Contact these turncoats...

[Gunny]

It's actually bullshit. Bush has been able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do, thanks to a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him almost anything he wanted.

To suggest that he has been hamstrung by dissenters, and to insinuate that those who disapprove of this war are traitors, is simply preposterous.

To suggest that the big thing barrelling down the tracks is anything BUT a train is preposterous.

[NightTrain]

Now that's a downright disingenious argument, considering that until this year, Bush had a GOP-controlled Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The Dems didn't have the power or clout to "sabotage" Bush's war.

Think so?

Al Queda's leadership seems to think differently. The enemy watches our beloved Democrats & their shenanigans very closely.

Read this message very carefully. Note the sense of accomplishment Al Queda claims for the results of the mid term elections.

They're quite happy with Democrats gaining seats, what does that tell you about what party the terrorists favor?

The third thing I wish to talk about is a message to the Democrats in America.

I tell them: you must realize two facts.

The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost: rather, the Mujahideen – the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq – are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...da_sends_.html

Here's a complete transcript for your perusal:

http://www.ict.org.il/apage/8215.php

Do you think that perhaps the posturing and anti-war statements made by Pelosi and crew are exactly what Al Queda wants?

[GW in Ohio]

"Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get." --Gaffer

Whoa.

Hold on there, Baba-looey.

People who oppose this stupid, foolish war that was undertaken under false pretenses are not traitors.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the rest of that inner circle are apparently incapable of coming to terms with the fact that they fucked up really badly and perpetrated what is probably the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of this country.

But most Americans have come to terms with it. That is why the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress in the recent elections and why Bush's approval ratings are setting negative records.

We've lost over 3,000 of our best people in this misguided effort and I don't want to see us lose one more. Every one of those 3,000 deaths, plus the thousands of injured, are on Bush and Cheney's heads. They may not answer for them in this life, but they'll answer in the next.

And by the way, some of our casualties in Afghanistan would not have happened if the boy king and Darth Cheney hadn't diverted troops from the effort in Afghanistan to their pipe dream in Iraq.

[Birdzeye]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

[Dilloduck]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.

[GW in Ohio]

" No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner." --Dilloduck

There was never any "victory" possible in Iraq. Don't you remember at the very start, the generals told Bush and Rummy that we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had available to overthrow Saddam and then pacify the country?

Bush and Rummy just brushed those objections aside and went ahead with the invasion. They had dreams of glory, and visions of re-making the Middle East in our image.

There was never any good outcome coming out of our invasion of Iraq. We've precipitated a civil war and we're right in the middle of it.

I expect my American president to be smart enough to know that the people in the Middle East are basically crazy and the less we have to do with them, the better off we'll be.

Bush ain't nearly smart enough to be president. It's true that the American voters weren't smart enough to recognize this in '00 and '04.

But they're sure as hell suffering buyer's remorse now, aren't they?

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.

Remember how the MSM jumped all over that soldier who shot a guy on the ground because he thought he was armed? It was during a very intense house raid. Compare that to how they omit any positive coverage of the war, and of the men and women fighting it. Then there's Cindy Sheehan exploiting her hero son's death as a political cause. You don't thave to be a "traitor" per se to undermine our military and give our enemy reason for hope. There are degrees...

[Gunny]

"Its just more attacks in the war on Bush. They are playing with soldiers lives to get their way. They are a dispicable bunch of traitors. They want to deny the troops the extra guns needed to finish the job. I hope the next major attack is on washington and right on top of their dumb asses. They deserve everything they get." --Gaffer

Whoa.

Hold on there, Baba-looey.

People who oppose this stupid, foolish war that was undertaken under false pretenses are not traitors.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the rest of that inner circle are apparently incapable of coming to terms with the fact that they fucked up really badly and perpetrated what is probably the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of this country.

But most Americans have come to terms with it. That is why the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress in the recent elections and why Bush's approval ratings are setting negative records.

We've lost over 3,000 of our best people in this misguided effort and I don't want to see us lose one more. Every one of those 3,000 deaths, plus the thousands of injured, are on Bush and Cheney's heads. They may not answer for them in this life, but they'll answer in the next.

And by the way, some of our casualties in Afghanistan would not have happened if the boy king and Darth Cheney hadn't diverted troops from the effort in Afghanistan to their pipe dream in Iraq.

Opposing the war does not make one a traitor. Empowering the enemy by publicly undermining national policy DOES.

And all we needed was yet another "liberal mandate" fool. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting allowed Dems to slip in through the back door. A lack of foresight on their part does not a Dem mandate make.

[Gunny]

" No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner." --Dilloduck

There was never any "victory" possible in Iraq. Don't you remember at the very start, the generals told Bush and Rummy that we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had available to overthrow Saddam and then pacify the country?

Bush and Rummy just brushed those objections aside and went ahead with the invasion. They had dreams of glory, and visions of re-making the Middle East in our image.

There was never any good outcome coming out of our invasion of Iraq. We've precipitated a civil war and we're right in the middle of it.

I expect my American president to be smart enough to know that the people in the Middle East are basically crazy and the less we have to do with them, the better off we'll be.

