General Pace is Right
This is a total crook of ****. Are you actually claiming that a
majority of Democrats called for immediate withdrawal? No such claim was made and you dishonor yourself by lying like this. * Nathan Branden wrote, On 3/14/2007 10:18 AM: General Pace of the United States Marine Corps is right for not apologizing for giving his personal opinion. If anyone should be apologizing it should be the Democrats. They promised to get us out of Iraq. They control both Houses and all they have to do is pass a bill requiring immediate withdrawal. It seems they are more interested in getting re-elected than in the interests of the majority of Americans. The Democrats lack the spine to take a real stand and one can plainly see they will makes things much worse by half heartedly dragging their feet. Note that the former Marine, Murtha, offers total commitment to an action. He is not a wuss. Marines may differ in opinion, but they will die for what they believe in. Semper Fi Nathan |
General Pace is Right
But there was never a significant number of Dems calling for immediate
withdrawal. He specifically claimed they "promised to get us out" but in fact that promise was never made. With a few exceptions, the Dems all said that leaving immediately would be a mistake. It seems your ideology is blinding, not mine. * Dave wrote, On 3/14/2007 1:20 PM: Your ideology is blinding you, Jeff. He was criticizing the Dems for failing to pass a bill requiring immediate withdrawal. On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:56:09 -0400, Jeff said: This is a total crook of ****. Are you actually claiming that a majority of Democrats called for immediate withdrawal? No such claim was made and you dishonor yourself by lying like this. * Nathan Branden wrote, On 3/14/2007 10:18 AM: General Pace of the United States Marine Corps is right for not apologizing for giving his personal opinion. If anyone should be apologizing it should be the Democrats. They promised to get us out of Iraq. They control both Houses and all they have to do is pass a bill requiring immediate withdrawal. It seems they are more interested in getting re-elected than in the interests of the majority of Americans. The Democrats lack the spine to take a real stand and one can plainly see they will makes things much worse by half heartedly dragging their feet. Note that the former Marine, Murtha, offers total commitment to an action. He is not a wuss. Marines may differ in opinion, but they will die for what they believe in. |
General Pace is Right
* Nathan Branden wrote, On 3/14/2007 1:50 PM:
On 14 Mar 2007 12:20:08 -0500, Dave wrote: Your ideology is blinding you, Jeff. He was criticizing the Dems for failing to pass a bill requiring immediate withdrawal. On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:56:09 -0400, Jeff said: This is a total crook of ****. Are you actually claiming that a majority of Democrats called for immediate withdrawal? No such claim was made and you dishonor yourself by lying like this. * Nathan Branden wrote, On 3/14/2007 10:18 AM: General Pace of the United States Marine Corps is right for not apologizing for giving his personal opinion. If anyone should be apologizing it should be the Democrats. They promised to get us out of Iraq. They control both Houses and all they have to do is pass a bill requiring immediate withdrawal. It seems they are more interested in getting re-elected than in the interests of the majority of Americans. The Democrats lack the spine to take a real stand and one can plainly see they will makes things much worse by half heartedly dragging their feet. Note that the former Marine, Murtha, offers total commitment to an action. He is not a wuss. Marines may differ in opinion, but they will die for what they believe in. Most of the time doing nothing is the worst thing. The Democrats promise everything, are everything to everybody and then fail to deliver. Bush has a plan, though it may be flawed, and sticks to it. Apparently it is working as the troop surge shows: http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.as...en&DSNO=961365 You are in a war to win. Any other expected outcome is absolute nonsense and is a real waste ofprecious American lives. There is no middle ground and I wish the Democrats would learn that, otherwise the victory in their grasp will become the blood on their hands. Nathan So I gather you're in favor of immediately leaving and are criticizing the Dems for not doing so. It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. |
General Pace is Right
* Dave wrote, On 3/14/2007 2:46 PM:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:42:38 -0400, Jeff said: It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. Trying out for Comedy Central, Jeff? That's what they said. The conservative buffoons like to imagine what their concept of a liberal would believe, and then claim that's what all Democrats said. I prefer to actually use the truth, not fantasy. |
General Pace is Right
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. But there was never a significant number of Dems calling for immediate withdrawal. He specifically claimed they "promised to get us out" but in fact that promise was never made. With a few exceptions, the Dems all said that leaving immediately would be a mistake. I don't seem to recall Murtha saying that. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Max |
General Pace is Right
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:37 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. But there was never a significant number of Dems calling for immediate withdrawal. He specifically claimed they "promised to get us out" but in fact that promise was never made. With a few exceptions, the Dems all said that leaving immediately would be a mistake. I don't seem to recall Murtha saying that. I didn't say that he did, now did I? |
General Pace is Right
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. |
General Pace is Right
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
General Pace is Right
* Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the hoped it worked. Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will work out. |
General Pace is Right
