Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

11-12-2007, 05:10 AM

Despite all the good news coming from iraq, the success of the US military, and al Qaeda on the roles - Dems still are trying to get the US to surrender to the terrorists

The surrender date in the latest bill shows Dems have no desire to9 stand up to the terrorists - even when we are winning

Pelosi's surrender date
These are difficult days for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who have staked their political futures on an American defeat in Iraq. In the past 10 days alone, the mainstream media has reported the new reality: that the changes in military strategy instituted by Gen. David Petraeus are resulting in major improvements in the security situation there.

For example, the Associated Press reported: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle." According to The Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006." And on Thursday, the New York Times noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Responding to the good news, Mrs. Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort: House Democrats this week will try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year (in other words, announcing a date to surrender Iraq to the very jihadists that coalition forces are defeating on the battlefield right now.) The surrender language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion funding package for the war in Iraq, roughly one quarter of the funding requested by President Bush. The president, in all likelihood, will be forced to veto this irresponsible bill, which will once again jeopardize funding for the troops.

The contrast could hardly be any more striking: American soldiers perform heroically and successfully, risking their lives on the battlefield in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, by contrast, look for new ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy -— in effect, to tell al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that if it can hold out against U.S. forces for another year, "progressive" politicians in Washington will deliver the votes to ensure that Iraq becomes a jihadist colony.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071112/EDITORIAL/111120007/1013

red states rule

11-12-2007, 05:17 AM

No matter how you look at it, the US is winning the fight in Iraq
Al-Maliki trumpets decline of terror acts
By Lauren Frayer

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday that suicide attacks and other bombings in the Iraqi capital have dropped dramatically since last year's high, calling it a sign of the end of sectarian violence. A top U.S. general here said he thinks the drop is sustainable, as Iraqis turn away from extremists.

Mr. al-Maliki said "terrorist acts," including car bombings and other spectacular, al Qaeda-style attacks, dropped 77 percent. He called it a sign that Sunni-Shi'ite violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realizing now that what Baghdad was seeing every day — dead bodies in the streets and morgues — is ebbing remarkably," Mr. al-Maliki told reporters at his office in the U.S.-guarded Green Zone.

"This is an indication that sectarianism intended as a gate of evil and fire in Iraq is now closed," he said.

Before the arrival of nearly 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last spring, explosions shook Baghdad daily — sometimes hourly. Now the sounds of warfare are rare.

U.S. troops have set up small outposts in some of the capital's most dangerous enclaves. Locals previously lukewarm to the presence of U.S. troops patrol alongside them. And a historic lane on the eastern banks of the Tigris River is set to reopen later this year, lined with seafood restaurants and an art gallery.

Mr. al-Maliki's assessment yesterday matched those of U.S. military officials, and is borne out by AP figures that show a sharp drop in the number of U.S. and Iraqi deaths in the past few months. The number of Iraqi civilians who meet violent deaths dropped from at least 1,023 in September to at least 905 in October, according to an AP count.

The number of U.S. military deaths fell from 65 to at least 39 over the same period.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/FOREIGN/111120063/1001

April15

11-12-2007, 05:51 PM

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

red states rule

11-12-2007, 05:53 PM

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

Party before country April?

The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender

Amazing

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:39 AM

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

By all means, let leave while we are winning

Iraq rocket, mortar fire at 21-month low By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 12, 11:53 AM ET

BAGHDAD - Rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have decreased to their lowest levels in more than 21 months, the U.S. military said Monday. In the capital, Iraqi officials said a taxi driver was shot dead by a private security guard hired to protect U.S. convoys.

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks — the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

The U.S. command issued the tallies a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also have dropped dramatically, calling it an end of sectarian violence.

Despite the drop in violence, the capital remains tense and al-Maliki and other Iraqi and foreign officials are under heavy protection.

Embassy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said the company involved in Saturday's shooting was DynCorp International, one of three firms contracted to protect American officials in Iraq.

Reeker could not confirm anyone had died, and he would not say who the seven-vehicle convoy was carrying nor give its destination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071029195379

retiredman

11-13-2007, 07:47 AM

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:55 AM

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

Trying to change the subject again MM?

Dems have been trying to push their surrender bills since they took office and have lost everytime

Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq

By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
Nov 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html

retiredman

11-13-2007, 10:03 AM

Trying to change the subject again MM?

I am not trying to change the subject at all.

YOU just got done saying, "The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender."

I asked you if you considered there to be a difference between terrorists and insurgents, be they shiite or sunni.

Do you have an answer to that, or will you respond with yet another lame ope-ed cut and paste in lieu of actually having to come up with anything on your own?

red states rule

11-13-2007, 10:05 AM

I am not trying to change the subject at all.

YOU just got done saying, "The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender."

I asked you if you considered there to be a difference between terrorists and insurgents, be they shiite or sunni.

Do you have an answer to that, or will you respond with yet another lame ope-ed cut and paste in lieu of actually having to come up with anything on your own?

We are winning in Iraq. The liberal media lack of coverage proves it

Libs like you MM do not care about the troops, you do not care about defeating terrorists. You do care aboput your power, and appeasing the terrorists and your kook base

A 'FORGOTTEN' WAR
AS IRAQ IMPROVES, COVERAGE DRIES UP

November 13, 2007 -- LAST weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The "mainstream media" honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.

All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.

Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the "leading" newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.

Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.

Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?

The media's new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything's still a disaster.

God knows, I sympathize with - and respect - those who've sacrificed life or limb in our country's service. I just hate to see them used as political tools.

How many of you really believe that those perfectly coiffed reporters care about our soldiers and their families? Does anyone think those news anchors will invite any Marines in wheelchairs home for Thanksgiving
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_forgotten_war_700971.htm

retiredman

11-13-2007, 10:19 AM

red states rule

11-13-2007, 10:20 AM

[/size][/color]

and true to form, RSR answers the question in his own inimitable way!:laugh2:

You hate seeing proof how your party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

retiredman

11-13-2007, 10:28 AM

You hate seeing proof how your party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

no...I love to watch you prove what an intellectual lightweight you are by being absolutely incapable of stringing six sentences together in anything that even remotely resembles independent thought!:lol:

red states rule

11-13-2007, 10:30 AM

no...I love to watch you prove what an intellectual lightweight you are by being absolutely incapable of stringing six sentences together in anything that even remotely resembles independent thought!:lol:

Translation - Stop posting links that back up your claim my Dems are still pushing for surrender despite the fact the surge is working, and the US is winning

To MM, party before country and the US military

manu1959

11-13-2007, 11:02 AM

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

Hagbard Celine

11-13-2007, 11:07 AM

red states rule

11-13-2007, 11:09 AM

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

I remember how Dem James Clyburn told the Washington Post, if the Petraeus report showed progress and there is good news coming from Iraq, it "would be a problem" for the Dems

He was right

snip

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

Classact

11-13-2007, 11:43 AM

The Democratic Party leadership just held a press conference on the bridge war funding and it is all about politics as usual. They know they don't have the votes to pass a funding with strings attached let alone have enough votes to sustain a veto. They are doing it for cover as they accomplish NOTHING in appropriations for running the government. They need something for their members to stump on as they go for election other than we aren't getting shit accomplished.

If they had any gonads at all they would simply pass a resolution stating no more funds will be authorized for the Iraq War other than those necessary to return personnel and equipment. The House leadership has to BUY votes from the Black and Hispanic Caucus to vote yes on funding the war in any way... Nancy is going to look stupid in public as she has to suck it up and send bush the Blank Check he demands or she will have to get gonads and join her Black and Hispanic Caucuses to end funding.

The congress will not cut off funds for the troops while they are in harms way and the president will not budge so Nancy and Harry will have to fold when the heat gets hot... If they don't fold then it is there war to inherit in 08 because Bush will stay until there is zero money and then leave the equipment on the battlefield as he evacuates our troops that were not funded by the Democratic Party. Bush will not fold and that means the dems have to fold or leave the troops high and dry. Either way the dems lose.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 11:49 AM

retiredman

11-13-2007, 11:51 AM

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

Clinton ORIGINALLY appointed him. Bush REappointed him by asking him to stay on. sorry.

retiredman

11-13-2007, 11:54 AM

Translation - Stop posting links that back up your claim my Dems are still pushing for surrender despite the fact the surge is working, and the US is winning

To MM, party before country and the US military

bullshit, as always. the "translation" is: learn to think for yourself.

And my country is always before my allegiance to party.

now will you tell me the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?

red states rule

11-13-2007, 11:56 AM

bullshit, as always. the "translation" is: learn to think for yourself.

And my country is always before my allegiance to party.

now will you tell me the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?

The translation fits. Your party has gone out of its way to slime, insult, and undermine the troops - and at the same time help the terrorists any way possible

Despite all their attempts, the troops are winning and Dems are still doing all they can to ensure defeat in Iraq

glockmail

11-13-2007, 01:21 PM

So where do you stand RSR? Other than whining about the presented options for bringing our military home of course. Are you hoping for an indefinite US presence in Iraq? In your opinion should we build permanent bases there and set up shop forever?I've said all along that should be the strategy. A permanent US base right in dead center of Jihad-ville would be a huge deterrent to the bad guys over there.

glockmail

11-13-2007, 01:26 PM

red states rule

11-13-2007, 01:28 PM

Here we have the fucking pedophile attempting to change the subject and bring up unrelated issues. :fu:

Situation normal

glockmail

11-13-2007, 01:44 PM

Situation normal It happens whenever he's been proven wrong, which is nearly always. A real man would admit that he's in over his head or go home, but not this faggot.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 01:47 PM

It happens whenever he's been proven wrong, which is nearly always. A real man would admit that he's in over his head or go home, but not this faggot.

With people like MM, it is party before anything else. it is sort of like the Mafia.

Say nothing bad about the family, pledge blind loyalty to those in power, and silence anyone who speaks out against them

Meanwhile, the troops are on the recieving end of the Dems defeatest attitude and plots to undermine them

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:05 PM

The translation fits. Your party has gone out of its way to slime, insult, and undermine the troops - and at the same time help the terrorists any way possible

Despite all their attempts, the troops are winning and Dems are still doing all they can to ensure defeat in Iraq

more flatulent rhetoric from the king of flatulence. what WOULD you do without Limbaugh talking points??

I have NEVER slimed or insulted our troops in any way.... and certainly NEVER tried to undermine them in the least.

