Dems Give Terrorists Reason To Fight On

[Annie]

at the time, the republicans were in power...at the time, the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for the war....but once it turned to shit, they want to put the blame on the minority of democrats who voted with them. Like it or not...this is Bush's war...this is the republican party's war, and the democrats tried to stop it.

Time will tell who's war it is, my guess, the outcome will decide who is claiming what. We're not there yet.

 

[manu1959]

at the time, the republicans were in power...at the time, the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for the war....but once it turned to shit, they want to put the blame on the minority of democrats who voted with them. Like it or not...this is Bush's war...this is the republican party's war, and the democrats tried to stop it.

and when the dems stop it and pull the troops out and a rawandan extermination occurs the dems will have their war.....

 

[Bullypulpit]

You haven't proven he lied and are neglecting the fact that Congress authorized the War in Iraq.

...Based on the sexed-up, ginned-up, cherry-picked, spun within an inch of its life and outright fabricated intel provided by the Bush administration. Bad information always leads to bad decisions. Oh, and btw, Congress never declared war. They did, however, shamelessly and cravenly abdicate their responsibility in this matter.

 

[Care4all]

...Based on the sexed-up, ginned-up, cherry-picked, spun within an inch of its life and outright fabricated intel provided by the Bush administration. Bad information always leads to bad decisions. Oh, and btw, Congress never declared war. They did, however, shamelessly and cravenly abdicate their responsibility in this matter.

no one wants to hear it, but this link may help you with the case you are trying to make. It certainly leaves us with some "questions" to be asked and answered, in the very least.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm

 

[maineman]

and when the dems stop it and pull the troops out and a rawandan extermination occurs the dems will have their war.....

a bloodbath is going to ensue whenever we decide to leave... the only variable will be OUR body count. And the more we train the Iraqi army, the more efficient they all will be at the sectarian carnage that will begin the moment we leave and the army breaks apart into warring factions.

and even then, it will be the Iraqi's war and not the democrats'....

and even then the blood will be on the republican's hands for starting this whole stupid mess when we had no reason to invade Iraq that was more compelling than continuing the fight against islamic extremism.

 

[red states rule]

...Based on the sexed-up, ginned-up, cherry-picked, spun within an inch of its life and outright fabricated intel provided by the Bush administration. Bad information always leads to bad decisions. Oh, and btw, Congress never declared war. They did, however, shamelessly and cravenly abdicate their responsibility in this matter.

It is a fact (a fact libs ignore) Dems said the same things about Saddam and his WMD's

 

[red states rule]

absolutely not...it was made with cherrypicked intell that was chosen to justify a course of action that the administration had decided upon even BEFORE 9/11.

And let's not EVER forget that a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST the use of force resolution.

a majority of Dems are appeasers - we all know that

 

[red states rule]

at the time, the republicans were in power...at the time, the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for the war....but once it turned to shit, they want to put the blame on the minority of democrats who voted with them. Like it or not...this is Bush's war...this is the republican party's war, and the democrats tried to stop it.

No it is Amercia's war

Now if libs would give up their war on Bush the terrorists would not be so cocky when they see a united Amercia against them

 

[Rosotar]

No it is Amercia's war

Now if libs would give up their war on Bush the terrorists would not be so cocky when they see a united Amercia against them

Back in the summer of 03 all of America was behind this war (at least in theory) and approval was running up there somewhere in the nineties I believe.

That didn't stop the terrorists, remember RSR?

That makes hash of your claim doesn't it?

 

[red states rule]

Back in the summer of 03 all of America was behind this war (at least in theory) and approval was running up there somewhere in the nineties I believe.

That didn't stop the terrorists, remember RSR?

That makes hash of your claim doesn't it?

Libs ran on appesaement in the 02 midterms and lost

The #1 priority for Dems is the theri political power - nothing else matters

Not the troops, national security, or how their surrender bill will help the terrorists

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here's a response to the Reuters news article you posted, RSR. Thought you would enjoy the comments.

Lost Over Iraq
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, American Spectator
5/10/2007

Did you see that over the weekend Al Qaeda's second-in-command, the Rev. Ayman Zawahiri, appeared in an online 67-minute video and declared that the Democrats' bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq is proof that the United States has already lost the war in Iraq? I wonder how the Democratic leadership took the news. Did the Hon. Nancy Pelosi send him an e-mail congratulating him on his astuteness? Or was she a bit embarrassed? Yet, can anything embarrass Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority.

