|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I think it would have been funny if, when asked what she looked for in a guy, the girl had replied, "Internal Organs."
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
This panel discussion I saw on PBS News Hour on Tuesday night, preceded by a news report on grass-roots activists, is typical of the liberal/anti-war attitude I despise, where they put on a front of being patriotic while undermining the support of our military in Iraq.
At every stage of the last 4-plus years of the war in Iraq, these assholes constantly raise doubt of America's commitment to protect people in Iraq who are struggling to build and stabilize democracy there.
And if we pull out, all these people with be slaughtered, something the anti-war people never bother to mention.
This guy Jon Soltz (in the streaming video for this discussion), is the epitome of the liberal uncivility: smug, antagonistic, demonizing his opposition, and filling his comments with divisive and misleading one-liners.
And typical of liberals for the last 4 years, and before this war even began, he (and his like-minded ilk, Reid, Pelosi, etc) constantly ingrain into the public that we can't win in Iraq, rather than looking for a policy that presses for course change that will insure victory.
All the Democrats leadership cares about is winning the 2008 election. And they're perfectly willing to burn America to the ground in the long term, just to win that short-term victory.
Abandoning Iraq to chaos, slaughter and al Qaida is not an alternative strategy, and just insures Iraq (if we leave) will become a hub of terrorism, from which to attack the U.S., Europe, and moderate governments in the Middle East.
All I see is liberal whining and cowardly talk of abandonment. I see no pursuit of a victory-focused alternative in Iraq, or of long-term defense of the United States from Islamic radicalism, that leaving Iraq would leave us vulnerable to.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Bill Kristol: 'Stupid, dishonorable' Republicans wavering on Iraq
David Edwards
Published: Sunday May 13, 2007
Conservative pundit Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday this morning criticized the wavering on support for the Iraq war by some Republicans as "extremely stupid."
"The idea that they will get credit for deserting the war at this point, they voted for the war, they voted to fund the war, now they're going to what? Vote for withdrawal, for surrender," he mocked. "Then they're going to go to voters, Republican congressmen, in 2008 and say, 'Hey, re-elect us!'"
"It's a ridiculous political calculation, as well as dishonorable one," he continued. "The Democrats are behaving terribly, but the Republicans are behaving foolishly."
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
The war is lost. It was lost because Bush put incompetent boobs in charge and mismanaged the entire thing.
All that's being accomplished now is the troops are being picked off all for the sake of Bush's pride.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
The war isn't lost unless we all resign to the liberal perspective and give up.
Granted, mistakes have been made because of incompetence by key members of the Bush administration who didn't follow the best recommendations of intelligence sources and the Pentagon generals.
But the United States has enormous military, economic, and diplomatic resources, and it is not too late to turn things around, if we are resolved to winning.
For all the truth in there being huge errors in Iraq by the Bush administration, the pointless divisiveness of the Democrats has further stalled progress in Iraq, and undermined confidence in our commitment and ability to win in Iraq, by Democrats' divisive and ridiculous demands to set a date for troop withdrawal, and wanting to fund the war in 60-day increments.
As New York Times columnist David Brooks comments in THIS PBS News Hour panel discussion last Friday:
DAVID BROOKS: But there's a psychology here that I think Nancy Pelosi and Reid have been consciously partisan. They knew they were sacrificing stuff [i.e., making it impossible to reach agreement with Republicans in the Congress and Senate and with President Bush] by being partisan. Bush has certainly been partisan.
But the bottom line is -- and I think is sort of what you're suggesting -- is that, if you took people with a blind vote, not a party vote, and said, "Do you support the Baker-Hamilton commission?" Eighty percent of the Congress [both Democrat and Republican] would support it. "Do you support the Biden plan, some sort of soft partition?" Eighty percent [both Democrat and Republican] would support that.
You would have that support if people were voting their conscience, but it's the psychology of the institution [i.e., the Democrats playing partisan games, just as Bush did earlier] which is preventing it.
and
DAVID BROOKS: ... that atmosphere has been there for three years. [House and Senate Republicans] didn't want to face the last election with Iraq, but President Bush drew them to it. So I don't think there's been a gradual change.
The other thing that's happened is the Republicans keep getting pushed back into the White House by the Democrats. What the House passed, for example, this week, which was...
JIM LEHRER: Funding through July.
