Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again

[red states rule]

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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073001380.html

[Classact]

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]

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.

Dems do not have the political guts to cut off funding. They have to find a back door way to get what they want

Now that the US military is winning, it is really giving the Dems trouble. For so long, Dems have done everything possible to help the terrorists win this war, now that they are losing, Dems are getting backed into a corner

[retiredman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

[red states rule]

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

Situation normal

[glockmail]

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]

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]

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.

[red states rule]

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]

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?

[red states rule]

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