you think Kerry's additional langugage somehow vitiates what he said. However, as I pointed out, at best this makes it sound as if Kerry thinks terrorizing women and children would be okay if the Iraqis were the ones doing it.
Which, come to think of it, has been their stated policy belief for some time.
The democratic leadership (but not Joe Lieberman) has been bemoaning the idea that we removed Saddam from power for quite some time now. Saddam terrorized Iraqi women and children. Saddam was Iraqi. Therefore, the democratic leadership must think that terrorising women and children is okay if an Iraqi is the one doing the terrorizing.
Sorry I missed where the Democratic leadership said anything other than that Saddam was an evil person. Considering how you guys take things out of context for political spin I'm not surprised anymore that you can present something loony like "Therefore, the democratic leadership must think that terrorising women and children is okay if an Iraqi is the one doing the terrorizing. " as a serious arguement. Shame on you.
Look no futher than your above out-of-context deliberately misleading remark that "Bush made comments that undermined the morale of our troops" in your 180-degree distortion of what he truly said, and my correction of it.
I'd add that you (and other liberals) do this quite often.
I'm hard-pressed to find a remark by conservatives that is similarly false.
And I would also argue that conservative/Republican remarks (such as saying that Democrat remarks are traitorous or treasonous, or undermining our troops in Iraq ) are a solicited response to incredibly inflammatory statements by Democrats.
( i.e.,
- alleging that Bush LIED to take the nation to war on false pretenses,
.
- alleging that it's all about Republican greed/ war-for-profit,
.
- or alleging it's all about oil,
.
- alleging that Iraq is paid for with the lives of the poor, so bad ol' Republicans can get richer,
.
- alleging that Bush knew in advance about 9-11 and let it happen,
.
and ON AND ON )
Saying that liberal/democrat remarks feed the P.R. machine of our enemies, and embolden and inspire terrorism against our soldiers and civilians, far from a false charge, is visibly true !
Without such inflammatory --and treasonous-- remarks by Democrats, on pretty much a daily basis, that endanger the country as a whole, for their own liberal-partisan political short-term gain, there would be no need for Republicans to respond and defend themselves, in full context, against inflammatory and false allegations, with rhetoric that only approaches the corrosive acid of Democrat remarks.
So... shame on YOU !
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
So would it fair for me to say Bush really supports North Korea's leader & all his evil deeds because he isn't taking him out of action using the military? Or does your logic only come into play for Dems?
No, it would be fair to say that dictatorships across the world cringed at the thought that they might be next, for such a U.S. invasion to end their tyranny.
Including North Korea.
And it would be fair to say that the fruit of that is manifest in Libya's surrender of their nuclear weapons program, in Lebanon's election and move out of Syria's influence, that Aizerbaijan will have an election soon, and that Iraq will have their third election in about a week.
As well as high anxiety among the Syrian government, and public opposition to the sitting government there.
And pressure for elections in Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well.
And far from having a separate standard for Democrats, I strongly supported the invasions of Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo under Clinton's presidency.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Wonder Boy I was quoting Bush from memory, a dangerous thing to do I'll admit. Interesting that you can understand how Bush's remark could be taken out of context but not carry that over to Kerry or to other Dems. You miss the point I was making with the Bush/North Korea thing. G-man reasoned that ... Quote:
If the Democrats feel that removal of an Iraqi who terrorized women and children from power is an insufficient basis for war, it can be argued that the Democrats do not have a problem with said Iraqi's acts.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry's remarks remain damning IN context
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry's remarks remain damning IN context
No it doesn't. I read all the text up to his remarks, and it's clearly supportive of our troops. You guys are just taking one sentence & using it for political spin. And I'm still interested in hearing if your logic about dem's & terrorism applies also to Bush & Republicans. (not holding my breath though)
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
This thread has turned into "he said, she said". Why do you guys care so much about troop moral anyway? You think they don't know things aren't going well? I'm sure it makes them happy to have GWD, et al, blow sunshine up their asses. Just give the mercenaries more money, tell them to go shoot someone and I'm sure they'll be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
And I'm still interested in hearing if your logic about dem's & terrorism applies also to Bush & Republicans. (not holding my breath though)
I'm not sure how to respond to someone who thinks that calling on Democrats to support the troops is somehow a case of not supporting the troops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry's remarks remain damning IN context
No it doesn't. I read all the text up to his remarks, and it's clearly supportive of our troops. You guys are just taking one sentence & using it for political spin. And I'm still interested in hearing if your logic about dem's & terrorism applies also to Bush & Republicans. (not holding my breath though)
Kerry's remarks make a little more sense if you think of them in a United States drug bust sort of way. Police have raided homes in the past for selling/making drugs and these raids have been scary for those involved. Many wives and children of drug dealers have been startled and scared, but it's all for the best in the end. Those doing the raids are United States citizens who have dedicated their lives to preserving and protecting our freedom.
