|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Dems Finally Come Clean! Vote For Us, And We'll Stay In Iraq!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Dems Finally Come Clean! Vote For Us, And We'll Stay In Iraq!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Psychomike |
Oh brother.
August 12, 2007
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”
On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most American troops.
Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.
“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”
Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even optimistic experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are also hoping to tamp down any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they were elected. Most have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.
In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
So while the senators’ views expressed on the campaign trail do not conflict with their votes in Congress, particularly to set a deadline for withdrawal, they are grappling as candidates with the possibility of a sustained military presence in Iraq, addressing questions about America’s responsibility to Iraqi civilians as well as guarding against the terrorism threat in the region.
Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?
“While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, the question is what is the plan beyond that?” said Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa, a Democrat. “The first candidate running for president, I think on either side, who can best articulate that will win.”
Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal. Neither MoveOn.org nor its affiliated group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press Democrats here in Iowa to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately.
“Of course we would like to get them out right now. That sounds wonderful,” said Sue Dinsdale, who leads the Iowa chapter of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and has seen nearly all of the Democratic candidates. “I don’t think that people realize what their specific plans are and what they are saying about it, but just that they are working to end the war.”
The leading Republican candidates have largely chosen not to wrestle publicly with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President Bush and waiting until Gen. David H. Petraeus delivers a progress report next month on the troop buildup this year.
While the Democrats talk exhaustively about Iraq, a review of the remarks they have made during campaign stops over the last six months leaves little ambiguity in their message: If the president refuses to end the war, they will.
To accomplish that goal, they all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.
“It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,” Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.
Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making “bringing the troops home” a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: “I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.’ ”
Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would not support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites slaughter Sunnis — and Sunnis retaliate — on a much greater scale than now takes place.
Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide, has tried to position himself as the more forceful antiwar candidate by criticizing both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for not pushing hard enough in the Senate to bring the troops home.
“There are differences between us,” Mr. Edwards said in a June debate. “I think there is a difference between making very clear when the crucial moment comes, on Congress ending this war, what your position is and standing quiet.”
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has called for the United States military to “begin redeploying immediately.” In a debate this week in Chicago, he said: “We can do so with two and a half divisions coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/u...r=1&oref=slogin |
|
|
| Rike |
| liberals don't mind when democrats go to war! |
|
|
| booybob |
| And nothing will be said here. this thread will drop like a lead weight |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
I am the first to admit I am unhappy with their walking away from promises to end the war quickly. That is precisely the type of thing that has kept me from joining the Democratic party all these years.
But there is not a true majority that would allow them to end it immediately, even if they tried. Tim Johnson is still in the hospital and Joe LIEberman has his head way up Bush's ass.
But beginning to bring them home is a first step that Bush and the bootlicking Republicans refuse to take. America would be happy if the process started, though.
If the choice is between unending war vs. slowly bringing them home over the next 3,4, or 5 years, you don't see a difference there? |
|
|
| Richard Wagner |
| The Democrats refuse to vote against funding. |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| I consider myself a libertarian and this past election I held my nose and voted republican. I really thought they were going to do right ( obviously I am wrong on a whole host of issues). That being said I find the Democrats to be totally full of shit particullarly on Iraq. It will be interesting to see what thier base will do in the following elections when they come clean on what they can do in Iraq (which is to stay and to see it through). I think it may be time to crank up a third party, these guys are total losers and screwing us into oblivion (both parties). |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Richard Wagner
The Democrats refuse to vote against funding. |
This is true.
Ending the war means ending the war, even if that means cutting funds. But I was not suprised to see them unwilling to do that. I figured that would be far too politically risky for most to try. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Richard Wagner
The Democrats refuse to vote against funding. |
How could it be done? Political suicide, no?
With a build up this large - what options do we have? |
|
|
| atomizer |
It's interesting to me how these intellectual failures who start threads like this can only ever admit that the situation in Iraq is a catastrophe when dragging 'dems' into it. When they refer to themselves in relation to the complete and utter disaster, it's a success and a righteous cause.