Having a discussion about the wisdom of the civilian leadership's use of the military in the conduct of foreign policy is, in no way, a denigration of the brave troops out trying to accomplish the mission given to them.

and I think it is absolutely hilarious that a guy with an avatar on another site that reads "hardcore conservative" would have the nerve to call anyone else for placing party over country, when they so blythely abandon hardcore conservative values and embrace a cross dressing, thrice married, serial philandering, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control New York MODERATE for the sole reason that they think he can hold the white house for them. :lol:

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:07 PM

more flatulent rhetoric from the king of flatulence. what WOULD you do without Limbaugh talking points??

I have NEVER slimed or insulted our troops in any way.... and certainly NEVER tried to undermine them in the least.

Having a discussion about the wisdom of the civilian leadership's use of the military in the conduct of foreign policy is, in no way, a denigration of the brave troops out trying to accomplish the mission given to them.

Your party has, and you have defended them on a daily basis. Of course your party and the liberal media have been in a bad mood lately since the good news has been pouring out of Iraq

and the liberal media has been trying to ignore it

In wartime, low death toll is news, too

By: Richard Benedetto
Nov 12, 2007 08:33 PM EST

Those who argue that the media play up bad news from Iraq and play down good news picked up some added ammunition for their argument recently when many major news organizations buried or ignored the news that U.S. troop deaths in Iraq in September were at their lowest monthly level since March 2006.

None of the top newspapers played it on their Oct. 31 front page, the day after the reports were released.

Many, including The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and USA Today, played it well inside the paper. But some, including The New York Times, The Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, didn’t mention it at all, instead trumpeting bad news from Iraq.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Oct. 31 that “three American soldiers were killed Tuesday southeast of Baghdad when their patrol struck a roadside bomb.”

The Boston Globe had a story that led, “The Iraqi government approved a draft law yesterday to lift immunity for foreign security companies including Blackwater USA.”

The news-play situation was far different last May, after the monthly number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq hit a high for the year in April: “April Toll Is Highest of ’07 for U.S. Troops,” said a Page 1 headline on May 1 in The Washington Post. Many other newspapers followed suit, putting the story on their front pages.

That’s fine. But when the news came that the U.S. death toll in October was the lowest in 17 months, the Post buried it on Page A14.

On Page 1 that same day, there were two Iraq-related stories — both negative: one about the “frayed alliance” between the U.S. and Pakistan and one on how President Bush’s nominee for attorney general was losing Democratic support because of his “unsure” stand on waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique used on suspected terrorists.

Meanwhile, The New York Times, which ignored the lower-troop-deaths story on Oct. 31, did have on its front page a seemingly less newsworthy Iraq story that said the U.S. military will oversee private security contractors such as Blackwater USA, which has been accused of recklessly killing Iraqi civilians.

So what kinds of stories deserve Page 1 treatment

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6830.html

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:15 PM

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:16 PM

I have never defended anyone who slimed or insulted our troops in the field. never.

can you ever lay off the cut and paste bullshit and try writing something of substance on your own once in a while?

You defended Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, and Murtha to name a few

Again, you hate to see proof of the liberal media gifing only the liberal side of an issue

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:19 PM

I do not think that any of those men slimed or insulted our troops in the field. In the case of Murtha, I have stated that his use of the word "murder" was inappropriate.

and I don't "hate" your cut and paste stuff....I just grow weary of it, and wonder if, here on an internet discussion site, you will EVER offer anything of substance of your own creation that we might discuss.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:20 PM

I do not think that any of those men slimed or insulted our troops in the field. In the case of Murtha, I have stated that his use of the word "murder" was inappropriate.

Of course not

You are loyal lib and party comes before anything else

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:23 PM

bullshit.

and like I said, for a hardcore conservative Rudy supporter, you really are in no position to criticize others for their party loyalty!:laugh2:

Tancredo and Hunter, to name two off the top of my head, are both candidates who stand exactly with you on the war on terror and on taxes and on judges, but yet, you'd prefer to go with the crossdressing prochoice moderate...why? because you think he is electable. party over principle!

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:24 PM

bullshit.

and like I said, for a hardcore conservative Rudy supporter, you really are in no position to criticize others for their party loyalty!:laugh2:

Ah, back to changing the subject again

It's Ok. We all know you are lying and can't back up your statement MM

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:27 PM

not changing the subject at all...when someone like you who claims to be a hardcore conservative but is supporting Rudy attacks ME for my party loyalty, then you should expect to be called on it.

glockmail

11-13-2007, 02:28 PM

I do not think that any of those men slimed or insulted our troops in the field. ..... Proving your lack of intellectual honesty once again.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:29 PM

not changing the subject at all...when someone like you who claims to be a hardcore conservative but is supporting Rudy attacks ME for my party loyalty, then you should expect to be called on it.

I have openly said on many issues where my party leaders are wrong

You on the other hand, stand on the sidelines while elected Dems slander and insult the troops

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:32 PM

I have openly said on many issues where my party leaders are wrong

You on the other hand, stand on the sidelines while elected Dems slander and insult the troops

bullshit. I disagree with your characterization of sliming and slandering. that is just Rush talking points hype. And just because I don't air dirty laundry on internet message boards is hardly proof that I stand on the sidelines.

And do you disagree with your party leaders to the point where you would vote for a democrat?

I didn't think so. party over principle for RSR

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:33 PM

bullshit. just because I don't air dirty laundry on internet message boards is hardly proof that I stand on the sidelines.

And do you disagree with your party leaders to the point where you would vote for a democrat?

I didn't think so. party over principle for RSR

You do stand on the sidelines while your party walks over the troops and ignores their accomplishments

Your silence tells us everything we need to know about you

retiredman

11-13-2007, 02:35 PM

You do stand on the sidelines while your party walks over the troops and ignores their accomplishments

Your silence tells us everything we need to know about you

again...it is incorrect to assume that I am silent about anything when it comes to communicating with my party's elected leaders.

and I notice you avoided answering yet another one of my questions!

glockmail

11-13-2007, 02:35 PM

I have openly said on many issues where my party leaders are wrong

You on the other hand, stand on the sidelines while elected Dems slander and insult the troops
I find it amazing that John Kerry can testify before congress and call our troops rapists and murderers yet HFM defends him. And when people tell the truth about Kerry HMF attacks them as "swift-boaters".

red states rule

11-13-2007, 02:38 PM

I find it amazing that John Kerry can testify before congress and call our troops rapists and murderers yet HFM defends him. And when people tell the truth about Kerry HMF attacks them as "swift-boaters".

He defended Kerry when he called the troops terrorists and uneducated. MM gave Murtha a pass when he said the Marines killed in cold blood (some have been proven innocnet) MM was silent when Sen Durbin compared the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot. Finally, MM did not say a word against Ted Kennedy when he bellowed how Saddam's torture chambers were now under new management - the US military

MM's record speaks for itself

glockmail

11-13-2007, 02:53 PM

He defended Kerry when he called the troops terrorists and uneducated. MM gave Murtha a pass when he said the Marines killed in cold blood (some have been proven innocnet) MM was silent when Sen Durbin compared the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot. Finally, MM did not say a word against Ted Kennedy when he bellowed how Saddam's torture chambers were now under new management - the US military

MM's record speaks for itself HFM must have gotten VD some a homosexual encouter while as a cook in the Navy, and it went to his brain.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 03:23 PM

again...it is incorrect to assume that I am silent about anything when it comes to communicating with my party's elected leaders.

and I notice you avoided answering yet another one of my questions!

Your silence and defense of the smears is very telling

retiredman

11-13-2007, 03:24 PM

Kerry never called our troops terrorists.

I have said that Murtha spoke prematurely and intemperately.

Durbin compared the interrogation tactics authorized by our government to those used in totalitarian regimes. He never compared our troops to anyone.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 03:24 PM

glockmail

11-13-2007, 03:30 PM

Kerry never called our troops terrorists. .....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN FUCKING KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971

red states rule

11-13-2007, 03:32 PM

VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN FUCKING KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971

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 -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not.

John Boy on Face the Nation

glockmail

11-13-2007, 03:38 PM

red states rule

11-13-2007, 03:39 PM

No JFK doesn't have a history of calling our troops terrorists and HFM is not defending him for not doing so.

Give me a fucking break.

Lets not forget Sen Dick Turbin comparing the troops to Pol Pot and Nazi's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7FaSEQ-fKc

glockmail

11-13-2007, 04:11 PM

Lets not forget Sen Dick Turbin comparing the troops to Pol Pot and Nazi's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7FaSEQ-fKc How anyone can watch taht and still defend the man is beyond my understanding. Then again I can't understand queers and pedophiles either.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 04:12 PM

How anyone can watch taht and still defend the man is beyond my understanding. Then again I can't understand queers and pedophiles either.

Have no fear - MM will be Sen Turbin's Perry Mason and will leap to his defense

glockmail

11-13-2007, 04:18 PM

Have no fear - MM will be Sen Turbin's Perry Mason and will leap to his defense What I fear is flipping through channles and seeing HFM swallowing Durbin's dick with balls-on-chin.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 04:24 PM

What I fear is flipping through channles and seeing HFM swallowing Durbin's dick with balls-on-chin.

Here is another example of Dems supporting the troops

"On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'"

"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Teddy (hic) Kennedy

Hagbard Celine

11-13-2007, 04:58 PM

You hate seeing proof how your party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

You're an incurable moron. Who are we going to have victory against RSR? Who are we "fighting" this war against? If you say "terrorists" I'm putting you back on my ignore list.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 05:01 PM

You're an incurable moron. Who are we going to have victory against RSR? Who are we "fighting" this war against? If you say "terrorists" I'm putting you back on my ignore list.

I see there is another liberal who can't accept the fact the US military is winning the fight, the liberal media is trying to bury the news, and how the Dems are pushing for surrender

Even the Washington Post reported how the troops drove al Qaeda out of a province. They did bury it on page 1-19 and did not mention al qaeda in the headline

Guernicaa

11-13-2007, 05:30 PM

I see there is another liberal who can't accept the fact the US military is winning the fight, the liberal media is trying to bury the news, and how the Dems are pushing for surrender

Even the Washington Post reported how the troops drove al Qaeda out of a province. They did bury it on page 1-19 and did not mention al qaeda in the headline
You mean the New York Times you fucking idiot?
And it wasn't 1-19, it was A-19...Funny thing is, I remember this because you were the one who started a thread about it:
http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8574&highlight=good+news+iraq

And as much as it may be "good", it is far overshadowed by the high number of negative things that continue to happen.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 05:31 PM

You mean the New York Times you fucking idiot?
And it wasn't 1-19, it was A-19...Funny thing is, I remember this because you were the one who started a thread about it:
http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8574&highlight=good+news+iraq

And as much as it may be "good", it is far overshadowed by the high number of negative things that continue to happen in Iraq.