DAVID BROOKS: ... funding through July, the Republicans think that's just terrible policy. [House Republican] Roy Blunt told me today ...if we give like a two-month window, that just gives the insurgents an incentive to kill as many people as they can over the next two months ...as a way to chase us out. We've got to have one constant stream of policy.
So [House and Senate Republicans] don't want to be casting these votes. But the Democrats have pushed them back to the White House by adopting what is a pretty partisan way of approaching this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Wonderboy, Bush was given near unanimous consent and support from the congress for the war. He messed it up, he ignored the advice of military advisors and allowed Iraq to slip into chaos.
He was told specifically to secure water and prevent riots and looting to maintain a sense of order and security. But they didn't, and Rumsfeld was on tv saying how the looting was a sign of them exercising their freedom.
Now, 4 years later, people are fed up. Democrats who supported the war, and even a good number of Republicans are sick of giving Bush a do-over. It's like getting a job and consistently fucking up and then blaming the bosses for wanting to fire you.
I just don't think Bush has it in him to ever get Iraq working. Because he'd first have to admit that he was wrong and that a change in strategy is needed. But Bush sees admitting mistakes as a sign of weakness instead of a sign of wisdom and evolving strategy. I think any of the front runners (dem or rep) would do a better job on Iraq, but do you really want to wait as troop and civilian fatalities go up over the next 20 months?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
As any number of news reports since the surge began indicate, Bush is changing strategy in Iraq. The surge itself is a plan by the generals to overcome the previous problem of not securing the Baghdad area in the last four years.
It is a plan of the Pentagon generals, not a plan of the Bush administration.
The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that Bush had previously ignored, are now on their way to becoming official policy.
And the largest obstacle during most of the war, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has been fired since the November 2006 election, and replaced by a more pragmatic defense secretary who restores confidence in the war effort.
I think we can agree at this point that virtually anyone would rally more confidence than George W. Bush in guiding the Iraq War, due to his past mistakes, and due to Bush's following bad advice from key advisers, long past the point that he should have changed course, increased troop strength in Iraq and taken full control of the growing chaos there.
But it also bothers me that many of these voices on the liberal side have been undermining the notion we could win since before this war began !
Liberals have never even tried to endorse or come up with a winning stategy, they've just constantly undermined the effort to win in Iraq, offering no alternative strategy, other than retreat.
(again I ask: Would Germany be a democracy today if the same constant threat of us pulling out existed in 1945-1948? Even with comparatively less terrorism in Germany, the pockets of pro-Nazi intimidation of Germans --assassinations, bombings, abductions, attacks-- lasted a full 3 years, and by the time it ended, the cold war was then kicking into high gear. The Germans would have cut a deal with either the Nazis or the Russians, if they thought we were going to retreat and abandon them, as is being proposed by liberals we do in Iraq.)
Why can't we retreat, you ask?
This is why:
This isn't Vietnam, where we could just leave. Islamic terrorism is a global phenomenon. And if we leave (as McCain has warned) Al Qaida will follow us home and attack inside the U.S.
The ABC report says this isn't just Taliban boasting. That other intelligence sources confirm this is a real threat, of cels waging terrorism inside the U.S.
And also, you assume a lot in saying Republicans are eager to pull out of Iraq. They're not. But they don't support the current state of the war.
72% of Americans not supporting Bush's handling of the war is NOT 72% of Americans wanting us to just pack up and leave Iraq.
And it sure as hell isn't 72% of House and Senate Republicans who push for that option either.
Again, relatively speaking, in more than 4 years of fighting, I don't think 3,401 military deaths are that high.
Again, that number doesn't even equal a single battle in W W II at Iwo Jima. It's barely half the casualties of that 5-week battle.
That liberals have been undermining the Iraq War for 4 years, largely for political partisan games, shows a lack of understanding on the part of Democrats for what is truly at stake. Regardless of Bush's past errors.
We have to win. I don't see any Democrat alternative that addresses that reality.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Wonder Boy said:...
Liberal remarks that falsely undermine popular opinion, with false pretenses that undermine the morale of our troops.
And through Democrats' oversympathetic and wrongheaded compassion for our enemy, these alleged leaders of our country align themselves against the United States.
Providing aid and comfort to our enemy, spreading the false propaganda of our enemy.
I've said it before: These Democrats would destroy the country itself just to spite Bush and the Republicans.
And Howard Dean, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest are doing precisely that.
Every. Single. Day.
WB in December '05 this thread, same old WB now. Lots of strong rhetoric that has helped a poor leader keep getting troops killed & helping terrorists in their recruitment.