Make up your mind, fuckhead. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
It's interesting to me how these intellectual failures who start threads like this can only ever admit that the situation in Iraq is a catastrophe when dragging 'dems' into it. When they refer to themselves in relation to the complete and utter disaster, it's a success and a righteous cause.
Make up your mind, fuckhead. |
There is your intellectual failure for this thread right in the center of this pic:
 |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
There is your intellectual failure for this thread right in the center of this pic:
|
Cool jew-fro on that guy. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
It's interesting to me how these intellectual failures who start threads like this can only ever admit that the situation in Iraq is a catastrophe when dragging 'dems' into it. When they refer to themselves in relation to the complete and utter disaster, it's a success and a righteous cause.
Make up your mind, fuckhead. |
I know, did a democrat scare your mom when she was pregnant with you? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
Cool jew-fro on that guy. |
Well that toad claims to have had his grimy penis inside Jenny McCarthy..... :jj: :jj: :jj: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Well that toad claims to have had his grimy penis inside Jenny McCarthy..... :jj: :jj: :jj: |
AB, no fucking way?!! That guy? There must be some misunderstanding. Maybe JIMMY McCarthy? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
AB, no fucking way?!! That guy? There must be some misunderstanding. Maybe JIMMY McCarthy? |
Well, he DOES have an unhealthy obsession with JOE McCarthy.... |
|
|
| atomizer |
| By appearances, it seems as though he might want to start thinking about Jenny CRAIG. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Ending the war means ending the war, even if that means cutting funds. But I was not suprised to see them unwilling to do that. I figured that would be far too politically risky for most to try. |
Exactly. They were more concerned with their own political careers than they were with the lives of the men and women stationed in Iraq. |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
The reality is that the democrats did as well as they could with the amount of votes they have. they at least took control of the committees that have exposed the corruption in the white house and congress.
We will see what happens when the Iraq question and other important issues come up in september, but I'm not holding my breath..... :mad: |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by BarkonCue
The reality is that the democrats did as well as they could with the amount of votes they have. |
The best they could is showing they have no backbone? |
|
|
| 46+2 |
I'm an independent and at this point, there is little to no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore. At the end of the day both parties will do anything to get into office and then will promptly get nothing done while they bicker with the other party over any and everything. Both parties are completely out of touch with the average citizen and neither party is capable of being pro-active; both idly stand by until something happens, then react with excessive, often unbelievably expensive, "corrections."
The Democrats' latest mistake was to reach the conclusion that they gained control of the House and Senate not because people were fed up with the Republicans and their antics, but because people just wanted to put the Democrats in control. This hypothesis is proven by the Democrats failure to accomplish even one of the things for which they were elected in 2006. They still support an enormous federal government, open borders (If a bunch of poor Mexicans can waltz across the border, what the fuck would stop a few well-trained, highly motivated al-Qaeda operatives from doing the same thing?), unconditional support for Israel (apparently it's ok if Israel kills a few hundred or thousand innocent Palestinians....we (U.S.) tacitly approve and encourage it by always looking the other way; but if a Palestinian kills an Israel it's an act of "terrorism"), and the same warped, self-serving (and damaging to many other countries and their people), hypocritical foreign policy that has been the "norm" for more than two decades. Most Democrats have shown little ability to form and express opinions and courses of action of their own; instead, either electing to oppose whatever isn't working or what the Republican Party supports.
The Republicans meanwhile have become a party of Bible-beating, invisible-man worshipping, war-mongering, fear-exploiting, reality-lacking, big oil-funded Conservative extremists. Though antithetical to the philosophy of true Republicans like Barry Goldwater, they support having a large, intrusive federal government that will enact and enforce their (Republicans') beliefs of what is best for the country and its citizens, whether we citizens like it or not. Few of them show any ability to think for themselves and/or formulate problem-solving ideas. Instead, like the Democrats, they would rather criticize the other party's ideas. Most of them either believe an invisible man will suddenly swoop down and miraculously repair the damage done by humans to the environment and planet (pollution, global warming, over-fishing, depletion of non-renewable resources, et al.) or simply harbor no concern over the problems they pass on to future generations. Most Republicans (Ron Paul is one of the very few exceptions) actually support terrorism by encouraging continued dependence on Middle East oil and by limiting (read: hindering) research into alternative fuels. The only "alternative fuel" most of them support, like the vast majority of Democrats, is ethanol, which is an unrealistic future replacement for oil ("Clean Coal" is the most feasible, cost-effective, easy to produce alternative fuel (not to mention one we have an abundance of by way of the enormous low-sulfur deposit known as the Powder River Basin) ... but it, unlike ethanol, doesn't have lobby-loaded, wonderfully corrupt backers like ADM behind it.).
