Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
simple questions, RSR:
what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines? How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?
and..
how can you say that the surge is working and that American casualties have decreased because of the surge when, in fact, they have gone up every single month since the start of the surge?
answer them or for a change and quit trying to spin away from them.
I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.
I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.
Oh, how so convenient that up is down, and right is wrong,
AND KILLING MORE AMERICANS IS WINNING...
you are so messed up to follow these masters of deceit...
---------------------------
Bush set it up good huh?
If less soldiers get killed, "the surge is working"
If more soldiers get killed "the surge is working"
Where is the LOGIC in this?
He set himself up for a win....IF MORE SOLDERS ARE KILLED AND DEAD.
What a scumbag president....and an insenstitive, deceitful, idiot.
Care
Oh, how so convenient that up is down, and right is wrong,
AND KILLING MORE AMERICANS IS WINNING...
you are so messed up to follow these masters of deceit...
---------------------------
Bush set it up good huh?
If less soldiers get killed, "the surge is working"
If more soldiers get killed "the surge is working"
Where is the LOGIC in this?
He set himself up for a win....IF MORE SOLDERS ARE KILLED AND DEAD.
What a scumbag president....and an insenstitive, deceitful, idiot.
Care
You are the poster child for why civilians should NOT run military missions.
No denial here!
You are the poster child for why civilians should NOT run military missions.
and how will the Dems surrender bill solve the problem?
Less Americans killed is a win to me!
and good morning Rsr!
Care
Using her logic, the US never would have bombed Berlin in WWII, or used the A - bomb to defeat Japan
That is NOT true at all... Japan attacked us, Iraq DID NOT.
Germany declared WAR against us, Iraq DID NOT.
This is a war of choice in Iraq.
The war in Iraq had and has nothing to do with us being attacked on 911.
Why after 6 years and $500,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS has Bush and Co. not captured Bin Laden?
Care
Terrorists have declared war on the US
Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years - and we got 9-11
OBL is on the run and he will get his someday
Wrong again. Will you pay attention? I already corrected you before.
See http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=566989&postcount=87
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
Here is another article:
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml
Now, dont change the subject again. You said that Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years. There is no way around it. That statement is simply false.
I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.
I suggest you not hop into the middle of a discussion and pretend to have a fucking clue what has gone before.
RSR made the clear claim that "American casualties had decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge" and has YET to admit that was an idiotic and incorrect statement. If I love 10 Americans today, and 4 tomorrow, you can say "lookee! A 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge", but we all know it is bullshit, especially when the very NEXT day we lose a dozen.... all, except RSR - and apparently you - of course.
at the time the number were true
Terrorists increased their attacks knowing Dems would push for surrender
They were correct. Dems did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do
Like I said, if you lose 10 Americans on Tuesday and 4 Americans on Wednesday, you CAN make the claim that "American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge", but it really is a ridiculous statement.... and when we lose 9 on Thursday and 12 on Friday and 8 on Saturday and 7 on Sunday, the 60% figure becomes an inaccurate one day snapshot that never really had any validity when considering the rate of American casualties.
Terrorists keep attacking
Dems keep wanting to surrender
The terrorists game plan is working
your statement that we saw a 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge remains bullshit...and always was bullshit.
It was correct at the time - until the terrorists saw a way to help the Dems push for surrender