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the hoped it worked. Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will work out. I've got a theory about all this ridiculous political shenanigans that is going on of late. I think it's all been orchestrated by the powers that be to keep the terrorists from attacking inside the country again. I think the Dems and Repubs got together sometime about four years ago and agreed to the current situation of bickering and unreasonable actions in congress for the purpose of making the Islamic fascist terrorists put a hold on their plans. They know any major attack will unite the country against them like 9-11 did so they can be easily fooled into thinking the Bush administration is in total ruin and leftist Democrats who are weak on defense will gain power making it all the easier for terrorists to strike in the future. As long as terrorists see the country being torn apart from the inside they can just sit and bide their time hoping the country will soon crumble under its own weight. I just can't imagine how Democrat leaders can continue to be so asinine, strident, and unrealistic while the Republicans continue to act more and more spineless. The President seems to be taking everything on the chin like a victim and acting more and more like lame duck. This is what the terrorists want and it certainly is what the Democrats want. The terrorists look at the Democrats and think. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Mr. Bush has happily assumed the role of Democrat and terrorist enemy to further the cause of freedom. He is a truly great man. But, the point is that Democrats just cannot be as anti-American as they seem. Therefore it makes sense for me to conclude it's all a big plan to thwart terrorists and while President Bush plays the guy everybody loves to hate, the Democrats are playing the party everybody loves to hate. So give the Dems some credit if this is the actual case as their playing their appointed role to perfection has helped the country to remain free of terrorists attacks. Wilbur Hubbard |
General Pace is Right
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well. You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left will have been just so much hot air and BS. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the hoped it worked. Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will work out. I honestly believe that to be an outright lie. I'm not accusing you of lying, but if liberals have said they hope his plan works, they are lying. A victorious W is the last thing the far left wants. It would vilify everything they've done up to this point. If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message ... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 11:13 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. I guess you have to willing to actually listen to what they say. Most had doubts, and some implied this was his last chance, but they also said the hoped it worked. Contrary to what some assholes think, even liberals hope that things will work out. I've got a theory about all this ridiculous political shenanigans that is going on of late. I think it's all been orchestrated by the powers that be to keep the terrorists from attacking inside the country again. I think the Dems and Repubs got together sometime about four years ago and agreed to the current situation of bickering and unreasonable actions in congress for the purpose of making the Islamic fascist terrorists put a hold on their plans. They know any major attack will unite the country against them like 9-11 did so they can be easily fooled into thinking the Bush administration is in total ruin and leftist Democrats who are weak on defense will gain power making it all the easier for terrorists to strike in the future. As long as terrorists see the country being torn apart from the inside they can just sit and bide their time hoping the country will soon crumble under its own weight. I just can't imagine how Democrat leaders can continue to be so asinine, strident, and unrealistic while the Republicans continue to act more and more spineless. The President seems to be taking everything on the chin like a victim and acting more and more like lame duck. This is what the terrorists want and it certainly is what the Democrats want. The terrorists look at the Democrats and think. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Mr. Bush has happily assumed the role of Democrat and terrorist enemy to further the cause of freedom. He is a truly great man. But, the point is that Democrats just cannot be as anti-American as they seem. Therefore it makes sense for me to conclude it's all a big plan to thwart terrorists and while President Bush plays the guy everybody loves to hate, the Democrats are playing the party everybody loves to hate. So give the Dems some credit if this is the actual case as their playing their appointed role to perfection has helped the country to remain free of terrorists attacks. Dream on, Neal. It's a nice theory--think anyone besides yourself will buy it? Max |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well. You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left will have been just so much hot air and BS. Max I don't agree. He won't be "vindicated" at all. He'll have gotten lucky with an ill-conceived war and with no plan. We will all be lucky and perhaps, maybe, he will have learned from his mistakes, although I doubt it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
General Pace is Right
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need to withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives. Immediately withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on either side is calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and requiring the Iraqis to take control of their situation. If it's still possible to fix it, which I and most analysists think, including those in the military, then we'll soon find out. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
General Pace is Right
"Nathan Branden" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There can be nothing in between. murtha he a turd (he he he). he a chicken. he no marine. marines fight. murtha hide B hind desk. yell surrender! todd todd |
General Pace is Right