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:
WB in December '05 this thread, same old WB now. Lots of strong rhetoric that has helped a poor leader keep getting troops killed & helping terrorists in their recruitment.
With all due respect M E M, that's a partisan liar's argument on your part, that distorts the truth in an attempt to smear me.
I made it clear early on that I supported our effort in Iraq, but felt Bush and Rumsfeld didn't provide the troop strength in Iraq to get the job done.
I made it clear that I didn't want to support Bush in 2004, but with the pacifist alternative offered in Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Democrats offered an even worse alternative that compelled me to vote for Bush in 2004 (I did not vote for Bush in 2000, I voted for Nader, in opposition to both Bush and Gore, in support of creating pressure for political change from outside the 2-party system).
I've been supportive of an alternative policy all along, I've been supportive of removing Rumsfeld since late 2004, I've clearly not been 100% supportive of Bush in my comments at any point and have voiced many points of policy where I dissent from Bush, increasingly since after the 2004 election.
But the bottom line is, the Democrats have offered no credible alternative in all that time, forcing me to grudgingly support the lesser of two evils.
So don't blame me. Blame your own party for being just as partisan as the Bush administration.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
DAVID BROOKS: The other thing that's happened is the Republicans keep getting pushed back into the White House by the Democrats. What the House passed, for example, this week, which was...
JIM LEHRER: Funding through July.
DAVID BROOKS: ... funding through July, the Republicans think that's just terrible policy. [House Republican] Roy Blunt told me today ...if we give like a two-month window, that just gives the insurgents an incentive to kill as many people as they can over the next two months ...as a way to chase us out. We've got to have one constant stream of policy.
So [House and Senate Republicans] don't want to be casting these votes. But the Democrats have pushed them back to the White House by adopting what is a pretty partisan way of approaching this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
It wasn't your criticism of Bush that changed "stay the course" to "the surge" WB. Your side may have had some criticism but it translated to virtually no pressure being placed on Bush. It was Dems retaking congress that lit a fire under his ass. You talk about the lesser of two evils & Dems just playing a political game but as far as I'm concerned Bush's actions tell me he's just as guilty of what you accuse liberals of.
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:
It wasn't your criticism of Bush that changed "stay the course" to "the surge" WB. Your side may have had some criticism but it translated to virtually no pressure being placed on Bush. It was Dems retaking congress that lit a fire under his ass. You talk about the lesser of two evils & Dems just playing a political game but as far as I'm concerned Bush's actions tell me he's just as guilty of what you accuse liberals of.
It wasn't the Democrats either that changed things from "stay the course" to "the surge".
Voters weren't so much choosing Democrats, as they were simply choosing "anyone but Bush".
And the Democrats still haven't moved things forward. They've chosen divisive rhetoric and partisan obstruction from their side, as opposed to proposing a policy that 80% of both parties could vote and agree on, if Democrats were interested in true progress instead of divisive posturing.
As I just quoted David Brooks pointing out.
Democrats were elected to move things forward in Iraq, but instead they're deliberately stalling things, and playing partisan games, continuing to undermine the military's ability to turn things around in Iraq.
You seem blind to your own party's obstructionism, in your zeal for pinning sole blame on Bush and Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Matter-eater Man said:
It wasn't your criticism of Bush that changed "stay the course" to "the surge" WB. Your side may have had some criticism but it translated to virtually no pressure being placed on Bush. It was Dems retaking congress that lit a fire under his ass. You talk about the lesser of two evils & Dems just playing a political game but as far as I'm concerned Bush's actions tell me he's just as guilty of what you accuse liberals of.
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
It wasn't the Democrats either that changed things from "stay the course" to "the surge".
Voters weren't so much choosing Democrats, as they were simply choosing "anyone but Bush".
I don't buy that. Both parties campaigned heavily on this issue. Voters were very much aware of what they were choosing.
Quote:
And the Democrats still haven't moved things forward. They've chosen divisive rhetoric and partisan obstruction from their side, as opposed to proposing a policy that 80% of both parties could vote and agree on, if Democrats were interested in true progress instead of divisive posturing.
As I just quoted David Brooks pointing out.
Democrats were elected to move things forward in Iraq, but instead they're deliberately stalling things, and playing partisan games, continuing to undermine the military's ability to turn things around in Iraq.
You seem blind to your own party's obstructionism, in your zeal for pinning sole blame on Bush and Republicans.