The Iraqi people really should have their own citizens dedicating their lives to a similar cause. That way, when people are startled by a raid they won't blame it on another nation's aggression. Hopefully they'll see that terrorists are a threat across the board and not just to Americans.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
So would it fair for me to say Bush really supports North Korea's leader & all his evil deeds because he isn't taking him out of action using the military? Or does your logic only come into play for Dems?
From a conservative standpoint, I completely agree with you. North Korea commits crimes against humanity every day and they should be taken out militarily, economically or by whatever means necessary.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
...
I'm not sure how to respond to someone who thinks that calling on Democrats to support the troops is somehow a case of not supporting the troops.
Hey it was your "logic" that you put forth, & it had nothing to do with you calling Dems to support the troops but painting them as supporting terrorist.
The Dem's do support the troops, they just don't all support every aspect of the President's Iraqi efforts. It would be politically safer for them to simply not say anything but because they do support the troops, their offering changes that they feel need to be made in Iraq.
My guess is that despite all the politicaly motivated hysterics that you & other Republicans are having, our Republican dominated government will end up doing what Murtha said we needed to do originally.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
The Dem's do support the troops
Quote:
the G-man said:
Maybe its me, but perhaps if the Democratic leadership (as opposed to people like Joe Liebrman) had more to say than the military is broken, a bunch of failures destined to lose, and terrorizing Iraqis, it would be easier to believe they do, in fact, support the troops.
It also might help if that same leadership (as opposed to people like Joe Lieberman), and their core constituents like the ACLU didn't try to disfranchise servicemen and wage war on military recruitment and ROTC and if they nominated someone who didn't rise to fame by slandering veterans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Killconey said:
Quote:
So would it fair for me to say Bush really supports North Korea's leader & all his evil deeds because he isn't taking him out of action using the military? Or does your logic only come into play for Dems?
From a conservative standpoint, I completely agree with you. North Korea commits crimes against humanity every day and they should be taken out militarily, economically or by whatever means necessary.
I agree but G-man says that ...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Democrats feel that removal of an Iraqi who terrorized women and children from power is an insufficient basis for war, it can be argued that the Democrats do not have a problem with said Iraqi's acts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so using his logic, President Bush actual approves of Kim Young's leadership. Now we know that is just plain silly but so is saying that Dems approve of terrorizing women & children.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:it would be fair to say that dictatorships across the world cringed at the thought that they might be next, for such a U.S. invasion to end their tyranny.
Including North Korea.
And it would be fair to say that the fruit of that is manifest in Libya's surrender of their nuclear weapons program, in Lebanon's election and move out of Syria's influence, that Aizerbaijan will have an election soon, and that Iraq will have their third election in about a week.
As well as high anxiety among the Syrian government, and public opposition to the sitting government there.
And pressure for elections in Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
You forget that Libya had already started that process during the Clinton administation. That would be besides the point anyway. We're talking about Bush's support of N. Korea's leader(according to your "logic")
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
To bad you have to rely on spin & out of context quotes G-man. Your cartoon contains about 0% truth.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
[image]http://imgsrv.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=GS&Dato=20051209&Kategori=EDITORIALS03&Lopenr=51208034&Ref=AR&MaxW=450[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
...What neither party has done—until now—is inject the idea that the other party is undermining our troops overseas. The RNC is pimping a mute and unnamed soldier not just to defend the Iraq war but to imply that Democrats are white-handkerchief-waving cowards who want the United States to lose.
This is not the president's official message, at least in classier settings. "There's an important debate going on in our nation's capital about Iraq," he said last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and the fact that we can debate these issues openly in the midst of a dangerous war brings credit to our democracy." Other White House officials have been pushing back against the charge that the president has been trying to stifle discussion, because they recognize that he can only rebuild his credibility by engaging in debate—not trying to shut it down. Perhaps someone should let the RNC know. Officials there defend the use of the soldier, saying it highlights the stakes in the argument.