Both parties have trampled upon the prudent foreign policy established by our Founding Fathers, which was not as George W. Bush disapproving labeled "isolationism," but rather was a policy of unilateralism. Both parties instead support, for the simple reason of resisting change owing to their fear of the possibility of losing support (read: losing power), an imperialistic/interventionalist foreign policy in which the U.S. continues to intervene in and usually worsen events in foreign countries.
Democrats and Republicans alike support a hypocritical foreign policy in which rhetoric of supporting "freedom and Democracy" worldwide is mere lip service. The aforementioned tired and transparent mantra won't cause them to drop U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other countries in which the non-elected (or in some cases, elected by fraudulent "elections") ruling governments have the support of little of the country's population. At the same time, the governments of Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, and others, who gained power through legal elections, will not be accepted, not because they aren't "Democratic," but because they aren't categorically pro-American (in other words, they aren't "puppet governments" of the U.S.).
Both parties are supportive of a foreign policy that is, intentional or not, anti-Muslim (again, U.S. leaders can say whatever they want, but actions speak louder than words, and our foreign policy speaks for itself, and it says "anti-Muslim").
- We refuse to recognize Palestine until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, which wouldn't be hypocritical if we didn't also demand Israel recognize Palestine (they don't, and we (U.S.) apparently are just fine with that).
- We have said little (what we have said has been nothing but very delicate criticism) and done nothing about Israel's completely illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. We have remained practically silent (and action-wise, entirely silent) about Israel's "colonization" of the occupied territories, which has often followed Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes under the pretext of "security measures" (of course, that hardly holds up when homes for Israeli settlers are immediately constructed in the very spot as the Palestinians' homes once stood).
- We enact sanctions on Pakistan after it develops and tests a nuclear weapon. Again, it wouldn't be a problem, yet we didn't do the same to India when it too developed and tested a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Israel has possessed nuclear arms for more than a decade and we've never once demanded they sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Support independence for East Timor (93% Christian), but not for Kashmir (majority Muslim)
- Support independence for Georgia (89% Christian), but not for Chechnya (predominantly Muslim)
- Support independence for Croatia (93% Christian), but not for Bosnia (majority Muslim)
Oh yeah, and both parties, due to the members stupidity and inability to read any of the excellent books on the market, still cling to the belief that "suicide terrorism" is either entirely or predominantly a tactic used by Islamists. Virtually all Republicans and Democrats, and many Americans for that matter, harbor the delusion that suicide terrorism can somehow be tied to Islam. Reality, as shown by extensive studies, says otherwise, specifically, that nationalist rebellion and religious difference between rebels and an occupying state are the main conditions under which suicide terrorism becomes a strategy aiming for liberation of the homeland (e.g., Lebanon in the 1980s, Iraq today, et al.). |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
The best they could is showing they have no backbone? |
What the fuck are they supposed to do? Don't they have something like 51 votes at their most united? I don't expect them to do shit with that number. What I do expect is for the republican tools to march in lockstep off a cliff with their slow-adult leader and billionaire criminal mastermind without a single unique thought amongst themselves. That's backbone according to you, apparently? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
The best they could is showing they have no backbone? |
You don't understand. In the Senate the Dems actually have no majority at all. Tim Johnson is in the hospital, and Joe LIEberman, who caucuses with the Dems, does whatever Bush tells him to.