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need to withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives. This statement contradicts the one immediately below. Immediately withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on either side is calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and requiring the Iraqis to take control of their situation. You first statement implies that a civil war is beyond anyone's control. Then you state that leaving before the Iraqis take control is not an option. Which is it? If it's still possible to fix it, which I and most analysists think, including those in the military, then we'll soon find out. Is that why House Democrats attempted to pass a resolution removing Bush's ability to continue the war? Doesn't sound as if they believed there was a fix in order, now or ever. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Nathan Branden" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There can be nothing in between. Vietnam comes to mind. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Todd" wrote in message anews.com... "Nathan Branden" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There can be nothing in between. murtha he a turd (he he he). he a chicken. he no marine. marines fight. murtha hide B hind desk. yell surrender! Murtha served his country with honor, you illiterate twit. He deserves our respect, despite differing political opinions. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well. You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left will have been just so much hot air and BS. Max I don't agree. He won't be "vindicated" at all. He'll have gotten lucky with an ill-conceived war and with no plan. We will all be lucky and perhaps, maybe, he will have learned from his mistakes, although I doubt it. Have you always been so delusional, Jon? Do you honestly believe the GOP won't tout their great victory in the Iraq War? Do you think history books will say that W got lucky? We're talking politics here, not reality. Bush will be thumping his chest for decades. A victory in Iraq will elevate Bush to the level of a great President, despite his poorly-planned and executed military adventure. Max |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jeff" wrote in message . .. * Maxprop wrote, On 3/14/2007 7:39 PM: "Jeff" wrote in message It seemed to me that most of the Dems expressed hope that the President's plan would work. What cable channel have you been watching? Certainly not the one that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but. I've been watching the left-leaning ones, and still don't recall ever hearing a democrat expressing the opinion that he/she would like to see the President's plan do anything but fall flat on its face. Max Actually, most said and are saying that while they believe his "plan" will fail, they certainly hope it doesn't. That's my belief/desire, as well. You can't be serious. If Bush's plan is victorious, he'll have been vindicated for his Iraq war adventure, and all the naysaying from the left will have been just so much hot air and BS. Max I don't agree. He won't be "vindicated" at all. He'll have gotten lucky with an ill-conceived war and with no plan. We will all be lucky and perhaps, maybe, he will have learned from his mistakes, although I doubt it. Have you always been so delusional, Jon? Do you honestly believe the GOP won't tout their great victory in the Iraq War? Do you think history books will say that W got lucky? We're talking politics here, not reality. Bush will be thumping his chest for decades. Of course they will. That doesn't make reality, however, as you accurately point out. He might believe he'd be vindicated, but tell that to the 1000s who were injured and died. A victory in Iraq will elevate Bush to the level of a great President, despite his poorly-planned and executed military adventure. In his own mind perhaps. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need to withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives. This statement contradicts the one immediately below. Immediately withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on either side is calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and requiring the Iraqis to take control of their situation. You first statement implies that a civil war is beyond anyone's control. Then you state that leaving before the Iraqis take control is not an option. Which is it? I said "as soon as possible." I also said, "Immediately withdrawing is not an option." These are not in disagreement. If it's still possible to fix it, which I and most analysists think, including those in the military, then we'll soon find out. Is that why House Democrats attempted to pass a resolution removing Bush's ability to continue the war? Doesn't sound as if they believed there was a fix in order, now or ever. I don't get what you're trying to prove. They're not talking about anyone leaving anytime soon. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Todd" wrote in message anews.com... "Nathan Branden" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There can be nothing in between. murtha he a turd (he he he). he a chicken. he no marine. marines fight. murtha hide B hind desk. yell surrender! Murtha served his country with honor, you illiterate twit. He deserves our respect, despite differing political opinions. Max murtha durt bag. marine not kut and run. marine fite to finish. eat own gutz 2 win. murtha traiter. politiks cum 1st with him. country cum 2nd. country cum 1st with marine. he no marine. traiter. him = kerry. durt bag both. todd |
General Pace is Right
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Nathan Branden" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar 2007 19:22:09 -0500, Dave wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If the insurgency and the civil unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower. You can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that. David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He says essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the troops out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The Dems want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people that they don't know what they're doing. That is what I've been saying all along. Murtha, former Marine and Democrat knows this too. Total commitment or total withdrawal. There can be nothing in between. Vietnam comes to mind. Max sumthing no kan cum to nuthing (he he he). todd |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com