It goes almost without saying that some of the quotes from Democrats are taken out of context in a way that completely distorts their meanings. In the statement excerpted in the video, Kerry was not accusing U.S. soldiers of war crimes in Iraq. He was saying local police and military—not American forces—should be doing the difficult work of going into Iraqi homes in the dead of night, which is also the president's wish. This is the sentence Kerry uttered after the one the RNC uses: "Whether you like it or not, Iraqis should be doing that." Kerry likes to make his own selective criticisms of the president, but this libel is especially vicious in light of the insinuations that Kerry made unjustified accusations about American atrocities in Vietnam.
The video's treatment of Barbara Boxer is just bizarre. "So there's no specific time frame," they quote her as saying, "but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections December 15th." The liberal California senator has surely said something more incendiary somewhere, but that quote is simply stating administration policy. Here's what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said two weeks before Boxer's remarks, when he answered a question on Face the Nation about whether troops would withdraw: "No question. I mean, we went up for the referendum in October 15th and we went from 138,000 to 160,000. We're now at 159,000. We're going to stay that size roughly through the December 15th election. We're clearly going to go back down to 138,000 after the election."
Our soldiers are watching. But all they're seeing is a cartoon.
Slate.com
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Democrats in Washington never undermine the soldiers in Iraq with their rhetoric ?!?
Please try to explain away these nuggets from page 2 of the topic, by Dick Durbin and Howard Dean...
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Here's a crazy idea, MEM.
If the Democrats don't want Republicans to point out that democrats say silly, defeatist, even dangerous, things about the war and the troops....
THEY SHOULD STOP SAYING SUCH THINGS!
So you're all done supporting the troops & want to make some political hay? Good for your party but what do you think that does to troop morale? Wasn't it Bush that said the war on terror could never be won? Guess it's only hurts the troops if a Dem says anything like that.
...It is only through... deliberate distortion that Bush can be made to say, even once a year or so through liberal misrepresentation, what the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy flatout say, in no uncertain context every single day, that our troops are losing in Iraq.
Not Democrats saying : "We need to change strategy to win in Iraq"
Not Dem's saying: "If we make these changes, we can turn this around."
Not Dem's saying: "Our courageous troops have accomplished x, y, and z, but Bush is holding them back by not doing this..."
No.
Democrats are saying that our troops are comparable to : "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian Pol Pot regime."
( Dem Sen. Dick Durbin)
They are saying there's : "NO WAY we can win in Iraq..."
( Dem Campaign chairman Howard Dean )
And similar statements from Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.
Every single day.
There are days where Kerry and others who have made political careers of softening U.S. defense can actually pull one off with some high-sounding words and appear patriotic in their words.
But you can only cite those examples by glossing over the major thrust of the rhetoric coming out of the Democtat party.
PLEASE NOTE:
Dick Durbin's comments condemn our troops in Iraq, not just the President who sent them there.
Howard Dean's words likewise condemn our troops' ability to win in Iraq under any circumstances, not just the current Bush strategy in Iraq.
That's in addition to all the Democrats' bitter allegations against the President himself:
- that he knew in advance about 9-11,
- that invasion in Iraq was about Republican greed to enrich themselves in "blood for oil",
- that Bush is in Iraq for some petty vendetta to avenge his father (never mind that Bush was an isolationist until 9-11 forced Bush to take on a proactive approach to Islamic terror and other threats to the U.S.)
So in attacking the President in the most vicious way, that alone to me is treasonous and pointless.
Because it just undermines the President's ability to act in the nation's defense, on false charges undermining his credibility worldwide.
And provides vicious propaganda, pre-packaged in liberal America for export to the Middle East, that can be used for recruiting purposes, and to rationalize attacks on U.S. soldiers and civilians.
All so liberals can score some short term points against Bush and the Republicans. In a long-term destructive act against the nation.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
I would just point out it's the RNC that produced the fundraising ad that takes quotes out of contexts. As the Slate article points out the RNC even takes a comment Boxer made that repeats what Rumsfield said 2 weeks before?!? Care to explain?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
DtWB said: So in attacking the President in the most vicious way, that alone to me is treasonous and pointless.
Treasonous is a big charge to make.
Because it just undermines the President's ability to act in the nation's defense, on false charges undermining his credibility worldwide.
Bush today accepted responsiblity for going to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligent. "I am responsible," he said.
