Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again

[Classact]

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]

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

[Kathianne]

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

Nor during the Reagan and Nixon years...

[red states rule]

Nor during the Reagan and Nixon years...

I agree

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

[retiredman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


response: the crusades

excellent....and since then?

[red states rule]

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]

blah blah blah

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

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

[red states rule]

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]

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

Harms way my ass.

[red states rule]

Harms way my ass.

He fought hard to open his stuck desk drawer many times

[glockmail]

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.