Of course, the Rev. Zawahiri is shut off in his own fantasy world. Does he actually think the United States has been defeated in Iraq? Anywhere our army goes it destroys our enemies. All they can do is blow themselves up. Zawahiri apparently deems it a victory if one of his lunkheads blows himself up close enough to an American unit to take an American casualty. Oh, I suppose he imagines other glorious victories, for instance, a lunkhead blowing up a market and killing scores of Iraqis, or a hospital, or a mosque. These calamities are not what are usually described as victories.

for full article:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11412

 

[Rosotar]

Libs ran on appesaement in the 02 midterms and lost

And cons ran on "stay the course" on 2006 and lost.

So your point is?

The #1 priority for Dems is the theri political power - nothing else matters

Not the troops, national security, or how their surrender bill will help the terrorists

According to James Baker and the Iraq Survey Group and our own C.I.A. our presence in Iraq is what is really helping the terrorists.

What do you say to that rsr?

Or are you simply going to ignore it again?

 

[red states rule]

And cons ran on "stay the course" on 2006 and lost.

So your point is?

The #1 priority for Dems is the theri political power - nothing else matters



According to James Baker and the Iraq Survey Group and our own C.I.A. our presence in Iraq is what is really helping the terrorists.

What do you say to that rsr?

Or are you simply going to ignore it again?

If Dems are doing such a great job why are their poll numbers in the toilet?

BTW, Dems promised they would not:

raise taxes

cuit and run from Iraq

cut off funding for the troops



So far they are 0 - 3 on those promises


Maybe that is why their poll numbers are going down faster then a Bill Clinton intern

 

[Rosotar]

It is a fact (a fact libs ignore) Dems said the same things about Saddam and his WMD's

Hey rsr....please take the time to read this before you write it off as liberal propaganda.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=10956

It is full of interestinf facts that you can't refute about the manipulation of intelligence by the White House Information Group.

Keep in mind that if you come back trying to say that the source is not credible because it comes from "democraticunderground" I am going to demand specifics so you won't get off that easily.

If you don't consider something in this article credible tell me what specifically you take issue with and provide your own information to debunk it.

Also keep in mind that the author has a lot more credibility than you do.

"Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. "

 

[maineman]

And cons ran on "stay the course" on 2006 and lost.

So your point is?

The #1 priority for Dems is the theri political power - nothing else matters



According to James Baker and the Iraq Survey Group and our own C.I.A. our presence in Iraq is what is really helping the terrorists.

What do you say to that rsr?

Or are you simply going to ignore it again?

you didn't REALLY have to ask that, did you?

 

[red states rule]

Hey rsr....please take the time to read this before you write it off as liberal propaganda.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=10956

It is full of interestinf facts that you can't refute about the manipulation of intelligence by the White House Information Group.

Keep in mind that if you come back trying to say that the source is not credible because it comes from "democraticunderground" I am going to demand specifics so you won't get off that easily.

If you don't consider something in this article credible tell me what specifically you take issue with and provide your own information to debunk it.

Also keep in mind that the author has a lot more credibility than you do.

"Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. "

So did Dems lie to?

 

[Rosotar]

So did Dems lie to?

Nope.

Just the Bush administration.

Besides, even if Dems were just as guilty of "lying" as Bush is does that absolve him of responsibility?

He is the so called "leader" of the free world!

 

[Gunny]

Nope.

Just the Bush administration.

Besides, even if Dems were just as guilty of "lying" as Bush is does that absolve him of responsibility?

He is the so called "leader" of the free world!

Please support your allegation that Bush lied with unbiased, corroborated FACT. Hint: If there was any, he'd have already been impeached.

 

[Alucard]

Nope.

Just the Bush administration.

Besides, even if Dems were just as guilty of "lying" as Bush is does that absolve him of responsibility?

He is the so called "leader" of the free world!

liberals, liberals,liberals... You insinuate that it is some kind of a fact that Pesident Bush lied to the People when there is no real evidence supporting your false accusations...

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN".... "I DID NOT INHALE"... Should I go on....These would be factual lies told by the president...

 

[Rosotar]

liberals, liberals,liberals... You insinuate that it is some kind of a fact that Pesident Bush lied to the People when there is no real evidence supporting your false accusations...

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN".... "I DID NOT INHALE"... Should I go on....These would be factual lies told by the president...

You're right damn it!

We should impeach Bill Clinton!

Oh wait....that's already been taken care of.

Get over it Alucard.