Seeing as how Bush misused his previous blank checks with Iraq I'm glad there won't be anymore issued by the Dems. He's proven that he can't be trusted with them & has used his previous freedom at the expense of our troops. It's not partisan games, it's just common sense IMHO.
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:
Wonder Boy said:
It wasn't the Democrats either that changed things from "stay the course" to "the surge".
Voters weren't so much choosing Democrats, as they were simply choosing "anyone but Bush".
I don't buy that. Both parties campaigned heavily on this issue. Voters were very much aware of what they were choosing.
Voters, including myself, weren't overly happy with Bush in 2004 either.
But with the alternative being overly pacifist, ultra-liberal and non-committal John Kerry, we reluctantly chose Bush again, when the Democrats left us no alternative.
I think the same is true in the 2006 mid-term election, the difference being, Bush has so soured the public since 2004, that the public by a slight margin rolled the dice and selected Democrats, to give Dems a slight majority in the House and Senate
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
And the Democrats still haven't moved things forward. They've chosen divisive rhetoric and partisan obstruction from their side, as opposed to proposing a policy that 80% of both parties could vote and agree on, if Democrats were interested in true progress instead of divisive posturing.
As I just quoted David Brooks pointing out.
Democrats were elected to move things forward in Iraq, but instead they're deliberately stalling things, and playing partisan games, continuing to undermine the military's ability to turn things around in Iraq.
You seem blind to your own party's obstructionism, in your zeal for pinning sole blame on Bush and Republicans.
Seeing as how Bush misused his previous blank checks with Iraq I'm glad there won't be anymore issued by the Dems. He's proven that he can't be trusted with them & has used his previous freedom at the expense of our troops. It's not partisan games, it's just common sense IMHO.
If the Democrats were using their power to leverage a new winning strategy in Iraq, I'd agree with you.
But instead Democrats are pressing for immediate withdrawal, regardless of what happens in Iraq over the next few months, abandoning a lot of people to slaughter by Al Qaida and Insurgents, people who have worked with us to build democracy in Iraq.
Again, it didn't happen in Germany overnight either. What if we'd abandoned Germany?
Bush made mistakes, huge ones, granted.
But now it's the Democrats who are playing partisan politics, the same partisan politics they were playing all along for 6 years with Bush. The Democrats were elected to play a better game than Bush and the Republican majority. But instead they're continuing to ratchet up the partisanship.
Instead of pursuing a policy that 80% of both parties could agree on (as David Brooks said) Democrats are deliberately pushing for actions (total withdrawal in 1 year or less) that they know Republicans cannot possibly cooperate with. In other words, they're engaging in exactly the partisanship that Bush is criticized for.
Democrats are engaging in divisive partisanship, the exact same partisanship they were elected to overcome.
- 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 |
Dems are doing pretty much what they had promised to do if they won back the congress WB. If you feel otherwise, you may want to reread some of your own posts pre-election to clear things up.
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:
Dems are doing pretty much what they had promised to do if they won back the congress WB. If you feel otherwise, you may want to reread some of your own posts pre-election to clear things up.
My own posts from election-time say that the Democrats don't get what is at stake in Iraq, and want to withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
Democrats all along have painted a false image for themselves, that they "support the troops", and only want to correct mismanagement of the war.
But the truth is, Democrats have always planned to withdraw from Iraq, which is a short-sighted formula for disaster that will just result in Iraq becoming a hub of terrorism in the Middle East, and an exporter of terrorism to the U.S.
What Democrats promised, pre-election, was to get things done, pass legislation in the best interest of working Americans, clean up the "culture of corruption".
But all they've done is create their own brand of corruption and self-serving obstructionism.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Wonder Boy said, December 7, 2005:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Reuters reports from Dubai:
... said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.
"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.
"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission. . . . America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."
I actually had to look at the remarks a second time to see that it was Zawahri who said them, and not one of the Democrats in Washington.
At first glance I thought the article was quoting Howard Dean. Or possibly John Kerry, quoted just a few posts above.
But the remarks could just as easily be Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark, Congressman Murtha, or hundreds of other Democrats, who daily make similar remarks.
Liberal remarks that falsely undermine popular opinion, with false pretenses that undermine the morale of our troops.
And through Democrats' oversympathetic and wrongheaded compassion for our enemy, these alleged leaders of our country align themselves against the United States.
Providing aid and comfort to our enemy, spreading the false propaganda of our enemy.