Bush ain't nearly smart enough to be president. It's true that the American voters weren't smart enough to recognize this in '00 and '04.

But they're sure as hell suffering buyer's remorse now, aren't they?

More and more I hear this line from the lefties ... there was never any victory possible. The beginnings of perpetuating yet another lie.

[KarlMarx]

Yes. I agree. And we should have taken the lessons we learned from Vietnam and internalized them... learned from them and not repeated them. Taking it out of the realm for a moment of whether we agree or disagree with the entry into Iraq. We'll pretend it was the right thing to do for argument's sake. That being the case, then we know the only way to enter into a situation like that is to go in with overwhelming force or not at all. Rumsfeld wanted to go in on the cheap... with a leaner, meaner military. Turns out that was a huge mistake. And don't say I'm Monday morning quarterbacking. *We* people were saying it then.... .as were most of the generals on the ground... you know, all the ones that retired so they could speak out??

But.. but... how many generals SUPPORT this war? A lot more than don't, I'll say. But their opinions don't count, right?

No. Bush made sure that would happen by having no plan, no exit strategy and insufficient troops. One also can't ignore the analogies between the cries of WMD's and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

No one says that the occupation is going as well as it should. But to use another saying, "two wrongs don't make a right"... it's as if you went on a diet, didn't lose as much weight as you wanted, so you decided to abandon it altogether.



Vietnam was lost because there was no ultimate reason to be there, same as here. You seem to have things backward. The war isn't lost because it lost public support. The war lost public support because there was no good end. Loss? Depends on what you see as a loss. Me? I figure that if Saigon was ultimately going to fall anyway (and it would have) then better it had happened when Nixon came into office (since he ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam) then years later after thousands more of our troops were killed in the jungle.

Halting the spread of Communism was the reason we were there. The war was not going badly. .....

From Wikipedia....

In total, the United States estimated that 45,000 Viet Cong and PAVN soldiers were killed, though the actual figure may have been significantly lower.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[12]</SUP> The USA, ARVN, and allied Australian and South Korean forces suffered 4,324 killed, 16,063 wounded, and 598 missing.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[13]</SUP> (other sources give a higher estimate of about 5,000 ARVN troops killed).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[14]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>.... </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory

....
The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-15>[16]</SUP> For example, the attack on the U.S. Embassy was allocated only 19 Viet Cong soldiers, and even the expenditure of this force was considered by some VC officers to be misguided. Only after they saw how the U.S. was reacting to this attack did the Communists begin to propagandize it.

You think we could have kept the Khmer Rouge out of power?? That's interesting. Sorry. I don't buy it.

Right from Wikipedia....

When the U.S. Congress suspended aid to Cambodia in 1973, the Khmer Rouge made sweeping gains in the country. By 1975, with the Lon Nol government running out of ammunition, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the government would collapse. On April 17, 1975 the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh.

They're going to die either way BECAUSE Bush stuck his nose in and did what his father knew was going to be a failure. So, now they die along with our troops. Then they'll just kill each other. I'm ok with that. Our involvement in a civil war is inappropriate.

They're going to die anyway.... you mean Iraqis are dying by the millions now? I don't think so... but just wait till Iran gets its hooks into Iraq... you haven't seen anything yet!

Absurd argument. At the beginning the troops could have made a difference. Now they won't.... will just mean more of our troops dying. Even a neo-con should be able to get that distinction.

That's odd, many soldiers who come back from Iraq say they are doing a tremendous amount of good. That's because many troops are involved in rebuilding Iraq, as in building hospitals, schools and so on... even a do good liberal can see how pulling the troops out now would hurt the Iraqis.

I am sooooooooooooo bored and sick of tired of the neo-cons crying that not supporting this misadventure into Iraq is somehow "not supporting the troops". What a bunch of hooey. I support them. Use them for when it's necessary to defend and protect us.... not for nation building.

Pulling funding out from the combat troops is not supporting the trooops. In fact, this vote will help to further demoralize our troops. Pelosi and her henchmen are traitors because they put the interests of their party ahead of the interests of the country.

By the way... the people will speak in 2008, this was a mid term election. While turnout was high for a midterm, it was not anything near a record turn out for an election. Many voters stayed home to send a signal to the Republicans...

And now the incompetent in the White House is telling us that "anonymous military officials" are claiming that the Irani government is controlling arms going into Iraq. Gee? Where have we heard crap like that before?

You don't believe that? I do. I believe that the Iranians have an interest in seeing us lose. Iran is a hostile power and they are bent on extending their influence on the region.

And before you tell me... oh, but the admin wouldn't *mislead* us or rely on faulty intel (*again*), on Monday General Peter Pace (chairman of the joint chiefs) said (you listening here???) THERE IS NO INFORMATION LINKING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN TO WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO SHI'A INSURGENTS.

Except for weapons caches full of weapons that came from Iran, that is... and that many insurgents are not Iraqis but from Iran.

Does that mean they're NOT doing it? No. But you know the old expression... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. ??? (and no it isn't "fool me twice... won't get fooled again").