Thanks for admitting they buried the good news and did not mention al Qaeda was defeated

Guernicaa

11-13-2007, 05:47 PM

Thanks for admitting they buried the good news and did not mention al Qaeda was defeated
I don't believe I admitted anything...
I do believe, however, that I just proved you're a fucking moron and can't even remember where you read an article.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 05:47 PM

I don't believe I admitted anything...
I do believe, however, that I just proved you're a fucking moron and can't even remember where you read an article.

you posted how they buried the good news

Guernicaa

11-13-2007, 06:02 PM

you posted how they buried the good news
No, I posted how you're so incredibly stupid that you can't remember anything.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 06:04 PM

No, I posted how you're so incredibly stupid that you can't remember anything.

Libs and kook left defeatest do hate to read how well the US military is doing - so they deny anything good is happening

What depresses them even more, the good news keep on coming.

So much for the line they support the troops

retiredman

11-13-2007, 07:30 PM

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 -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not.

John Boy on Face the Nation

because you have the english language skills of a turnip, it really doesn't make much sense for me to continue to point out that terrorize is a verb.... that means to frighten. Rabid dogs terrorize neighborhoods...they are not terrorists.... which means someone who uses terror for political purposed. Bullies terrorize playgrounds. They are not terrorists either.

but I know, to dullard morons like you, they sound close enough so who the hell cares, right?:laugh2:

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:31 PM

because you have the english language skills of a turnip, it really doesn't make much sense for me to continue to point out that terrorize is a verb.... that means to frighten. Rabid dogs terrorize neighborhoods...they are not terrorists.... which means someone who uses terror for political purposed. Bullies terrorize playgrounds. They are not terrorists either.

but I know, to dullard morons like you, they sound close enough so who the hell cares, right?:laugh2:

MM rides in on his white horse, in a lame attempt to try and salvage John Boy's image

retiredman

11-13-2007, 07:35 PM

MM rides in on his white horse, in a lame attempt to try and salvage John Boy's image
and your one liners don't disguise your lack of intelligence or your piss poor command of the english language.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:37 PM

and your one liners don't disguise your lack of intelligence or your piss poor command of the english language.

and your Clinton like excuses shows you have put your party ahead of everything else.

The troops, the country, and your soul

retiredman

11-13-2007, 07:40 PM

and your Clinton like excuses shows you have put your party ahead of everything else.

The troops, the country, and your soul

your inaccurate opinion of me has nothing to do with your lack of english language skills.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:41 PM

your inaccurate opinion of me has nothing to do with your lack of english language skills.

it is a very accurate description of you

you follow your party like a Mafia soldier does the family

retiredman

11-13-2007, 07:48 PM

it is a very accurate description of you

you follow your party like a Mafia soldier does the family

again....that's your opinion... which I really don't give a fuck about.

and your opinion does not change the FACT that you have the english language skills of an infant.

red states rule

11-13-2007, 07:51 PM

again....that's your opinion... which I really don't give a fuck about.

and your opinion does not change the FACT that you have the english language skills of an infant.

The facts are, to you and your party, the troops are expendable - as long as you attain your goal of surrender

It makes no difference they are winning. Dems have yearned for the US to lose, and dammit, they are going to everything to make it happen

and you cheer them on

retiredman

11-13-2007, 08:02 PM

The facts are, to you and your party, the troops are expendable - as long as you attain your goal of surrender

It makes no difference they are winning. Dems have yearned for the US to lose, and dammit, they are going to everything to make it happen

and you cheer them on

no. once again, you mistake opinion for fact. it really gets old, after a while.

you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. As a matter of fact, you routinely run away from facts.:laugh2:

red states rule

11-13-2007, 08:10 PM

no. once again, you mistake opinion for fact. it really gets old, after a while.

you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. As a matter of fact, you routinely run away from facts.:laugh2:

It is a fact Dems have bent over backwards to make sure the US loses theis was

Even when the US military is making huge gaines in Iraq

retiredman

11-13-2007, 08:11 PM

It is a fact Dems have bent over backwards to make sure the US loses theis was

Even when the US military is making huge gaines in Iraq

no. it is not a fact. it is your opinion.

:pee:

red states rule

11-13-2007, 08:45 PM

no. it is not a fact. it is your opinion.

:pee:

With Dems now at 0-40 on the surrender bills- it is a fact

They do want the Us to lose in Iraq

retiredman

11-13-2007, 08:50 PM

With Dems now at 0-40 on the surrender bills- it is a fact

They do want the Us to lose in Iraq

no. more bullshit Rush rhetoric.

no democrat wants us to lose anywhere.

have you ever figured out who our "enemies" in Iraq are? I think that would be important to be able to know when we've beaten them, doncha think?

are they terrorists? insurgents? shiite militias? who will we "win" against?

red states rule

11-13-2007, 08:52 PM

no. more bullshit Rush rhetoric.

no democrat wants us to lose anywhere.

have you ever figured out who our "enemies" in Iraq are? I think that would be important to be able to know when we've beaten them, doncha think?

are they terrorists? insurgents? shiite militias? who will we "win" against?

Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq

By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
Nov 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html

Here it is. Dems have fought like hell to lose this war

retiredman

11-13-2007, 08:57 PM

see...this is called a question. when you are in a discussion with someone, and they pose a question, it is common practice to answer the question. maybe you could try again?

have you ever figured out who our "enemies" in Iraq are? I think that would be important to be able to know when we've beaten them, doncha think?

are they terrorists? insurgents? shiite militias? who will we "win" against?

red states rule

11-13-2007, 08:58 PM

see...this is called a question. when you are in a discussion with someone, and they pose a question, it is common practice to answer the question. maybe you could try again?

Backed into a corner with the Dems 0-40 record - now it is time to change the subject

retiredman

11-13-2007, 09:06 PM

Backed into a corner with the Dems 0-40 record - now it is time to change the subject

I am not changing any subject. if you wish to suggest democrats want surrender, why can you not, then, articulate who our enemy is? who would we be surrendering to? who will we be winning against?

glockmail

11-13-2007, 10:07 PM

....And it wasn't 1-19, it was A-19... ..... Like it fucking matters? :lame2:

glockmail

11-13-2007, 10:10 PM

see...this is called a question. when you are in a discussion with someone, and they pose a question, it is common practice to answer the question. maybe you could try again? OK lets try this one: Why are you such a homosexual pedophile?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 06:43 AM

More bad news for the appeasers.............

Are we winning the war?
By David R. Sands and Sharon Behn
November 14, 2007

No one is declaring victory, but cautious optimists on the U.S.-led war in Iraq suddenly find themselves armed with a growing number of indicators that the fighting has taken a new, more hopeful turn.

U.S. military fatalities are down sharply, from 101 in June to 39 in October. Iraqi civilian deaths also were down sharply, from 1,791 in August to 750 in October, according to the Associated Press. Mortar rocket attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest since February 2006, as were the number of "indirect fire" attacks on coalition forces.

Iraqi officials say they plan to reduce checkpoints, ease curfews and reopen some roads in and around Baghdad because of the improving security situation. Sunni Arab tribal leaders in western Anbar province, now allied with the U.S. military, say al Qaeda is "almost defeated" in their once-chaotic region.

Having been burned repeatedly by past expressions of optimism in the 4½-year-old war, senior Bush administration officials and top military leaders are wary of any temptation to celebrate prematurely.

"We're not shouting victory by any stretch," Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said in a telephone interview from Baghdad. "We are still focused on extremists and criminal-type elements within the region. The violence is still too high."

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said this week that sectarian violence between Shi'ite and Sunni fighters in Baghdad had dropped 77 percent from last year's high.

Mr. al-Maliki called it a sign that sectarian fighting in the capital "is closed now." Some skeptics countered that the drop reflects the fact that ethnic cleansing has now been completed in many once-mixed urban neighborhoods.

An alliance of convenience between U.S. forces and once-hostile Sunni tribes against al Qaeda has become so solid that former Sunni insurgents say they warned American troops to stay away as they took on al Qaeda terrorists themselves in a pitched battle late last week in the city of Samarra that produced heavy al Qaeda casualties.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071114/FOREIGN/111140062/1001

glockmail

11-14-2007, 07:06 AM

.... former Sunni insurgents say they warned American troops to stay away as they took on al Qaeda terrorists themselves in a pitched battle late last week in the city of Samarra that produced heavy al Qaeda casualties..... I'm sure the Sunnis will treat the terrorists humanely when they capture them. :coffee:

red states rule

11-14-2007, 07:12 AM

I'm sure the Sunnis will treat the terrorists humanely when they capture them. :coffee:

Don;t wotry. The Dems will blame Bush if there are any problems

retiredman

11-14-2007, 07:34 AM

I am not changing any subject. if you wish to suggest democrats want surrender, why can you not, then, articulate who our enemy is? who would we be surrendering to? who will we be winning against?

no chance of an answer, I take it?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 07:36 AM

no chance of an answer, I take it?

Keep trying to change the subject. All the great progress the troops are making in Iraq must be depressing the hell out of you

It is causing major problems for your party of surrender and appeasement

retiredman

11-14-2007, 08:01 AM

Keep trying to change the subject. All the great progress the troops are making in Iraq must be depressing the hell out of you

It is causing major problems for your party of surrender and appeasement

the subject of the thread is a supposed push by democrats to surrender. I am asking your who would we actually surrender to, and if we don't "surrender" as you claim we want, who would we be victorious over. Who are our enemies in Iraq, RSR? Are our enemies AQ? Are they sunni insurgents? are they shiite militia members? if you can't tell us who you want to achieve victory over, then your claims that anyone would surrender are equally fatuous.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 08:06 AM

the subject of the thread is a supposed push by democrats to surrender. I am asking your who would we actually surrender to, and if we don't "surrender" as you claim we want, who would we be victorious over. Who are our enemies in Iraq, RSR? Are our enemies AQ? Are they sunni insurgents? are they shiite militia members? if you can't tell us who you want to achieve victory over, then your claims that anyone would surrender are equally fatuous.