I've said it before: These Democrats would destroy the country itself just to spite Bush and the Republicans.
And Howard Dean, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest are doing precisely that.
Every. Single. Day.
My first post to this topic.
If the Democrats were communicating daily and coordinating policy with Al Qaida, they could not possibly have given more encouragement to the enemy.
I do blame Bush for not putting the amount of troops in Iraq necessary to win.
But I also blame Democrats for their constant calls to withdraw in the last 3 years, that have emboldened an enemy that might have otherwise given up.
And I also blame Democrats for saying they "support the troops" while undermining their morale, alleging that they're comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Pol Pot regime", when less than a dozen U.S. soldiers were involved in inappropriate treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and were courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes.
But still, Democrats smear the 150,000 troops who were not convicted, painting a false image to the public, and negatively impacting the morale of our soldiers. And providing soundbytes for Al Jazzeera, and for Al Qaida indoctrination videos.
If we withdraw from Iraq, the divisive rhetoric of Democrats is as much to blame as Bush's underestimating troop strength needed to do the job.
Democrats can't "support our troops" while calling them "Nazi storm troopers". That's a Democrat attack on our soldiers, not on Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Your last post WB is the divisive rhetoric you say Dems are guilty of. Seizing upon some comments to paint a whole party isn't right & helps accomplish what you don't want to do, demoralize the troops. I understand you honestly feel that way but your talking to someone who does support the troops, is a Dem & doesn't make the comments that you attribute to my party. Neither do I see other more liberal posters in this forum engaging in what you attribute to them.
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 |
Democrats Table Campaign To Link War Funds, PulloutHouse Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills.
"We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement."
The House planned to vote Thursday on the bill.
While the precise details remained in flux, officials said the legislation would likely threaten billions of dollars in reconstruction aid if the Iraqi government failed to make progress on political and security goals.
But Democrats planned to drop provisions from an earlier bill — vetoed by the president — that would have demanded troops start coming home this fall.
Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Your last post WB is the divisive rhetoric you say Dems are guilty of. Seizing upon some comments to paint a whole party isn't right & helps accomplish what you don't want to do, demoralize the troops. I understand you honestly feel that way but your talking to someone who does support the troops, is a Dem & doesn't make the comments that you attribute to my party. Neither do I see other more liberal posters in this forum engaging in what you attribute to them.
The "some" comments you refer to come from every one of the Democrat leaders in the House, Senate and the DNC.
Howard Dean: "There's no way we can win..."
Harry Reid: "We've lost the war..."
Richard Gephardt: "Miserable failure..."
Dick Durbin: compared U.S. soldiers to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the [Cambodian] Pol Pot regime..."
And similar remarks from Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Murtha, Al Gore... pretty much every Democrat on Capitol Hill. Except for Joseph Lieberman, who you've far from voiced any support of.
Again I point out: These remarks by Democrat leadership, an overwhelming majority of Democrat leaders, attack the ability of our military to win in any circumstances, not just under Bush's leadership.
And have now openly conspired to cut off funding for our military forces in Iraq.
And these remarks have been consistent since the beginning of the war, not simply when things have gone wrong.
Democrats have consistently attacked the military's ability to win, in any circumstance.
And don't imagine for a second that Al Jazeera and Al Qaida aren't hanging on every Jihad-inspiring soundbyte from these Democrats with a jubilant "Praise Allah!"
Let me ask you, M E M: Who is this mythical group of Democrats who aren't the Democrat leadership, and aren't the majority of Democrats, who allegedly support our military in Iraq ?!?
I don't view advocacy of bringing our troops home before the job is done, so they and our nation can be attacked on our home soil later, as Al Qaida and various cels have repeatedly attempted already, to be "support" of our military, by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
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 was responding to this WB...
Quote:
And I also blame Democrats for saying they "support the troops" while undermining their morale, alleging that they're comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Pol Pot regime", when less than a dozen U.S. soldiers were involved in inappropriate treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and were courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes.
But still, Democrats smear the 150,000 troops who were not convicted, painting a false image to the public, and negatively impacting the morale of our soldiers. And providing soundbytes for Al Jazzeera, and for Al Qaida indoctrination videos.
I don't know if you meant to include that being against the war was being against the troops but this paragraph sounds like your saying that all Dems are talking like the troops are Nazis. That is very untrue & you continually exagerate this. I can understand why somebody would do this as a political stratagy but let's not confuse that with supporting the troops. When you make these exagerations your the one being divisive & demorralizing.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
you know WB, sometimes in the real world there are situations that are just unworkable. It's not cowardice or surrendering to admit that something is just too fucked up to work.