How can what someone else says about Bush or the war undermine the President's credibility? His own actions do that.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Where's Rumsfield? (Since he said the same thing as Boxer in the RNC ad as noted previously) 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I would just point out it's the RNC that produced the fundraising ad that takes quotes out of contexts. As the Slate article points out the RNC even takes a comment Boxer made that repeats what Rumsfield said 2 weeks before?!? Care to explain?
Boxer's comments are in a negative connotation, implying that U.S. troops in Iraq are losing and/or destructive to Iraq, and to remove them prematurely before Iraq's own army is ready to take over operations.
Rumsfeld's projected plans for withdrawal are in the context of not only what is going wrong in Iraq, but also what is overwhelmingly going right in Iraq, that he plans to remove troops when Iraqi forces are ready to take over and the potentially dangerous terror-target of the Iraq elections has passed. But he makes it clear that U.S. troops will be removed when Iraqi forces are ready, not just simply abandoning the Iraqi government, as Democrats advocate.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
DtWB said:
So in attacking the President in the most vicious way, that alone to me is treasonous and pointless.
Treasonous is a big charge to make.
Take a look at the remarks being made by Democrats in Washington.
The shoe fits.
If the same doubt and calls for immediate withdrawal existed regarding postwar Germany from 1946-1948, then there likely would not be a thriving democracy there today.
If the German people in 1946 saw the same wavering commitment that exists in Iraq today, the constant liberal cries for immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces that provide the only stability, emboldening Nazi resistance to U.S. occupation, then many German leaders and citizens would have lost faith in reform, and cut deals with people they were afraid of to protect themselves and their families.
I think things would have already stabilized in Iraq, if not for the constant calls for premature withdrawal that have emboldened insurrectionists in Iraq to wait us out, rather than surrender to overwhelming U.S. force.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
DtWB said:
Because it just undermines the President's ability to act in the nation's defense, on false charges undermining his credibility worldwide.
Bush today accepted responsibility for going to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence. "I am responsible," he said.
How can what someone else says about Bush or the war undermine the President's credibility? His own actions do that.
That is deliberate misrepresentation of what Bush truly said.
Bush admitted to mistakes in managing the war. Not that he lied.
And as McCain and others have said repeatedly, mistakes have been made, yes, as they have been in every war ever fought.
Every government in Europe and the Middle East that gathered intelligence on Saddam's Iraq ALL believed Saddam had WMD's.
Saddam Hussein himself believed he had WMD's.
Saddam's generals mostly believed he had WMD's, they just believed that generals other than themselves were entrusted with Saddam's WMD program.
ALL these people were wrong. Not just Bush.
What is the only way we've discovered Saddam likely had no WMD's?
Because we invaded and searched the country.
Three federal investigations of the pre-war intelligence have shown Bush did NOT deliberately mislead the nation.
So liberals are full of crap when they make these allegations.
Particularly opportunistic liberals who falsely allege, and know they are falsely alleging, that "Bush knew" there were no WMD's.
It's fair to say that Bush has made some huge mistakes in conducting the Iraq war/occupation/reconstruction.
That's fair to say.
But it is pure slander to say : "Bush LIED".
Deeply destructive and divisive to the nation.
On completely baseless charges.
All for the petty short-term political gain of liberal Democrats.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I'm wholly unconvinced that one can or should compare postWWII German and European reconstruction to the war in Iraq and its reconstruction. Your whole comparison starts off with two "ifs."
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2005-12-15 3:05 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
I'm wholly unconvinced that one can or should compare postWWII German and European reconstruction to the war in Iraq and its reconstruction. Your whole comparison starts off with two "ifs."
Well, goody for you.
It is a comparison of one U.S. occupation with another. I might add that there were cries of inevitable failure in Germany and Japan in the U.S. media during those reconstructions as well. Including a LIFE magazine cover story in 1946, with the cover headline: "Are We Losing the Peace in Germany?"
And regardless of the comparison, it is still liberal divisiveness and constant calls for withdrawal that manifests wavering commitment to the Iraqi people, emboldens and prolongs resistance, and thus endangers the troops on the ground.
The same troops liberals posture and allege to support.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I'm past caring about this debate with you, DtWB.
Seriously.
I'm just going to watch to see how Bush and his White House handle this in terms of a practical end. Achieving its goals for a rebuilt, restabilized Iraq.
I wish it well. I really do.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