A tie leaves the deciding vote to Darth Cheney. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
What the fuck are they supposed to do? |
Vote against every single bill that they should vote against. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You don't understand. In the Senate the Dems actually have no majority at all. |
Doesn't matter. If you want the war in Iraq to end, you cannot continue to fund it. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Doesn't matter. If you want the war in Iraq to end, you cannot continue to fund it. |
I agree with you man, what you are not understanding is that even if EVERY voting Democrat voted to do that, the Republicans (and Joe LIEberman) can stop it.
I am not happy with the way they have handled things, but you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. There is no effective majority. That matters. |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Vote against every single bill that they should vote against. |
Should? According to whom? What's 'should'? Do you see republicans voting without any nuance whatsoever (well, pork notwithstanding) as them doing what they 'should'? That's pretty brainless in and of itself.
...and even if...then what? It's all going to make a difference to Mr Signing Statement? Fucking hell. Get a grip. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I agree with you man, what you are not understanding is that even if EVERY voting Democrat voted to do that, the Republicans (and Joe LIEberman) can stop it.
|
I realize that, but they're not playing Survivor up there. They don't have to go along with the Republicans just because they can't outvote them.
HR 2206 voting record
YEA: 194 Republicans, 86 Democrats
NAY: 2 Republicans, 140 Democrats
(6 Democrats and 5 Republicans did not vote) |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
Should? According to whom? |
According to their principles. If they disagree with our presence in Iraq, they must not vote to fund it.
Those Democrats that voted to continue funding the war have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites, choosing to further their own agenda (minimum wage) with the blood of our men and women in Iraq. |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
According to their principles. If they disagree with our presence in Iraq, they must not vote to fund it.
Those Democrats that voted to continue funding the war have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites, choosing to further their own agenda (minimum wage) with the blood of our men and women in Iraq. |
Maybe to people like us who pay attention to such things, they show themselves up as hypocrites simply by virtue of their existence? 'Should' obviously has no place in politics.
I share your frustration though, man. Perhaps I just have lower expectations? Going on seven years of having no voice whatsoever in what my country does can definitely jade a person. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
I realize that, but they're not playing Survivor up there. They don't have to go along with the Republicans just because they can't outvote them.
HR 2206 voting record
YEA: 194 Republicans, 86 Democrats
NAY: 2 Republicans, 140 Democrats
(6 Democrats and 5 Republicans did not vote) |
That is the House. We were discussing the Senate. The house can go one way, but it still has to make it through the senate.
But I agree. They should vote for what's right, regardless of what the outcome might be. But you are ignoring the fact that the outcome would not be changed had all of them voted the way you wanted them to. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
According to their principles. If they disagree with our presence in Iraq, they must not vote to fund it.
Those Democrats that voted to continue funding the war have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites, choosing to further their own agenda (minimum wage) with the blood of our men and women in Iraq. |
wha?
you are no democrat - why speak for them? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
According to their principles. If they disagree with our presence in Iraq, they must not vote to fund it.
Those Democrats that voted to continue funding the war have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites, choosing to further their own agenda (minimum wage) with the blood of our men and women in Iraq. |
you want to see the democrats self-destruct.
you are the last person they should listen to. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
[B]That is the House. We were discussing the Senate. The house can go one way, but it still has to make it through the senate. |
A vote has to pass through both to make it onto the president's desk. Democrats should've made their stand in both. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
wha?
you are no democrat - why speak for them? |
Do the Democrats want to the war in Iraq to end or not? |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
I share your frustration though, man. Perhaps I just have lower expectations? Going on seven years of having no voice whatsoever in what my country does can definitely jade a person. |
Oh, it's not that I had any expectations of the Democrats. I'm just pointing out what hypocrites they are for telling us they oppose our presence in Iraq while at the same time voting to continue funding it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Do the Democrats want to the war in Iraq to end or not? |
what about the republicans :burst:
I guess that would be a ...no?
:burst: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Do the Democrats want to the war in Iraq to end or not? |
Which democrat are you writing about, Porc? There seems to be differing viewpoints amongst them. Some appear to be very anti-war, some support it.