Bush lost the war, he turned Iraq into a mess. He lost the war, all that we're doing now is wasting the lives and time of the troops by forcing them to stay there so Bush won't be too embarassed.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
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 was responding to this WB...
Quote:
And I also blame Democrats for saying they "support the troops" while undermining their morale, alleging that they're comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Pol Pot regime", when less than a dozen U.S. soldiers were involved in inappropriate treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and were courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes.
But still, Democrats smear the 150,000 troops who were not convicted, painting a false image to the public, and negatively impacting the morale of our soldiers. And providing soundbytes for Al Jazzeera, and for Al Qaida indoctrination videos.
I don't know if you meant to include that being against the war was being against the troops but this paragraph sounds like your saying that all Dems are talking like the troops are Nazis. That is very untrue & you continually exagerate this. I can understand why somebody would do this as a political [strategy] but let's not confuse that with supporting the troops. When you make these exagerations [you're] the one being divisive & [demoralizing].
Again, it's not an exaggeration.
Democratic leadership saying the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are guilty of killing innocent Iraqis is a widely-voiced sentiment among liberal/Democrats.
They constantly bemoan how "Bush's war" is "blood for oil" that has gained Iraq's oil-wealth at the expense of Iraqis in an unnecessary and unjustifialbe war.
It's a liberal argument that ignores that:
- We had been fighting an unofficial war with Saddam Hussein almost since the 1991 cease-fire, that we set up Northern and Southern no-fly zones over huge portions of Iraq to keep Saddam's military from slaughtering thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites inside his dominion.
- That Saddam's forces fired on U.S. planes every day, in a containment policy that cost the U.S. military 2 billion dollars a year.
- That Saddam also violated, and outright defied, the 1991 U.N. agreement, to continue his pursuit of WMD's, that the David Kay report said he had ready to go into production as soon as U.S. sanctions and inspections would have been lifted.
- That Saddam also slaughtered roughly 1 million of his people, who are still being unearthed in hundreds of mass graves across Iraq.
- That Saddam also plotted an assassination attempt on former president Bush (Sr).
All of which give plenty of justification for invasion of Iraq, in sharp contrast to liberal allegations of "blood for oil" that implies the most evil, greedy and self-serving intentions for the invasion.
The war has not gone well so far, granted.
But it is liberals who consistently slander the intentions of our nation for going in, and constantly anticipate failure and the worst intentions among not only those conducting the war from the Bush administration, and not even stopping with the non-partisan career military generals in the Pentagon, but also assume the worst intentions of our soldiers in the field as a whole, with sweeping generalizations.
This is again proven in the example of Abu Ghraib: Less than a dozen soldiers and CIA/civilian interrogators were involved in the harassment and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. (Who, by the way, were investigated, prosecuted, court-martialed, and imprisoned by the U.S. military, not some outside authority. They were tried by the U.S. military for their improper conduct)
But time and again in these debates over Abu Ghraib, liberals imply (without evidence, beyond pure assumption and their contempt for our military) that these crimes are not limited to a few soldiers taking unauthorized liberties with prisoners, but that repeat over and over that this conduct is rampant among American soldiers in Iraq.
Again: if that's not contempt for our soldiers, and the very effort to fight for democracy in Iraq, I don't know what is.
The quote I've given of U.S. soldiers being comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet gulags, and the Pol Pot regime..." is, again, quoted from Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, who said this in the weeks after the Abu Ghraib story broke.
Not one Democrat that I saw raised his voice to criticize the remark.
It was the outrage of Republicans who demanded Sen Durbin apologize for the remark, that finally brought Durbin to apologize about 2 weeks later, and then act afterwards like he was misrepresented by Republicans and never actually said what he clearly did say.
And since then, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, have made similarly extreme remarks.
The latest being Harry Reid about two weeks ago, who said We've lost the war".
Not Bush has mismanaged the war.
Not that we need better leadership to win the war.
But that there's no point in continuing to fight, our military is powerless to win in any scenario. We've lost the war, he said.
And that is supportive of our soldiers still fighting in Iraq... how ?
Harry Reid. Leader of the Democrat Senate Majority.
But of course, according to you, M E M, these are isolated remarks, that don't represent the majority of Democrats.