Even some liberals in the MSM are starting to warn Dems about their continued efforts to make the US lose the war

From Joe Klein

snip

The reduction of violence is real. The defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq--sneezed at by some antiwar commentators--is nothing to sneeze at. The bottom-up efforts to reconcile Sunnis and Shi'ites across the scarred Anbar/Karbala provincial border, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, quite possibly reflect an Iraqi exhaustion with violence that has to be taken seriously as well. There is no question that the performance of the US military has improved markedly under the smarter, more flexible and creative leadership provided this year by General Petraeus. And the withdrawal of U.S. troops is beginning. The refusal of the antiwar movement--or some sections of it--to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility.

Let me reassert the obvious here: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President. It has weakened America's moral, military and diplomatic status globally. It can not be "won" militarily. The best case scenario is a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us.

Also obvious: There are fewer votes now in Congress--and less cause--to cut off funding for the war than there were last Spring. A renewed campaign on the part of the hapless Democratic leadership to cut off the supplemental funds will only increase the public sense of Democratic futility. It will also play into the very real, and growing, public perception that Democrats are too busy wasting time on symbolic measures (like trying to cut off funds for the war) and shoveling pork (the water projects bill) to pass anything substantive for the public good. Too much time, and political capital, has been wasted fighting Bush legislatively on the war. I'm sure the President and the Republican Party are salivating over the prospect that Democrats will waste more time and capital over it this month...especially at a moment, however fleeting, when the situation on the ground seems to have improved in Iraq. Democrats need to think this over very, very carefully before they proceed.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/are_we_winning_in_iraq.html

retiredman

11-14-2007, 08:13 AM

red states rule

11-14-2007, 08:16 AM

hahahahahaha

cut and paste. that really is all you can do.

did you even READ this first before you posted it:

"Let me reassert the obvious here: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President. It has weakened America's moral, military and diplomatic status globally. It can not be "won" militarily. The best case scenario is a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us."

I am glad you agree with what I have been saying all along! Thanks for posting it!!!:clap:

and this part which you ignored

The reduction of violence is real. The defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq--sneezed at by some antiwar commentators--is nothing to sneeze at. The bottom-up efforts to reconcile Sunnis and Shi'ites across the scarred Anbar/Karbala provincial border, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, quite possibly reflect an Iraqi exhaustion with violence that has to be taken seriously as well. There is no question that the performance of the US military has improved markedly under the smarter, more flexible and creative leadership provided this year by General Petraeus. And the withdrawal of U.S. troops is beginning. The refusal of the antiwar movement--or some sections of it--to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility.

You want to live in the past and bring up old talking points go ahead. The troops are destrying all of them by doing their job - while giving your appeasing party a huge shitburger to chow down on

retiredman

11-14-2007, 08:50 AM

and this part which you ignored

The reduction of violence is real. The defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq--sneezed at by some antiwar commentators--is nothing to sneeze at. The bottom-up efforts to reconcile Sunnis and Shi'ites across the scarred Anbar/Karbala provincial border, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, quite possibly reflect an Iraqi exhaustion with violence that has to be taken seriously as well. There is no question that the performance of the US military has improved markedly under the smarter, more flexible and creative leadership provided this year by General Petraeus. And the withdrawal of U.S. troops is beginning. The refusal of the antiwar movement--or some sections of it--to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility.

You want to live in the past and bring up old talking points go ahead. The troops are destrying all of them by doing their job - while giving your appeasing party a huge shitburger to chow down on

I only quoted a current article that you posted. I am pleased by the downturn in violence and think it is great to get it back down to a level is was two years ago. I am hopeful that we can find our way out of Iraq sooner than later and let the Iraqis iron out the details of what Klien predicts will be at best "a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us."

I happen to believe, however that the influence from Iran will be much more significant than the influence from us. I imagine the final result will have Iraq as a ideological client state of Iran and not the US friendly jeffersonian democracy we have spent two trillion dollars, five years and 31K dead and wounded Americans in a doomed effort to achieve.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 08:52 AM

I only quoted a current article that you posted. I am pleased by the downturn in violence and think it is great to get it back down to a level is was two years ago. I am hopeful that we can find our way out of Iraq sooner than later and let the Iraqis iron out the details of what Klien predicts will be at best "a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us."

I happen to believe, however that the influence from Iran will be much more significant than the influence from us. I imagine the final result will have Iraq as a ideological client state of Iran and not the US friendly jeffersonian democracy we have spent two trillion dollars, five years and 31K dead and wounded Americans in a doomed effort to achieve.

If you are happy (as you claim) please tell your party leaders to put the white flag away and stop their war on reality and Pres bush

retiredman

11-14-2007, 08:56 AM

If you are happy (as you claim) please tell your party leaders to put the white flag away and stop their war on reality and Pres bush

how would you know what I routinely communicate to my elected representatives? And why in the world do you think that I would change my messages to them just to fulfill the requests of a cut and paste one liner party hack moron like YOU?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 09:02 AM

how would you know what I routinely communicate to my elected representatives? And why in the world do you think that I would change my messages to them just to fulfill the requests of a cut and paste one liner party hack moron like YOU?

Yes, being a good little liberal you do as you are told

Keep waving the white flag even in the face of a US victory

retiredman

11-14-2007, 09:39 AM

Yes, being a good little liberal you do as you are told

Keep waving the white flag even in the face of a US victory

I have never waved a white flag. I rarely do as I am told. I speak out to my party leaders and always have.

what did you think of Klein's analysis of the war?

the "stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President"

he's your boy, and I have never heard you do anything but praise him for that decision....but that is what Rush tells to do, isn't it? keep waving those pompoms!

red states rule

11-14-2007, 09:47 AM

I have never waved a white flag. I rarely do as I am told. I speak out to my party leaders and always have.

what did you think of Klein's analysis of the war?

the "stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President"

he's your boy, and I have never heard you do anything but praise him for that decision....but that is what Rush tells to do, isn't it? keep waving those pompoms!

You wave the white flag, and would be proud to hand them out at the Dem convention

With the surge working, the terrorist dying, and the people of Iraq stepping up - you and your party still want to surrender and have the troops leave as losers

All in the name of political gains

retiredman

11-14-2007, 09:51 AM

You wave the white flag, and would be proud to hand them out at the Dem convention

With the surge working, the terrorist dying, and the people of Iraq stepping up - you and your party still want to surrender and have the troops leave as losers

All in the name of political gains

again.... you have yet to tell me who our enemy is and who we supposedly will "lose" to? Or, on the other side of the coin, who must we "win" against to be able to REALLY mean it when we say, "mission accomplished"?

Is it Al Qaeda in Iraq? Is it the Sunni insurgents who have not decided to play ball with US troops in exchange for new weapons? Is it Sadr and his shi'ite militias?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 09:55 AM

again.... you have yet to tell me who our enemy is and who we supposedly will "lose" to? Or, on the other side of the coin, who must we "win" against to be able to REALLY mean it when we say, "mission accomplished"?

Is it Al Qaeda in Iraq? Is it the Sunni insurgents who have not decided to play ball with US troops in exchange for new weapons? Is it Sadr and his shi'ite militias?

from my link

An alliance of convenience between U.S. forces and once-hostile Sunni tribes against al Qaeda has become so solid that former Sunni insurgents say they warned American troops to stay away as they took on al Qaeda terrorists themselves in a pitched battle late last week in the city of Samarra that produced heavy al Qaeda casualties.

I know you were (and stil are) hoping for a civil war, but it is not happening. All the defeatest BS you and your party has sprewed has blown uip in your face

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:03 AM

from my link

An alliance of convenience between U.S. forces and once-hostile Sunni tribes against al Qaeda has become so solid that former Sunni insurgents say they warned American troops to stay away as they took on al Qaeda terrorists themselves in a pitched battle late last week in the city of Samarra that produced heavy al Qaeda casualties.

I know you were (and stil are) hoping for a civil war, but it is not happening. All the defeatest BS you and your party has sprewed has blown uip in your face

are you suggesting that the civil war would be between once hostile sunni tribes and AQ? what does your quote from your link have to do with the potential for civil war?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 10:07 AM

are you suggesting that the civil war would be between once hostile sunni tribes and AQ? what does your quote from your link have to do with the potential for civil war?

Libs like you have been hoping for a civil war, for the terrorists to strike as often as possible, and splash troop deaths across the liberal media

Now, things are going great, progress being made, and the liberal media falls silent

Dems still want to cut and run, to surrender, even while the troops are turning things around

Your hopes and dreams for the US failing in Iraq are slipping away, and - gasp - Pre Bush might be proven right on Iraq

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:19 AM

Libs like you have been hoping for a civil war, for the terrorists to strike as often as possible, and splash troop deaths across the liberal media

Now, things are going great, progress being made, and the liberal media falls silent

Dems still want to cut and run, to surrender, even while the troops are turning things around

Your hopes and dreams for the US failing in Iraq are slipping away, and - gasp - Pre Bush might be proven right on Iraq

you didn't answer my question (as if you EVER have!): what does sunni v. AQ have to do with civil war?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 10:20 AM

you didn't answer my question (as if you EVER have!): what does sunni v. AQ have to do with civil war?

Keep trying to change the subject MM

You sure as hell can't talk about or defend the Dems still wanting to surrender

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Keep trying to change the subject MM

You sure as hell can't talk about or defend the Dems still wanting to surrender

you were the one who brought up civil war. I am trying to carry on a discussion with you but you run away from everything that YOU write relying only on the words of others. Can you answer the question? what does sunni versus AQ have to do with civil war? You brought it up. defend your statement.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 10:28 AM

you were the one who brought up civil war. I am trying to carry on a discussion with you but you run away from everything that YOU write relying only on the words of others. Can you answer the question? what does sunni versus AQ have to do with civil war? You brought it up. defend your statement.

I was pointing out how the Dems (and you) were trying to say a civil war was going on in Iraq

It is all part of the left's plan to undermine the war effort and make their surrender plan happen

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:31 AM

you mention a civil war in context of your quote talking about increased cooperation between the US and sunnis in the fight against AQ. I only point out that such a reference is tantamount to claiming success in the war against arthritis with the announcement of a new blood pressure medication.

one has nothing to do with the other, and your association of the two proves your ignorance about the nuances of the Iraqi political landscape.