Actually, I'd like to use that line when you find out that the Democrats are leading you down the primrose path.

Well, I wouldn't believe this admin if their tongues were notarized and I wouldn't trust the prez's judgment if it came with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I could say the same thing about Pelosi, Senator Clinton and the rest of the idiots that now run Congress.

That isn't because he's a republican. I never used to have a problem voting for a (moderate) republican. It's because he's proven himself untrustworthy and incompetent.

Interestingly, and this might not surprise you. I happen to like Joe Scarborough who's got more conservative principle in his little pinky than Bush has in his entire body. Scarborough served at least a few terms as a Republican Congressman and is a true Reagan Republican. Even he says it's time to get our troops out. Look at all the true conservative Republicans who gave your guy a vote of no confidence yesterday.... even Repubs in safe seats. And you can whine that they're traitors.. or RINO's... or anything else you want to whine about them being... but they're cutting the apron strings because they know a) the American public thinks the pres mishandled the whole kit and kaboodle; and b) they've got to listen to the people who voted for them; and c) maybe.... just maybe... they're honorable enough to know cutting Bush off at the knees on his little "surge the course" policy is the right thing to do.

It is interesting that a surge during World War II is what helped win it. Up until June of 1944, the war in Europe was primarily an air war... after than it was "boots on the ground" and that means more troops.... by the way, an escalation during World War I (i.e. when the Americans got involved) also helped win the war.

And THAT'S what Congressional oversight is. The prez... he ain't the only DECIDER.

Actually, the Constitution makes the prez the decider... the congressional oversight sounds like an unconstituitonal power grab to me... eventually Congress will be running everything... by the way... all that money that won't be going to the war... do you think we'll be getting it back? NO WAY! The Democrats will spend it all.... who is minding Congress?

[Birdzeye]

I'm not one to throw around the word "traitor" lightly. I just think libs in general have been just a big of a problem in Iraq as Bush and Rummys' tactical mistakes. No need to grab this word "traitor" and get all huffy about it. Just take an honest look at how much your actions have hindered what may have been a great victory. Your actions sure as hell didn't help any in getting our troops OUT of harms way any sooner.

The responsibility for not getting our troops out of harm's way lies with Bush and Cheney, not me. They are the ones who got us into this ill-advised war, and they are responsible for the mess we're now in.

I have never particpated in any public antiwar protest. However, I have done my patriotic duty to vote and to let my congnresscritters know what my opinions are. I have no regrets about voting for those who believe this war was a mistake, and for letting them know that's how I feel about it. Exercising one's civic duties and privileges is patriotism, not treason.

[Gunny]

Exactly, GW. When people resort to demonizing those who disapprove of the war as "traitors," you have to wonder if they simply have no other argument to justify their support.

I certainly don't see how you can label a person as a "traitor" for voting for war opponents, as the majority of Americans appear to have done last November, or to write one's congresscritter to express disapproval of this war. To suggest that we must all march in lockstep behind GWB and give him unconditional support is to advocate that we become a totalitarian regime like North Korea.

Apparently you and GW are in lockstep with the "majority of Americans appear to have done last November." Let's put it in real context ... the majority of those who actually voted.

Please DO provide some evidence to support your allegation that we have in any way become more or less a totalitarian regime like N Korea since Bush took office.

Your arguments are based on a half-truth and an outright lie, respectively.

[OCA]

I keep hearing this bullshit from leftist whackos like Jilly "increasing troop numbers will just result in getting more soldiers killed"....how the fuck do you know or how does Comrade Pelosi know? What if it works, ever thought of that?

Anti-war people can parse the word traitor anyway you like but y'all are traitorous and treasanous when you publicly, over a long period of time and in an organized effort, endeavor to undermine U.S. foriegn policy and aid and abet the enemy through this effort.

Saying you are against the war biut care about the soldiers(the biggest oxymoronic lie out there) is what you guys say to yourselves so you can sleep at night. You don't really care about the soldiers, you care about bringing the admin down and regaining power....only.

You and your willing co-conspirators in the MSM have played this one brilliantly though, I must congratulate you, by only showing anything with a tinge of negativity to the American public and labeling soldiers as "torturers" and "murderers" you have managed to massively swing public sentiment, Macchiavelli himself would be proud.

BTW GW I always make it a point to say thank you to people from Ohio for putting W over the top in '04 and doing the rihght thing and banning queer marriage, thank you.

[manu1959]

The responsibility for not getting our troops out of harm's way lies with Bush and Cheney, not me. They are the ones who got us into this ill-advised war, and they are responsible for the mess we're now in.

actually the blame lies with george tennant, a clinton apointee....for saying

"it is a slam dunk that saddam has wmds....slam dunk"

"dems lie people die"

[Birdzeye]

Apparently you and GW are in lockstep with the "majority of Americans appear to have done last November." Let's put it in real context ... the majority of those who actually voted.

Please DO provide some evidence to support your allegation that we have in any way become more or less a totalitarian regime like N Korea since Bush took office.

Your arguments are based on a half-truth and an outright lie, respectively.

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?