I'm not "being divisive" as you allege, M E M. I'm merely repeating the quoted remarks of Democrats, that have smeared our leadership, smeared our military, smeared our morally just reasons for invasion, since day one.
Exposing divisiveness of the Democrats is not the same thing as being divisive.
- 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:
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
you know WB, sometimes in the real world there are situations that are just unworkable. It's not cowardice or surrendering to admit that something is just too fucked up to work.
Bush lost the war, he turned Iraq into a mess. He lost the war, all that we're doing now is wasting the lives and time of the troops by forcing them to stay there so Bush won't be too embarassed.
With all due respect, that opinion of yours has absolutely nothing to do with the real world.
At this point, the Iraq war is estimated to have cost about 400 billion dollars.
It has cost about 3,400 lives, in a period of 4 years and two months of war.
In less time than that, the U.S. lost 400,000 lives in World War II.
In less time than that, the U.S. lost 54,000 lives in the Korean War.
The cost in Iraq is remarkably small, as compared to other wars.
As I pointed out previously, the Battle of Iwo Jima, in about 5 weeks of fighting, cost about 7,000 lives in a period of just 5 weeks.
That single battle had more than double the dead that the entire war has taken in Iraq.
The United States has an annual economy of 14 trillion dollars.
There is absolutely no way we could lose in Iraq, if the entire nation was committed to winning and fully supported the war effort.
And again, if the mindset you reflect were present in these earlier eras, we would have lost World War II, and we would have lost in Korea.
Not because we didn't have the ability to win, but because of the confused hippie bullshit liberal propaganda that would have undermined our will to do what was necessary to win, and to preserve our nation from the long-term threat that clearly exists, and won't end with us just packing up and leaving Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
holden mcgroin said:
With all due respect, that opinion of yours has absolutely nothing to do with the real world.
Do you even read your posts?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
rex said:
Quote:
holden mcgroin said:
With all due respect, that opinion of yours has absolutely nothing to do with the real world.
Do you even read your posts?
I offer arguments with a factual basis.
You offer vague condescension with no logical argument to support it.
Try again when you're capable of presenting a valid argument for your perspective.
Short of that... your opinion doesn't mean very much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Instead of repeating it I'll just say my previous post still stands IMHO.
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:
Instead of repeating it I'll just say my previous post still stands IMHO.
I just explained that I wasn't quoting some far-wing crazies who call themselves Democrats. I was quoting Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Howard Dean... the core leadership of the Democrat party.
These are the people who speak for Democrats as a whole.
In addition, I could show you a consistent pattern of remarks by liberals posting here on RKMB as well, questioning the necessity of this war, and questioning the conduct of our soldiers as a whole in Iraq and elsewhere.
Again, all this translates to great anti-American soundbytes, that are used for anti-American propaganda, and to rally islamic-jihadist recruits.
I haven't seen you write a single word that convinces me otherwise.
I fail to see how your words and divisive tactics, and the larger vicious words and actions of your party, do anything but endanger our soldiers and our nation. Far from supporting them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Aside from the Durbin quote which he apolgized for, your quotes from the Dem leaders are aimed at a President who deserves them. They support the troops but not failed leadership.
At this point in time it's not I who needs to convince you. You have till '08. Maybe even less since it appears the GOP is getting twitchy since the last election.
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:
Aside from the Durbin quote which he apolgized for, your quotes from the Dem leaders are aimed at a President who deserves them. They support the troops but not failed leadership.
At this point in time it's not I who needs to convince you. You have till '08. Maybe even less since it appears the GOP is getting twitchy since the last election.
Richard Gephardt: "Miserable failure..."
I don't see Bush specified in that recurrent phrase he used for months.
Howard Dean: "There's no way we can win in Iraq..."
Again, I don't see Bush specified in those remarks. As I pointed out previously, Dean is saying there's no way we can win, no matter who's doing the fighting, no matter who's in command.
Richard Durbin: "...comparable to Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime..."
Again, no mention of Bush, clearly he's talking about troops on the ground, not leadership in Washington.
Harry Reid: "We've lost the war...
Again, way beyond criticism of Bush, there's no suggestion that alternative leadership could win the war in any circumstance, again undermining not just Bush, but clearly undermining the efforts of our soldiers on the ground, no matter who is in command.
from the PBS news report I posted above, a liberal anti-war protestor: "We want our troops home now, General Petraeus is betraying us..."