An alliance of convenience between U.S. forces and once-hostile Sunni tribes against al Qaeda has become so solid that former Sunni insurgents say they warned American troops to stay away as they took on al Qaeda terrorists themselves in a pitched battle late last week in the city of Samarra that produced heavy al Qaeda casualties.

I know you were (and stil are) hoping for a civil war, but it is not happening. All the defeatest BS you and your party has sprewed has blown uip in your face

can you explain what the correlation is between the quote and your follow on comment?

red states rule

11-14-2007, 10:34 AM

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:35 AM

You are dense

I mentioned the civil war as one of the lies from the left so they could push for surrender

Why not admit you clowns have lost your war on reality and if you want to surrender - surrender to Pres Bush and give up on your insane surrender bills?

why did you need a quote about sunnis versus AQ to make your point that we wanted a civil war and its not happening? you clearly don't know.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 10:38 AM

why did you need a quote about sunnis versus AQ to make your point that we wanted a civil war and its not happening? you clearly don't know.

Keep trying to change the subject MM

Why not cut your losses and move on? If this was a fight the ref would have taken mercy on you and stopped it a long time ago. You have lost this fight

Good news for America - bad news for you and your party

retiredman

11-14-2007, 10:57 AM

Keep trying to change the subject MM

Why not cut your losses and move on? If this was a fight the ref would have taken mercy on you and stopped it a long time ago. You have lost this fight

Good news for America - bad news for you and your party

keep running away from your own displays of ignorance, RSR. As annoying as it is to others, I really think that your best play is to continue to rely solely on the cut and pasted words of others. It seems that everytime you attempt to inject some independent analysis, you just prove what an ignorant hack you really are.

I am, by the way, quite pleased with the reports out of Iraq. I am glad that the sunnis are fighting AQ in Iraq. All good news for our troops. It does, however, have zero to do with the dynamic that might bubble up into civil war. But then, you don't understand that, and are unwilling to learn.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 11:00 AM

keep running away from your own displays of ignorance, RSR. As annoying as it is to others, I really think that your best play is to continue to rely solely on the cut and pasted words of others. It seems that everytime you attempt to inject some independent analysis, you just prove what an ignorant hack you really are.

I am, by the way, quite pleased with the reports out of Iraq. I am glad that the sunnis are fighting AQ in Iraq. All good news for our troops. It does, however, have zero to do with the dynamic that might bubble up into civil war. But then, you don't understand that, and are unwilling to learn.

Keep thumping your chest MM and say how you love and support the troops - while you bellow the calls for surrender and appeasement like a loyal lib

I want to see your party react in 08 as ads remind the voters of all your defeatest BS, how the war was lost, and the troops are dying for nothing - as the troops start to come home after winning in Iraq

retiredman

11-14-2007, 11:01 AM

Keep thumping your chest MM and say how you love and support the troops - while you bellow the calls for surrender and appeasement like a loyal lib

I want to see your party react in 08 as ads remind the voters of all your defeatest BS, how the war was lost, and the troops are dying for nothing - as the troops start to come home after winning in Iraq

keep running away from the corners you paint yourself into!:laugh2:

red states rule

11-14-2007, 11:04 AM

keep running away from the corners you paint yourself into!:laugh2:

You are delusional. You are getting your ass kicked here and on the global warming thread by DMP

retiredman

11-14-2007, 11:10 AM

in your mind, RSR...in your mind. and, no doubt, in the minds of your butt buddies here with you!:clap:

keep patting yourself on the back...but do yourself a favor and take my advice: stick to cutting and pasting. Whenever you venture out with your own rudimentary attempts at independent analysis, you invariably stick your foot in your mouth.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 11:13 AM

retiredman

11-14-2007, 01:09 PM

You are beat - now it is back to the insults

Go treat your wounds and try again later

you are incredibly predictable. you either post cut and paste op-ed pieces and trumpet them as "facts", or you reply to other people's posts with one liners that Rush taught you, or...once in blue moon, you venture out and attempt to toss in some independent analysis of one of your editorials...and invariably, you display your ignorance.... and when called on it, run away and run away and then, claim victory. :laugh2:

red states rule

11-14-2007, 02:06 PM

retiredman

11-14-2007, 02:16 PM

you are incredibly predictable. you either post cut and paste op-ed pieces and trumpet them as "facts", or you reply to other people's posts with one liners that Rush taught you, or...once in blue moon, you venture out and attempt to toss in some independent analysis of one of your editorials...and invariably, you display your ignorance.... and when called on it, run away and run away and then, claim victory. :laugh2:

to which RSR replies:

The biggest fear libs have on Iraq is happening - the US is winning

right on schedule! :laugh2:

fwiw.... I, for one, am pleased with the developments in Iraq. I am glad we seem to be making some progress, although I worry about simmering sectarian differences which are just beneath the surface.

red states rule

11-14-2007, 02:17 PM

to which RSR replies:

right on schedule! :laugh2:

fwiw.... I, for one, am pleased with the developments in Iraq. I am glad we seem to be making some progress, although I worry about simmering sectarian differences which are just beneath the surface.

You libs never know when you are beat. You have tried for 11 months to force your surrender bill through the Congress, you have spent 4 years undermining the war effort.

You cheer as the liberal media leaks classified info

You scream for US Constitutional rights for terrorists

A kook liberal outfit puts out the Gen "Betray Us" ad (with a discount form the NY Times) to try and take attention from the progress report in Iraq - and you grin and snicker

Based on the results so far in Iraq, if you libs are so set on surrendering, surrender to Pres Bush and admit you were wrong on the war

retiredman

11-14-2007, 02:23 PM

You libs never know when you are beat. You have tried for 11 months to force your surrender bill through the Congress, you have spent 4 years undermining the war effort.

You cheer as the liberal media leaks classified info

You scream for US Constitutional rights for terrorists

A kook liberal outfit puts out the Gen "Betray Us" ad (with a discount form the NY Times) to try and take attention from the progress report in Iraq - and you grin and snicker

Based on the results so far in Iraq, if you libs are so set on surrendering, surrender to Pres Bush and admit you were wrong on the war

did you cut and paste that series of oneliners from a previous post? it all looks so familiar!:laugh2:

you see...this would have been a great time for you to start a discussion with me about the roots of sectarian violence and why you thought that they might, in fact, lessen with the sunni versus AQ dynamic working against the Sadr shism within the shia community....but instead...stock one liners!

red states rule

11-14-2007, 02:24 PM

did you cut and paste that series of oneliners from a previous post? it all looks so familiar!:laugh2:

It fits you perfectly

retiredman

11-14-2007, 02:27 PM

one size needs to fit all with you, RSR...you are not smart enough to tailor anything to fit anyone specifically!:laugh2:

red states rule

11-15-2007, 07:11 AM

Oh no, the good news is getting out. MM and his fellow white flag wavers will be crushed

NBC Catches Up With ABC to Highlight Safer, Better Life in Iraq
By Brent Baker | November 14, 2007 - 22:45 ET
Three weeks after ABC's World News aired the first of three stories then and since about significant declines in violence and improving living conditions in Iraq, NBC Nightly News caught up Wednesday night as anchor Brian Williams acknowledged: “We are all hearing more and more these days about a significant drop in violence and deaths in Iraq, even though 2007 some time ago became the bloodiest year of the war, yet for U.S. forces these new stats show a different trend.”

From Iraq, reporter Tom Aspell illustrated how life has improved:

A few months ago, Ali Hamid could not have sold balloons here on Jadriyah Street. He might have been kidnaped or killed. A few blocks away, Azar Habud might have been shot for giving Western-style haircuts in his barbershop. And nearby, Mohammed Hassan's ice cream shop is still busy, even though it was bombed twice in April, killing nine customers. Back then, explosions were a horrifying part of everyday life. Now, the U.S. military says rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have dropped sharply in the last few months from 1,000 in June to fewer than 400 in October. And so have civilian deaths.

Aspell noted how Iraqis get electricity for only seven hours a day and that many don't have access to clean water, but concluded with how “despite the everyday hardships, there is a bright note -- wedding halls are back in business” and “Iraqi authorities say weddings have tripled in the past month.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/11/14/nbc-catches-abc-highlight-safer-better-life-iraq

retiredman

11-15-2007, 07:43 AM

I am quite happy that things are apparently quieting down at the moment.

I would hope that this means our boys can come home so that Iraq can get on with the business of becoming a shi'ite quasi-theocratic regime aligned with Iran and we can get started really fighting the war against islamic extremism we should have been fighting all along!

red states rule

11-15-2007, 07:44 AM

retiredman

11-15-2007, 07:56 AM

Then explain why your party is still pushing for surrender

no one is "pushing for surrender". Democrats are saying that it is time to let the Iraqis get their shit together and get on with the real fight!

We have trained enough soldiers in America to fill the Iraqi military twice over..... if they haven't figured out by now how to defend their own country, one needs to ask if they really WANT to.

Like I said.... let's let them get on with the business of becoming a shiite theocracy aligned with Iran... it is the inevitable conclusion to all of this..... not exactly a jeffersonian democracy.... but at this point, about as good as we can expect.

glockmail

11-15-2007, 08:55 AM

no one is "pushing for surrender". Democrats are saying that it is time to let the Iraqis get their shit together and get on with the real fight!

We have trained enough soldiers in America to fill the Iraqi military twice over..... if they haven't figured out by now how to defend their own country, one needs to ask if they really WANT to.

Like I said.... let's let them get on with the business of becoming a shiite theocracy aligned with Iran... it is the inevitable conclusion to all of this..... not exactly a jeffersonian democracy.... but at this point, about as good as we can expect. Basically you are not content with mere surrender but wish to set up the Middle East as a stronger Anti-American presence.

red states rule

11-15-2007, 08:57 AM

Basically you are not content with mere surrender but wish to set up the Middle East as a stronger Anti-American presence.

Dems are showing their support for the troops by denying them what they need when they need it

House Democrats renew antiwar push

The $50-billion spending bill would order Bush to begin a withdrawal. But prospects don't look better than those of past efforts

By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 15, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Nearly two months after Democrats suspended their legislative push to force a withdrawal from Iraq, House Democratic leaders restarted their campaign Wednesday with a measure to compel President Bush to bring troops home.

