Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again

[red states rule]

Like this?

looks like him on the bridge of the dingy he commanded

[glockmail]

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?

[red states rule]

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

Gawd- imagine THAT be the cook on your boat?

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]

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]

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!

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.
http://www.associdedcotent.com/artic...st_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]

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]

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.

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

[retiredman]

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!

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

[red states rule]

blah blah blah

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

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

[actsnoblemartin]

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]

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