Clearly attacking our military in Iraq, not just President Bush.
I see a lot of evasive rationalization in your argument, M E M, attempting to circumnavigate what has clearly been said, not just about Bush, but undermining fighting the war in any circumstance, regardless of Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Aside from the Durbin quote which he apolgized for, your quotes from the Dem leaders are aimed at a President who deserves them. They support the troops but not failed leadership.
At this point in time it's not I who needs to convince you. You have till '08. Maybe even less since it appears the GOP is getting twitchy since the last election.
Richard Gephardt: "Miserable failure..."
I don't see Bush specified in that recurrent phrase he used for months.
Howard Dean: "There's no way we can win in Iraq..."
Again, I don't see Bush specified in those remarks. As I pointed out previously, Dean is saying there's no way we can win, no matter who's doing the fighting, no matter who's in command.
Richard Durbin: "...comparable to Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime..."
Again, no mention of Bush, clearly he's talking about troops on the ground, not leadership in Washington.
Harry Reid: "We've lost the war...
Again, way beyond criticism of Bush, there's no suggestion that alternative leadership could win the war in any circumstance, again undermining not just Bush, but clearly undermining the efforts of our soldiers on the ground, no matter who is in command.
from the PBS news report I posted above, a liberal anti-war protestor: "We want our troops home now, General Petraeus is betraying us..."
Clearly attacking our military in Iraq, not just President Bush.
I see a lot of evasive rationalization in your argument, M E M, attempting to circumnavigate what has clearly been said, not just about Bush, but undermining fighting the war in any circumstance, regardless of Bush.
Your point is, quite frankly, unamerican.
We have the right to criticize our leaders and their policies. Soldiers are really just tools in war, they don't make choices on policy or strategy. So to insult the war or the failures is to insult the people making those choices. The only way they'd be insulting the troops is if they insulted them personally (eg. "fuck the troops, who cares how many have to die.").
In fact to mismanage a war where soldiers' lives are on the line is literally not "supporting" the troops.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Your point is, quite frankly, unamerican.
We have the right to criticize our leaders and their policies. Soldiers are really just tools in war, they don't make choices on policy or strategy. So to insult the war or the failures is to insult the people making those choices. The only way they'd be insulting the troops is if they insulted them personally (eg. "fuck the troops, who cares how many have to die.").
In fact to mismanage a war where soldiers' lives are on the line is literally not "supporting" the troops.
It's impossible to be pro-military and be anti-war.
You're basically calling the soldiers stupid for not defying their superiors when you say they're corresponding with orders from evil dictators. All the while you're saying that you support them...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
In WWII "supporting the troops" meant doing scrap metal drives, buying war bonds, etc. Today "supporting the troops" mean not questioning the war or the people running the show.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
So where the FUCK are your bags of empty tin cans? 
|
|
|
|
|
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 CLINTON-OBAMA WHITE FLAGDemocratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, both hurtling ever-leftward, covered themselves with the Move-On.org crowd this week by voting against the Iraq war-funding bill because it no longer imposed deadlines for withdrawing U.S. forces.
This despite the fact that both maintain they "support our troops" - and, until recently, had rejected the idea of cutting off funding.
And the fact that last year both voted against setting any timetable for troop withdrawals.
In other words, when it comes to deadlines and funding cutoffs, both senators were against it before they were for it.
Though when it comes to the war itself, Hillary was for it before she was against it.
Sen. Clinton seems to take her cues from whatever public-opinion polls are saying at any given moment - particularly those that have her falling behind in Iowa.
As Sen. John McCain rightly noted, what Obama and Clinton did is "adopt the policy of surrender" and "the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda."
The two Democrats each hope to become the nation's commander-in-chief come January 2009. How would they presume to fight a war, if necessary, with Congress setting artificial deadlines that bear no relation to the actual situation onthe ground?
Let's hope they - and we - never have to find out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
So where the FUCK are your bags of empty tin cans?
i'm not the one going on about how much i support the troops. why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy some armor that the government doesn't give them?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
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'm pretty sure that Ray has admitted in the past that he doesn't support the troops.
|
|
|
|
|
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 pretty sure that Ray has admitted in the past that he doesn't support the troops.
It's probably because your not very well rested.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
So where the FUCK are your bags of empty tin cans?
i'm not the one going on about how much i support the troops. why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy some armor that the government doesn't give them?
I'm running out of room for it. The piles are starting to get a bit deep. 
|
|
|
|
|