But with Republican resistance to congressional intervention in the war stronger than ever, there appears little chance that this gambit will advance any further than previous failed efforts.
On Wednesday, a $50-billion war funding bill that would order the president to start withdrawing troops within 30 days and set a goal of completing the pullout by the end of next year passed, 218 to 203.

It attracted just four Republican votes, dozens short of a two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.

And in the closely divided Senate, many Democrats concede that they probably won't get close to the 60 votes necessary to end a promised filibuster, which would effectively kill the bill.

"They seem determined to keep bringing up resolutions that they know the president won't agree to," said Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a moderate Republican who has urged Bush to adopt a new strategy in Iraq but has rejected all timelines. "We look pretty silly when we lecture Baghdad on being in political stalemate and insist on staying in one ourselves."

Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino accused congressional Democrats of planning "to send the president a bill that they know he will veto."

"This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," she said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-warvote15nov15,1,2928812.story?page=1&ctrack=2&cset=true&coll=la-news-politics-national

retiredman

11-15-2007, 09:55 AM

I promise I will give you a positive Rep, RSR, the day you EVER post something other than an article written by someone else, or a one line denigration of liberals. It really is your entire schtick.:laugh2:

If I wanted a neocon clipping service, I'd log onto Newsbusters and not here!

red states rule

11-15-2007, 12:26 PM

retiredman

11-15-2007, 01:22 PM

Keep ducking how the Dems are fucking up

BTW, with 0 rep power, you have no rep to hand out :laugh2:

See? If you'd quit neg repping me every day for no apparent reason, I'd have positive rep power to bestow upon you!:lol:

red states rule

11-15-2007, 01:23 PM

See? If you'd quit neg repping me every day for no apparent reason, I'd have positive rep power to bestow upon you!:lol:

Still turning a blind eye to the Dems surrender plans

Well, the rest of the country is not :lol:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8807

retiredman

11-15-2007, 08:50 PM

Still turning a blind eye to the Dems surrender plans

Well, the rest of the country is not :lol:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8807

as I have said... however disappointed the people are with the democrats in congress is irrelevant when compared to how they view the democrats versus the republicans in congress, and what party they plan to vote for in the upcoming election. They can be angry at the democrats, but if they are significantly more disgusted with the republicans (which they are), then it's all good!:laugh2:

Classact

11-15-2007, 09:22 PM

If I were President Bush I would call a special joint session of Congress on Thanksgiving evening and address congress and the American people. I would tell congress to stop wasting time... that the Democratic Party needs to create a new budget that removes the Alternative Minimum Tax revenues' and that doesn't add new taxes to fund their budget and clearly state that is why I vetoed your appropriation bills you sent to me... You based them on AMT tax or a tax hike... Then I would tell the congress here is the deal with Iraq and war funding... I"m commander in chief so I get to manage the war... you are congress and you get to fund the war or end funding for the war... I will not shuffle money around in the Defense budget because it wastes tax dollars to do so... You, congress have the choice to fund the war or end funding for the war if you don't like the way I'm managing it... you cannot have it both ways... you give me the funds I request or you give me none with instructions to remove the troops... If you insist to desire my job then the war belongs to you... should you not send the monies I requested within two weeks I will return all troops leaving the equipment in Iraq at the earliest possible time but it will be your war and the future of the Mid East will be on your responsibility as the combined Commander's in Chief of the US military... And, by the way why haven't you sent me the Veterans funding bill after passing it almost three months ago? Good night America and God bless America and our troops!

red states rule

11-16-2007, 05:34 AM

What planet do these surrender monkeys live on? Where are they getting their updates on Iraq? From the Dem Underground and Daily Kos?

Democrats see victory 'out of reach'
By S.A. Miller and Sean Lengell
November 16, 2007

Top Democrats yesterday rejected reports of U.S. military progress in Iraq, saying victory remains "out of reach" as long as political divisions roil Baghdad.

"It's not getting better; it's getting worse," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. "The goal remains out of reach."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said the reduced violence in Iraq wasn't enough to win her support for the mission.

"Certainly any time our military is engaged in military action, we want the best possible outcome for them, and they have produced that," she said. "But their sacrifice and their courage has not been met by any action on the part of the Iraqi government."

Rank-and-file Democrats echoed the critique, saying U.S. troops were "refereeing a civil war" and the Iraqi government "has got to take some responsibility."

The outlook is fueling Democrats' push for legislation that mandates a U.S. pullout from Iraq starting immediately with a goal of a near-complete withdrawal by December 2008.

Republicans and supporters of the war effort said the Democrats were in "deep denial."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish Connecticut independent, said the war critics "remain emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat, even as facts on the ground show that we are advancing and winning."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/NATION/111160096/1001

glockmail

11-16-2007, 06:30 AM

red states rule

11-16-2007, 06:33 AM

As usual, party above country.

He is like a member of the Mafia - family above all else no matter what they Boss does

glockmail

11-16-2007, 07:02 AM

He is like a member of the Mafia - family above all else no matter what they Boss does
Good comparison, based on the level of corruption within the Democrat party.

red states rule

11-16-2007, 07:06 AM

Good comparison, based on the level of corruption within the Democrat party.

He could be Hilary's Fredo

glockmail

11-16-2007, 07:12 AM

He could be Hilary's Fredo When he's not busy going down, balls-on-chin, servicing Bill? Will he have time for that?

red states rule

11-16-2007, 07:17 AM

When he's not busy going down, balls-on-chin, servicing Bill? Will he have time for that?

Yea, Dems like MM support the troops and they have their back covered

retiredman

11-16-2007, 12:50 PM

Yea, Dems like MM support the troops and they have their back covered

as I have said before, I do more to support our troops each and every week than you have EVER done.

how was communion at the Walmart Chapel, by the way?

red states rule

11-16-2007, 01:12 PM

as I have said before, I do more to support our troops each and every week than you have EVER done.

how was communion at the Walmart Chapel, by the way?

You stab the troops in the back with your blind support for the surrender monkeys in your party

retiredman

11-16-2007, 01:15 PM

You stab the troops in the back with your blind support for the surrender monkeys in your party

I don't blindly support anyone.

I do, however, unconditionally support the troops in the field. ANd I do so with real substantive methods each and every week.

you do not.

red states rule

11-16-2007, 01:18 PM

I don't blindly support anyone.

I do, however, unconditionally support the troops in the field. ANd I do so with real substantive methods each and every week.

you do not.

You march in lockstp with the leaders of your party

Right now, you go along with them using the troops as pawns in a lame effort to insert a surrender date in a war funding bill

Dems do not give a damn about the troops - they do care about their kook base who want the US to lose in Iraq

They believe it will help them in Nov 08

You are as guilty as they are since you defend their defeatest actions

retiredman

11-16-2007, 01:39 PM

You march in lockstp with the leaders of your party

Right now, you go along with them using the troops as pawns in a lame effort to insert a surrender date in a war funding bill

Dems do not give a damn about the troops - they do care about their kook base who want the US to lose in Iraq

They believe it will help them in Nov 08

You are as guilty as they are since you defend their defeatest actions

that is nothing more than five Rush talking points strung together.

I have NEVER marched in lockstep with my party. In fact, on my local county committee, I am considered the squeaky wheel who is always stirring up the status quo.

I don't think anyone considers our troops "pawns". I think that many democrats, myself included, think that our continued presence in Iraq is counterproductive to our own longterm interests.

However, as long as we ARE there, I certainly want our forces to prevail in every encounter.

glockmail

11-16-2007, 02:25 PM

.... on my local county committee, I am considered the squeaky wheel who is always stirring up the status quo......

All that means is that you are one big asshole in a crowd of slightly smaller assholes.

red states rule

11-16-2007, 02:26 PM

All that means is that you are one big asshole in a crowd of slightly smaller assholes.

the biggest :lol:

glockmail

11-16-2007, 02:32 PM

the biggest :lol: Extra Heavy. :lol:

red states rule

11-16-2007, 02:35 PM

Extra Heavy. :lol:

Super sized :lol:

glockmail

11-16-2007, 02:39 PM

Super sized :lol: Like this?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

red states rule

11-16-2007, 02:42 PM

Like this?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

looks like him on the bridge of the dingy he commanded

glockmail

11-16-2007, 02:47 PM

looks like him on the bridge of the dingy he commanded
You may be right. Is that a potato peeler on the wall next to him?

Gawd- imagine THAT be the cook on your boat? :puke3:

red states rule

11-16-2007, 02:48 PM

You may be right. Is that a potato peeler on the wall next to him?

Gawd- imagine THAT be the cook on your boat? :puke3:

Well in his retirement years, he now commands a boat in the Tunnel of Love

He has runaground three times, and got lost twice

Classact

11-16-2007, 06:55 PM

no one is "pushing for surrender". Democrats are saying that it is time to let the Iraqis get their shit together and get on with the real fight!The Democratic Party is in fact pushing for surrender and it can't be framed any other way... By stating we will fund our troops only if they fail is a statement of surrender... A political party that uses comparisons of the cost of Iraq to domestic programs to justify excess spending on domestic programs is saying in code every time they open their mouths... give peace a chance and if it fails, so what we will give Nancy Pelosi some money to build a Pink granite wall for the Washington Mall for the fallen. Forget the losses, cut your losses and prop up the welfare and illegal Mexican voters so we can have power! By the time Iraq blows up we can blame Bush if he is still in office but we will have no one to blame once he is gone.

Nancy and Harry's agenda is children, remember not war... children... Especially Mexican children so their moms and dads will vote Democratic.

Why doesn't the House allow SCHIP re authorization to be modified eliminating Mexican illegal children? Because votes for democrats depend on the quid pro quo...

Why doesn't Harry Reid allow the Farm Bill to go forward? Because it is bloated with Bennie's for Mexican illegals... The Republicans want to vote on amendments for English Only in America, imagine that... They want to vote on border security and drivers licenses along with cutting off the food couponese to cities that harbor illegals... they would like a record vote on where the Democratic Party stands on such position.

We have trained enough soldiers in America to fill the Iraqi military twice over..... if they haven't figured out by now how to defend their own country, one needs to ask if they really WANT to.

Like I said.... let's let them get on with the business of becoming a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran... it is the inevitable conclusion to all of this..... not exactly a jeffersonian democracy.... but at this point, about as good as we can expect. Who is better qualified to state when the Iraqi forces have the ability to secure their nation, our commanding general on the ground or congress?

