Surge this!

[red states rule]

polly wanna cracker?

MM is losing - he is stuck on repeat again

 

[maineman]

MM is losing - he is stuck on repeat again

no...I have just been trying to get you to back up a claim you have made about the surge...and you seem intent on avoiding it.... you are the one running from your own words here.

you are the one who claimed that american casualties had decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.... and you refuse to back that bullshit up with any facts.... it is clearly YOU that are losing and losing badly. and nto very gracefully either.

 

[red states rule]

The surge is working - much to the dismay of of the left

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0320200..._____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0

 

[maineman]

that press release is a month old.


will you ever back up your claim that America has seen casualties decrease by 60% because of the success of the surge?

 

[maineman]

hey shitarro...gonna come on back with your fucking tail between your pansyass shaved legs and explain what the fuck that "promise" meant?

you know...this one:

Maineman, you will never hear another thing from me relating to your extensive tour of service to our country except thank you, that is a promise.

 

[red states rule]

that press release is a month old.


will you ever back up your claim that America has seen casualties decrease by 60% because of the success of the surge?

Should have known you would dismiss Gen Petraeus's assesment

Libs vote for him - now they do not want to give him the tools to win

Now they say the war is lost. Nothing like libs boosting the troops morale

 

[maineman]

Should have known you would dismiss Gen Petraeus's assesment

Libs vote for him - now they do not want to give him the tools to win

Now they say the war is lost. Nothing like libs boosting the troops morale

I only point out that it is a month old...the surge has failed miserably since then... American casaulties have NOT decreased by 60% as you continue to claim..... when will you retract that idiotic claim?

 

[red states rule]

I only point out that it is a month old...the surge has failed miserably since then... American casaulties have NOT decreased by 60% as you continue to claim..... when will you retract that idiotic claim?

Libs have a strange way of "supporting" the troops

The terrorists are hoping libs continue their dedicated efforts. It will make their ultimate goals much easier to achieve

 

[maineman]

Libs have a strange way of "supporting" the troops

The terrorists are hoping libs continue their dedicated efforts. It will make their ultimate goals much easier to achieve

I don't think that lying about what is happening in Iraq is supporting the troops. do you?

so please...once and for all.... either back up your claims of a 60% decrease in American casualties, or retract them.

I'll wait.

 

[maineman]

I notice that shitarro has stopped by to visit a few times since he stepped on his dick here and proved what a scumbag lying sack of shit he is, but oddly enough, he has not had the courage to actually SAY anything since then!

 

[Diuretic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_troop_boost

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is laying the groundwork to extend the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq. At the same time, the administration is warning Iraqi leaders that the boost in forces could be reversed if political reconciliation is not evident by summer.

I'd say the evidence is mixed at best.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think that lying about what is happening in Iraq is supporting the troops. do you?

so please...once and for all.... either back up your claims of a 60% decrease in American casualties, or retract them.

I'll wait.

When I see all the "support" Dems are giving the troops - I think of Tokyo Rose and Neville Chamberlain

 

[maineman]

When I see all the "support" Dems are giving the troops - I think of Tokyo Rose and Neville Chamberlain

you equate "lying" about their situation to protect your president with "supporting" them. that is really treasonous.


when will you ever retract your lies about a 60% decrease?

 

[red states rule]

you equate "lying" about their situation to protect your president with "supporting" them. that is really treasonous.


when will you ever retract your lies about a 60% decrease?

Well now, the Dems are in panic mode over the polls and they are trying to calm down the kook left

It is so much fun to atch Dems overplay their hand

Anti-War Liberals in House Weary of Opposing Iraq Funding Bill
Friday, April 20, 2007


WASHINGTON — Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.

Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.

The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.

Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.

In the Senate, the debate on the war grew sharper Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that Bush's troop buildup is not stemming violence in Iraq. That statement prompted Republicans to declare that Democrats don't support the troops in Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.

The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.

The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267381,00.html

 

[maineman]

keep running away from your own words...keep tossing out cut and pastes in a futile attempt to make people forget about your lies

 

[red states rule]

keep running away from your own words...keep tossing out cut and pastes in a futile attempt to make people forget about your lies

Ah, poor MM all upset his party is falling on their asses

 

[maineman]

Ah, poor MM all upset his party is falling on their asses

As I have said...I am not upset about my party at all...I am laughing at your futile attempts to explain your own lies away. Come on.... when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?

 

[red states rule]

As I have said...I am not upset about my party at all...I am laughing at your futile attempts to explain your own lies away. Come on.... when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?

So one has to win the war for the terrorists

Dems are more then happy to help

 

[maineman]

So one has to win the war for the terrorists

Dems are more then happy to help

when will you retract that stupid lie that American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge?

why do you run away from your own assertions like that? are you really that big of a coward in real life, or is it only here in cyberspace?

 

[red states rule]

The terrorists thank you for your loyal and continued support MM