Why are the democrats painted horribly for disagreeing with each other? While I sometimes wish they would vote in a weirdo monolithic bloc the way the republicans do, I sort of gain hope from the fact that the Democratic senator from Montana won't necessarily vote with the Democratic senator from New York. They have different priorities and different constituencies. They represent different groups of people from different places in the United States. Why the fuck should the Democratic Party be a laughing stock for having different considerations within itself? That was the point, wasn't it?
And no, I'm not a democrat. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
| Welcome to politics. There has been a lot of hypocrisy from the Democrats on Iraq. Claiming they were going to initiate an immediate pull-out if they took the majority was disingenuous, irresponsible and makes one wonder if they are telling the truth about anything. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
what about the republicans |
 |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Claiming they were going to initiate an immediate pull-out if they took the majority was disingenuous |
who said this?
honestly, because I don't remember that |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
|
well, at least the pretense is gone :D |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
well, at least the pretense is gone :D |
Haaahhh!!!! Sam should be wearing a cock ring and ass-less leather chaps. I imagine he'll finish his 'job'. Go, Uncle Sam! |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
Which democrat are you writing about, Porc? |
The party as a whole. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
The party as a whole. |
yeah, they have the patent on hypocrisy :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
well, at least the pretense is gone :D |
Pretense?
ROMNEY: There's not a global war on terror. There's a global war being waged by the terrorists and if I am president, there will be a global war waged on the terrorists and we will win. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
yeah, they have the patent on hypocrisy :rolleyes: |
I despise the Republican Party even more so than the Democratic Party. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
I despise the Republican Party even more so than the Democratic Party. |
then which party wants to invade Iran? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Pretense?
ROMNEY: There's not a global war on terror. There's a global war being waged by the terrorists and if I am president, there will be a global war waged on the terrorists and we will win. |
I had thought your posts were getting more lucid |
|
|
| mingmen |
It is probably my paranoia
but I just caught a whiff of holy elvis
:bigthink: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
who said this?
honestly, because I don't remember that |
I may be wrong but I thought that was the general gist of the democratic talking points. They would vote to cut off funding and then the troops would come home. I don't mean the next day but there was talk of ending the occupation if the dems were put in the majority. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I may be wrong but I thought that was the general gist of the democratic talking points. |
Now wait a minute. That is not the same thing is it? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Porcupine
Pretense?
ROMNEY: There's not a global war on terror. There's a global war being waged by the terrorists and if I am president, there will be a global war waged on the terrorists and we will win. |
Romney also linked 9/11 and Iraq in the debate. He is a fucking tool. |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Romney also linked 9/11 and Iraq in the debate. He is a fucking tool. |
AB, no one ever calls them on that bullshit, do they? It's all sort of glossed-over. I heard it; who else did? Judging from corporate media coverage, not many people, sadly.
Now, if Obama runs his mouth off about going after the lawless southwest of Pakistan (as W should've fucking done at the get-go), he's a loose nut. If Karl Rove would've given Obama's speech, the Bush/Cheeney taint-lickers would have a new t-shirt slogan for the simple red states. Fucking ponderous. Bret Michaels Rock of Love is on in a few minutes. I have to imagine Brandi C. has more political insight than some of the Romney-men on here. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
AB, no one ever calls them on that bullshit, do they? It's all sort of glossed-over. I heard it; who else did? Judging from corporate media coverage, not many people, sadly.
Now, if Obama runs his mouth off about going after the lawless southwest of Pakistan (as W should've fucking done at the get-go), he's a loose nut. If Karl Rove would've given Obama's speech, the Bush/Cheeney taint-lickers would have a new t-shirt slogan for the simple red states. Fucking ponderous. Bret Michaels Rock of Love is on in a few minutes. I have to imagine Brandi C. has more political insight than some of the Romney-men on here. |
Romney is a political windsock. |
|
|
| Richard Wagner |
| Ron Paul is the only candidate who can be trusted to end the American military conquest of Arabia and Persia. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Richard Wagner
Ron Paul is the only candidate who can be trusted to end the American military conquest of Arabia and Persia. |
the reason he will never hold office |
|
|
| Richard Wagner |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
the reason he will never hold office |
One of the reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