Iran will have its claws removed before the start of the 09 presidency so it won't matter if the Shiites want to be friendly with Iran... There is a neighborhood full of Sunni oil rich countries that can manage Iraq power once Iran has a clipping and they have ample funds to do just that.

Who will clip Iran's claws if the Democratic Party takes full power in 09? And when they blackmail our government in 09 with $300 a barrel oil who will the Democrats blame?

Classact

11-16-2007, 07:42 PM

as I have said... however disappointed the people are with the democrats in congress is irrelevant when compared to how they view the democrats versus the republicans in congress, and what party they plan to vote for in the upcoming election. They can be angry at the democrats, but if they are significantly more disgusted with the republicans (which they are), then it's all good!:laugh2:One thing to consider about your parties argument... this is not my writing... I stole it from another debate board that I post on... the writer claims to be a Blue Dog Democrat... I thought he was on the money here... how about you?

First, I understand that national defense is not an "option" or a "political position", but rather a constitutional "mandate". And said mandate must always be the first political "bird" to dip its beak in the federal coffers, any thing that is left over after "infrastructure" and interstate trade concerns have been meet then can be offered up to the alter of "socialism". For, without a secure country, what need is there for socialism?

I have read several of the posts and find it amusing that some mention the ONE AND HALF TRILLION DOLLARS spent on national security concerns over the past half decade without ever mentioning the ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the war on poverty over the past several decades with but a FRACTION of a percent gained on the POVERTY LEVEL in this nation. In fact the only thing that we have to show for this war, is an increase of over 300% in the crime level of this nation. So to say that we have at least been "static" or holding our own in this undeclared war, would a misrepresentation of the facts. So my opinion, for what its worth is this, if we intended on "declaring defeat" on any war due to "monetary concerns", I would suggest the "war on poverty" should be the first place in which a "strategic withdrawal" should be considered and re-evaluated, for a more "successful" positioning thereof, and not for the purpose of just "buying" votes.
www.associdedcotent.com/article/323986/eleven_trillion_lost_in_war.html
or even a more conservative estimate by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation has the "lost" funding at around of 5 trillion dollars just wasted. www. hertiage.org/Reserarch/Religion/EM364.cmf

retiredman

11-16-2007, 07:52 PM

One thing to consider about your parties argument... this is not my writing... I stole it from another debate board that I post on... the writer claims to be a Blue Dog Democrat... I thought he was on the money here... how about you?

I am disappointed in the relatively minor successes in social engineering programs.... I, too, agree that national security is priority number one. I do not think that the Iraq war has done squat to improve our national security.

I am 100% behind fighting islamic extremism. I volunteered to go BACK on active duty eight years after retiring for the purpose of helping president Bush fight the islamic extremists that attacked us. I am no dove on the issue of defense. I am simply opposed to the Iraq misadventure because I truly believe it is counterproductive to our overarching goal of making ourselves safe from islamic extremism for the long term. I believe that my party has a more focused view of our real enemies and is not held hostage by the PNAC neocon vision for American dominance in the middle east which drove the Iraq invasion and which has been proven to be fatally flawed, IMHO.

red states rule

11-16-2007, 08:35 PM

retiredman

11-16-2007, 08:38 PM

MM our troops have enough to worry about without you adding to their problems

Stay here and scream your defeatest talking points out of ear shot of the troops

trust me, RSR...I will NEVER take orders from chickenhawks like you!:lol:

you have no fucking idea about what our troops worry about..... you are a pom pom waving coward who would shit himself if ever placed in harm's way!

red states rule

11-16-2007, 08:40 PM

trust me, RSR...I will NEVER take orders from chickenhawks like you!:lol:

you have no fucking idea about what our troops worry about..... you are a pom pom waving coward who would shit himself if ever placed in harm's way!

You only care about pleasing your party leaders and doing heir bidding. You are willing to watch them be sold out by power craving libs - and you sit on your ass and say nothing

You are the coward. You play your service card when it fits - but you say nothing as active duty troops are fucked over for political gain by Dems

retiredman

11-16-2007, 08:45 PM

You only care about pleasing your party leaders and doing heir bidding. You are willing to watch them be sold out by power craving libs - and you sit on your ass and say nothing

You are the coward. You play your service card when it fits - but you say nothing as active duty troops are fucked over for political gain by Dems

you have no idea what I care about. I certainly have never cared about doing the bidding of any party leaders.... if the chair of my county committee heard that accusation, he would piss his pant's laughing.

I don't play my service card. I served. In harm's way. you didn't. end of story. you coward.

red states rule

11-16-2007, 08:48 PM

you have no idea what I care about. I certainly have never cared about doing the bidding of any party leaders.... if the chair of my county committee heard that accusation, he would piss his pant's laughing.

I don't play my service card. I served. In harm's way. you didn't. end of story. you coward.

You are the biggest Dem ass kisser I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. You have defended those who have slimed and smeared them

Oh you play the service card when you are boxed in a corner. You thump your chest and rant how your patriotism and service is being questioned - while you defend the sell out of the troops in harms way

You are the worst kind of hack, You defend your party when they play with the lives of the troops so they can score points with their kook base

retiredman

11-16-2007, 08:52 PM

You are the biggest Dem ass kisser I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. You have defended those who have slimed and smeared them

Oh you play the service card when you are boxed in a corner. You thump your chest and rant how your patriotism and service is being questioned - while you defend the sell out of the troops in harms way

You are the worst kind of hack, You defend your party when they play with the lives of the troops so they can score points with their kook base

blah blah blah

I served. in harm's way. you didn't. spin away from that...chickenhawk. coward. :laugh2:

red states rule

11-16-2007, 08:56 PM

blah blah blah

I served. in harm's way. you didn't. spin away from that...chickenhawk. coward. :laugh2:

You defeatest libs support the troops when they are killed - any other time you use like poker chips

actsnoblemartin

11-16-2007, 08:57 PM

the dumbest argument ive ever heard. You didnt serve, so your a coward. Just another liberal cheap shot attack.

and garbage too

red states rule

11-16-2007, 08:58 PM

the dumbest argument ive ever heard. You didnt serve, so your a coward. Just another liberal cheap shot attack.

and garbage too

That is all MM has left. He supports the screwing of the troops if it helps his party

Classact

11-16-2007, 09:02 PM

I am disappointed in the relatively minor successes in social engineering programs.... I, too, agree that national security is priority number one. I do not think that the Iraq war has done squat to improve our national security.

I am 100% behind fighting islamic extremism. I volunteered to go BACK on active duty eight years after retiring for the purpose of helping president Bush fight the islamic extremists that attacked us. I am no dove on the issue of defense.Good for you!

I am simply opposed to the Iraq misadventure because I truly believe it is counterproductive to our overarching goal of making ourselves safe from islamic extremism for the long term. I believe that my party has a more focused view of our real enemies and is not held hostage by the PNAC neocon vision for American dominance in the middle east which drove the Iraq invasion and which has been proven to be fatally flawed, IMHO.Why do you think we involved ourselves in the Gulf War? My guess was it was because one of the ME bullies was pushing his weight around and that could screw up the free flow of ME oil that we're so dependant upon every day 24-7-365... Following the Gulf War nothing changed the bully was still talking shit and had failed to live up to his ceasefire agreement... How do you associate this conflict with PNAC? We didn't react to the hostilities in Lebanon and Israel... we don't go after Syria for supplying Hezbollah that waged the war with Israel... Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel outside of its funding of suicide bombers... During the Clinton administration congress determined Saddam's government should be overthrown regardless if Saddam complied with the UN or not and it had nothing to do with Israel... If you were honest with yourself, like all of congress you would admit that the current conflict was out of concern of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

red states rule

11-16-2007, 09:05 PM

Kathianne

11-16-2007, 09:15 PM

red states rule

11-16-2007, 09:17 PM

Nor during the Reagan and Nixon years...

I agree

I was pissed Reagan did not strike back after the Marines were attacked

retiredman

11-16-2007, 10:53 PM

Before 9-11, the US seldom responded to terrorist attacks. During the eight years of Clinton, threats and promises were issued - yet nothing was done

We looked like the liitle kid backing done from the playground bully

Now we are taking the fight to them - and the troops are kicking their ass. Now, Dems want to give up, cut and run, surrender, and appease

Go figure

blah blah blah.... Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. Secular sunni baathists were not our primary worry.... extreme wahabbists were. We took a detour ...we lost our focus.... and we have lost five years, nearly two trillion dollars, and 36K dead and wounded Americans becuase of it.

retiredman

11-16-2007, 10:56 PM

I agree

I was pissed Reagan did not strike back after the Marines were attacked

then why are you continually harping on Clinton and not spreading the blame around to Ronnie?

I'll tell you why: because Reagan was a republican. For YOU, it is party over country every time!

Reagan tucking his tail between his legs after they targeted our marine barracks and killed 250+ jarheads sent a message to islamic extremists that completely overshadows the small potatoes actions of Clinton...but you want to make it all about Clinton and continue to revere and excuse and ignore Reagan - because you are a hack...a republican hack who loves his party and could give a fuck about his country.

manu1959

11-16-2007, 11:17 PM

then why are you continually harping on Clinton and not spreading the blame around to Ronnie?

I'll tell you why: because Reagan was a republican. For YOU, it is party over country every time!

Reagan tucking his tail between his legs after they targeted our marine barracks and killed 250+ jarheads sent a message to islamic extremists that completely overshadows the small potatoes actions of Clinton...but you want to make it all about Clinton and continue to revere and excuse and ignore Reagan - because you are a hack...a republican hack who loves his party and could give a fuck about his country.

tell me when the first attack on the "west" was and what our response was......

retiredman

11-16-2007, 11:23 PM

tell me when the first attack on the "west" was and what our response was......

1099 ... the destruction of the church of the holy sepuchre

response: the crusades

manu1959

11-16-2007, 11:27 PM

1099 ... the destruction of the church of the holy sepuchre

response: the crusades

excellent....and since then?

red states rule

11-17-2007, 10:25 AM

What a shocker!!

The NY Times is backing the Dems surrender plan

So now the Times is supporting the screwing of the troops and defeat for the US in Iraq

Democrats Find Their Voice

Published: November 17, 2007
It has been two long months since Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, cowed Congressional Democrats into silence, championing President Bush’s misguided course on the war. We’re pleased to see that the effects of his briefing are finally wearing off. The bad news, as ever, is that Mr. Bush and his Republican allies continue to resist reason.

House Democrats distinguished themselves this week when they stood up to the White House’s latest military funding steamroller: approving only $50 million of the additional $196 million the president requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also set conditions on the funding, including demands that troops start coming home from Iraq within 30 days and that the withdrawal be completed by mid-December 2008.

Senate Democrats quickly brought the House plan to the floor. But, ever the spoilers, Republicans blocked it, as they have other attempts to rein in Mr. Bush’s war-without-end in Iraq.

Predictably, the White House — which always prefers fear-mongering to serious debate — accused Democrats of undermining the troops. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates got into the act, threatening to direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts next year unless Congress approves new funding within days.

Lawmakers, regardless of party, and the American people will always stand behind the brave men and women in the armed forces. Congress has already approved some $800 billion in funding since Sept. 11, 2001, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that hardly measures the full cost in blood and treasure. More than 800 troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 alone, making it the deadliest year yet for the American military there.

There have been some advances since President Bush sought to salvage his misadventure by sending even more troops into Iraq. Violence has declined and Al Qaeda in Iraq is said to be weaker. But Mr. Bush’s main argument for his escalation — that it would create political space for Iraqis to work together and achieve national reconciliation — has proved wrong.

Even Mr. Bush’s generals know that these gains are unlikely to last. The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported this week that senior American commanders now see the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the American effort in Iraq — rather than Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias. America can’t want peace and democracy for Iraq more than the Iraqis.

Democrats say they will continue to push the president and his Republican allies to concede their failed war policy and change course. They must keep at it. It’s far past time to begin a swift and orderly withdrawal of forces from Iraq’s civil war and to refocus on Afghanistan, where America’s win over the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in danger of being reversed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/opinion/17sat1.html

glockmail

11-17-2007, 10:36 AM

blah blah blah

I served. in harm's way. you didn't. spin away from that...chickenhawk. coward. :laugh2:

blah, blah, blah. You were a fucking cook, and the biggest harm that you faced was a potato peeler.

red states rule

11-17-2007, 10:38 AM

blah, blah, blah. You were a fucking cook, and the biggest harm that you faced was a potato peeler.

Or when he battled his typewriter ribbon and was stabbed by a paper clip

glockmail

11-17-2007, 10:54 AM

Or when he battled his typewriter ribbon and was stabbed by a paper clip Harms way my ass.

red states rule

11-17-2007, 11:02 AM

Harms way my ass.

He fought hard to open his stuck desk drawer many times

glockmail

11-17-2007, 11:05 AM

He fought hard to open his stuck desk drawer many times All that dried up jism from wacking off onto the picture of Robert Byrd that he keeps in there.

red states rule

11-17-2007, 11:07 AM

All that dried up jism from wacking off onto the picture of Robert Byrd that he keeps in there.

MM "personality" reminds me of Capt Binghamton on McHales Navy.

glockmail

11-17-2007, 11:08 AM

MM "personality" reminds me of Capt Binghamton on McHales Navy. He reminds me more of Pee-Wee Herman. They're both flaming queer pedophiles.

red states rule

11-17-2007, 11:10 AM

He reminds me more of Pee-Wee Herman. They're both flaming queer pedophiles.

Pee - Wee is not arrogant enough

gabosaurus

11-17-2007, 12:40 PM

We don't need to "surrender" to terrorists. We need to stop supporting the terrorists who run our government.

red states rule

11-17-2007, 12:43 PM

We don't need to "surrender" to terrorists. We need to stop supporting the terrorists who run our government.

Well, looking at the Dems sinking poll numbers (they are lower then the Republicnas were in 06) that is happening

Reid and Pelosi and screwing the troops over to amke points with their kook base, and the liberal media

Classact

11-17-2007, 01:38 PM

We don't need to "surrender" to terrorists. We need to stop supporting the terrorists who run our government.Are you posting from your laptop from Nancy Pelosi's lawn? Get those banners ready Cindy Sheehan in Nancy's seat in 09... we'll have a pink granite wall for fallen soldiers in the Mall by Summertime...
You pinkos make maggots gag!

red states rule

11-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Are you posting from your laptop from Nancy Pelosi's lawn? Get those banners ready Cindy Sheehan in Nancy's seat in 09... we'll have a pink granite wall for fallen soldiers in the Mall by Summertime...
You pinkos make maggots gag!

This is rich.........

Protesters Building Large "Buddha" Outside Pelosi's House

One might think it would be great to have Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as a neighbor (imagine the block parties!). But the Speaker apparently is not making herself popular in her high-dollar 'hood, telling reporters on Tuesday that protesters have taken up residence outside her house and are driving the natives wild.
"I've had four or five months of people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco and angering my neighbors," Pelosi said at a gathering sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Pelosi added that the squatters have engaged in decidedly non-neighborly behavior like hanging their clothes from the trees; moving in sofas, chairs and other "permanent living facilities"; and, oddly, building a large Buddha on the sidewalk in front of her home. "You can just imagine my neighbors' reactions to all of this," she said. "And if they were poor, and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/protesters-building-large_n_67826.html

San Fran Nan thought it was great when they were in Crawford - but she hates it when they are in front of HER house

manu1959

11-17-2007, 01:47 PM

We don't need to "surrender" to terrorists. We need to stop supporting the terrorists who run our government.

yes pelosi and reid really should be stopped....

red states rule

11-17-2007, 01:48 PM

yes pelosi and reid really should be stopped....

Maybe they will be a year from now

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8807

manu1959

11-17-2007, 01:51 PM

Maybe they will be a year from now

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8807

nah people in pelosis district are all just like her.....no clue about harrys gang of reno thugs....

red states rule

11-17-2007, 01:52 PM

nah people in pelosis district are all just like her.....no clue about harrys gang of reno thugs....

San Fran Nan may be safe for now, but her persoanl approval in SF is in the mid 30's in the last poll I saw

Reid was tied with Scooter Libby at 19%

manu1959

11-17-2007, 01:54 PM

San Fran Nan may be safe for now, but her persoanl approval in SF is in the mid 30's in the last poll I saw

Reid was tied with Scooter Libby at 19%

actually pelosi may lose to the young gavin newsom....he is reving up for a run on the national stage.....getty money behind him...

red states rule

11-17-2007, 01:57 PM

actually pelosi may lose to the young gavin newsom....he is reving up for a run on the national stage.....getty money behind him...

While the seat will stay Democrat, it would be fun to see San Fran Nan retired

Then we have to listen to Cindy Crackpot, or the idiot Mayor for 2 years

manu1959

11-17-2007, 02:02 PM

While the seat will stay Democrat, it would be fun to see San Fran Nan retired

Then we have to listen to Cindy Crackpot, or the idiot Mayor for 2 years

i don't see cindy getting any votes.....gavin could take her out though.....he is more of a commie than she is though....

red states rule

11-17-2007, 02:04 PM

i don't see cindy getting any votes.....gavin could take her out though.....he is more of a commie than she is though....

she cries and whines better - which is what libs love to see

another "victim" of the Bush administration

retiredman

11-17-2007, 07:38 PM

Maybe they will be a year from now

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8807

Generic Congressional VotePoll
Date Republican Democrat Spread

RCP Average 11/01 - 11/05 38.0% 48.3% 10.3%
NBC/WSJ 11/01 - 11/05 37% 46% 9%
CNN 11/02 - 11/04 42% 53% 11%
Rasmussen 11/02 - 11/04 35% 46% 11%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

and maybe they won't!

red states rule

11-18-2007, 05:55 AM

red states rule

11-18-2007, 08:43 AM

Harry Reid: Screw The Troops!!!
Posted by papundits on November 16, 2007

Breaking: Senate Votes Down War Funding Bill

“We need to get our troops everything they need,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “We need to get it to them right now.”

“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

WASHINGTON- The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.

The Republican measure failed 45-53, 15 short of the number of votes needed to go forward.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

“Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq’s own political leaders,” said Reid, D-Nev.

Republicans said Democrats were being irresponsible.

“We need to get our troops everything they need,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “We need to get it to them right now.”

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year.

Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats’ conflict with the White House on the war.

In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.

“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

At the White House Friday, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said: “DOD would have to eat into their annual budget and I believe that still presents difficulties in getting the troops in the field the resources they need to carry out their mission.”

“We’d rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers, rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field,” Fratto said. “I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn’t like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

As a result, he said he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.

Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion, which is just one week’s worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/harry-reid-screw-the-troops/

A Thanksgiving message from Harry to the troops

red states rule

11-18-2007, 09:17 AM

blah blah blah.... Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. Secular sunni baathists were not our primary worry.... extreme wahabbists were. We took a detour ...we lost our focus.... and we have lost five years, nearly two trillion dollars, and 36K dead and wounded Americans becuase of it.

If you were covering D-Day for the NY Times, you would have wrote this headline

"Allies Stumble On Beach - Can They Break Out?"

glockmail

11-18-2007, 03:03 PM

So let me get this straight. The best you can do to try and counter your beloved Dems sinking pol numbers, is the Generic Congressional VotePoll where no named Republicans are mentioned

When Dems took over they had about a 30 point spread on that poll 10 months ago

Now with Dems screwing the troops over in their quest to surrender in Iraq, the numbers should continue to tumble

It looks like HFM has no response to your devastaing assessment of reality here.

Interesting as well from that same link that HFM gave us, President Bush job approval is 33.3% and Congressional job approval is 23.3%, or nearly 1/3 lower. No surprise that HFM would ignore this devastaing fact.

retiredman

11-18-2007, 04:04 PM

So let me get this straight. The best you can do to try and counter your beloved Dems sinking pol numbers, is the Generic Congressional VotePoll where no named Republicans are mentioned

When Dems took over they had about a 30 point spread on that poll 10 months ago

Now with Dems screwing the troops over in their quest to surrender in Iraq, the numbers should continue to tumble

what I have is the fact that when asked to chose between democrats and republicans, the people are chosing democrats. when asked to grade the performance of the democrats in congress versus the republicans in congress, the people have consistently given the democrats higher grades....

so you can talk about how poorly the "democratic congress" is doing, but when the people are asked specifically to distinguish between the performance of the democratic congressional caucus and the republican caucus, they show that they think the republicans REALLY suck! :laugh2: