This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
You're an idiot. Show me where in the Bill the Dems proposed not to equip the troops. He gave Bush what he wanted and then some in that area. Freaking wingnut liars.
It's been Bush who has underfunded equipping the troops especially with the IED-proof vehicles.
You guys are amazing, it the truthg doesnt work you just make shit up.
Joe your kool-aid glass seems a bit empty....perhaps you should go and refill it at the KOS,I hear they have plenty there....
Joe blow said: "He gave Bush what he wanted and then some in that area. Freaking wingnut liars."
That some is 23 billion in pork and a time line the first in military history of the world,imagine that a defeatist dem,go figure...
I will leave some for the others,I don't want to be greedy shredding your ass
Wow, so original with the kool aid shit. Lemming.
So what" It's time this arrogant, bumbling and incompetent administration is finally held accountable with some benchmarks. The bill even allows some troops to remain indefinitely.
Did you read it or are you parroting Hannity again?
And all bills have pork, even republicons. That's called politics, dummy.
Republicans hate the troops-they send them to war without the proper equipment in the first place.
They would have had the equipment if Clinton had'nt cut miltary budget to 30%
Leaving America vulnerable after his negligent 9/11 disaster
Republicans hate the troops yeah ok that's why 85% of the military is republican
back to the land of KOS troll before you get exposed as the pro-terrorist POS you are
Joe,
You are such an idiot, the libtard Demonrats in Congress packed the bills with so much pork because that was the only way they could get enough votes to pass it (Charlie Rangle admitted that on Meet The Press) so don't act like this was a good bill. WE WILL NOT SURRENDER IN IRAQ get it through your thick libtard skull.
Oh Bullshit. Bush had such a surplus after Clinton left he could've bought every soldier an IED Proof Humvee.
Ok Jon, what pork in this bill do you object to? Y
You don't think the countless GOP bills slammed though Congress these past 6 years didn't pad some fat cats pockets? Rightard.
Have the demacratic jackass shot at dawn and no blindfold let it see the faces of those it has turned against before this trecerous brute dies
It would`nt have passed the senate if John Mccain and sen.Graham had been in Washington voting instead of South Carolina campaigning.Didn`t Mccain say he`d rather win the war than the election.Guess he changed his mind or he agrees with the Dems on how to win the war
Carol why the vote in the first place?
Dems just wasting time,Bush told them "he would veto" what part of that didn't they understand?
Carol why the vote in the first place? To let Bush know theres a new congress in town.
Dems just wasting time,Bush told them "he would veto" what part of that didn't they understand?
Veto means end of that bill not the end of the new congress.
Hey Joe, you stupid ass,
There is NO SUCH THING as an IED proof anything.
Almost all of the vehicles over there are up-armored. You are an idiot who is just regurgitating years old talking points.
Damn, your stupid!
VW
If Mccain and Graham had voted nay and Republicans Smith and Hagel had voted nay instead of yah it would not have passed.Personal responsibilty is such a big part of your parties platform,maybe its time to hold your own elected members responsible
lol. bush is the one that SENT them to iraq without the proper armor. and they are not awaiting any fuds at this time. they have all that they havebeen promised. You can't spin this one. talk about disingenous. how do you sleep at night?
"lol. bush is the one that SENT them to iraq without the proper armor."
All you idiots act like the military knew IED's were commonly used and just sent unarmoured vehicles over anyway. If they were so commonly used in the past armouring all vehicles would have become standard practice. These sort of attacks were relatively new and once they began to occur the military began armouring vehicles. Simple as that. Trying to paint this as some fault of this administration is nonsense, as are all leftists.
joe = regurgitating moronic fool
First, this blog rocks. I just found it and subscribed. Second, regarding the 'surplus' left by Clinton, that was a PROJECTED surplus. It wasn't money in the bank. And the only reason there was so much money coming in to the govt. was because of the high taxes we were all paying.
USA all the way!
mike- that was a totally off topic and incorrect analysis of "rubenomics". you should check out bruce bartletts stuff on clinton, particulrly in "imposter" his magnum opus on the lamentable commander in chief jorge arbusto.
darwin- well there whole rationale for war was that a lqueda was working with saddam. shouldn't they have been ready for the possibility of that? plus, this isn't a communis country, obviously if there are situations on the ground we have to adapt.
no, bush held up the armor because he couldn't accept the way the war was going.
and againl thjis article is totally facetious. we are spending 10 billion a month in afghanistan and iraq. the idea that there isn't enough money for anything is laughable.
maybe its time to hold your own elected members responsible
carol | 04.29.07 - 5:39 am | #
I agree,I hold Clinton responsibble for 9/11,and a poor military at start of war,I hold Bush reponsible for re-equiping and upgrading our great military of today
a look at the Clinton military legacy
http://www.socalpundit.com/blog/
...rsonClinton.jpg
cheney initiated alot of the post communism cut backs during Bush1.
Bush only up graded the militaris equipment after being shamed into it by the troops themselves and the public. and the military is stretched to the breaking point thanks to chicken hawk bush.
so no way on all that goombah
"thanks to chicken hawk bush."
I'm sure all those Air National Guard pilots appreciate your comment.
Your other comments aren't worth the effort.
Hellpig sir> I hold Bush responsible for not equiping and upgrading our troops before he took them to war.He had been President for over 2 years when we went into Iraq.Since we had been at war in Afg. for over a year, someone should have known what was needed,but nothing was done until we got in Iraq,and then,only when troops and their families complained.Hes like a coach sending his team in without shoulder pads and only half the team needed. while saying,sorry you gotta play with what you got not what you want or need.If that wasn`nt bad enough he keeps moving the goal post and playing without a time clock.Theres plenty of blame to go around,but to try to leave Bush blameless would be ridiculous.
the level of hate I have grown to feel for these useless Democrats is turning epic.
“Republicans hate the troops-they send them to war without the proper equipment in the first place.”
- You are kidding right?
For one, I don’t know if they hate them but the left sure as hell doesn’t respect the military.
Second, without the proper equipment is a half-truth. Of course we want everyone to have the best. But what next will you argue that the Navy and Marines can no longer fly missions? If you do not answer “yes” to that you are the goddamn liar here. The USAF is the only branch with stealth aircraft so technically the Navy and Marine aviators don’t have the best. Moth ball them aircraft carriers.
“…he could've bought every soldier an IED Proof Humvee.”
- WOW, I didn’t know every soldier had their own HMMWV (get it right you sniveling little waste)! So there are over 100,000 HMMWVs in Iraq right now?
“ It would`nt have passed the senate if John Mccain and sen.Graham had been in Washington voting instead of South Carolina campaigning.”
Carol,
I took them to task on my blog for that.
http://ci-report.blogspot.com/20...ullshit-
ii.html
However, to be honest the bill would have still passed. That doesn’t excuse them in my mind.
Oh, I forgot. In many cases of the IED attacks. Ballistic helmets and up-armored HMMWVs don’t help if the entire vehicle is launched into the air. When there is a large explosion the shock wave can ripple through your body and essentially scramble your innards like an egg. There is no way to prevent that. If it is big enough and you are close enough… every piece of shrapnel could miss you, you might still look the same on the outside… but in autopsy your organs will be watery like.
Also there were many soldiers that hated all the equipment. You start putting so much stuff on you get weighted down and you can barely move, making you an easier target.
mdconservativ> I corrected myself in my next comment."If Mccain and Graham had voted nay and Republicans Smith and Hagel had voted nay instead of yah it would not have passed.Personal responsibilty is such a big part of your parties platform,maybe its time to hold your own elected members responsible"
You got to admit it would`nt have passed without these 4 republicans.
"the level of hate I have grown to feel for these useless Democrats is turning epic."
Si' senior.
Jenn, I know you said you didn't want to hear the veto is the real reason why the troops aren't being funded, but I'm confused by the logic that the person who vetos the bill isn't responsible for not funding the troops.
If Bush or the Republicans wanted the troops to be funded properly he would sign the bill that's on his desk. By saying the Dems knew the veto would happen and still passed the bill anyway is irrelevant. The reason why the troops aren't being funded is because of the veto. It makes no sense to say that the troops aren't being funded because the Congress passed a bill to fund them. Sounds messed up huh?
Republicans are just wanting to pass blame and not accept the responsibility that their president is not funding the troops and is not facing the reality that his four year long war is about 203 weeks overdue.
The Congress did it's job and passed a funding bill. The job of the Congress is not to worry about a veto. Their job is to do what their constituents want and present the president with a bill. If a president does veto a bill, then it becomes the job of the Congress to work to override it, but their primary concern, in fact the last thing on their mind, is not a veto. Not to mention this president has yet to veto one single spending bill. Why would anyone be worried about a veto?
If Bush were even remotely serious about the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan he would quit using supplemental spending bills to fund them and start placing them in his budget. Supplemental spending is not how to fight a war. And certainly shouldn't be a rallying point for neocons and Republicans.
Chris,carol,lesturd, it does not suprise me you don't get it...
THE BILL IS BADDDDDD
Why should the American soldiers and the Administration be blackmailed by a bullshit bill ladened with pork and non realistic timelines(NO war has ever put a timeline in the history of warfare)leave it to the Dems to do so....
This is an EMERGENCY WAR FUNDING BILL
If the cowardly Dems want pork which they said in '06 they were going to stop,put it in another bill
If the defeatist dems want the war over "END IT"!,quit playing politics with the lives of our military
God help this country if a deafeaticrat wins in '08
I might have to invest in a prayer rug shop or maybe a lip ointment store for all the dems that are going to be kissing the terrorists asses
Bush should just get the "Federal" Reserve to print more money. That's what they do when they need some anyway. Bring back the gold standard.
hellpig, I don't get it?? Really? I'm probably the only person in this blog who has ever authored a piece of legislation. Or for that matter, to even step foot on either the House or Senate floor. I would be surprised if you or half the people who read this blog have ever even read an actual bill.
You can't really expect the American people to believe that Republicans or Bush actually care about pork can you? One of the most outrageous claims for not supporting the supplemental spending bill is because it contains so-called pork. But for seven years the Republican controlled government never once cared about an ounce of pork. The Republicans took the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit in history in less than a year. Never, during the Republican reign of corruption did we ever hear a complaint about pork. Now all of a sudden Republicans are fiscal conservatives again? Please.
"Why should the American soldiers and the Administration be blackmailed by a bullshit bill ladened with pork and non realistic timelines(NO war has ever put a timeline in the history of warfare)leave it to the Dems to do so...."
You must not have been around in 1999 because then the Republican controlled Congress did just that when they placed a timeline on our military operations in Kosovo.
Never, in the history of this country, has a president financed a war with supplemental spending. If that's not playing politics what is?
you are delusional Chris
The pork is a small part of why Bush will veto,what you fail to understand is that NEVER in the history of warfare have time limits been used,leave it to the defeatist dems to be the first.
So my previous post stands as written you don't get it.Proven by your own last posting....
Who the hell cares if you set foot in the houses
Have you ever been in the middle of the Bering Sea in 30 foot swells and 70 knot winds?
Or to Russia,Thailand,Japan,Europe?
While you were trying to get some liberal whackjob law passed,I was traveling the world and buying 2 paid in full houses and will be retired at age 45
HMmmmmmmmmm I think I'll take my life over your pathetic exsistance
pig, you call me delusional but: "what you fail to understand is that NEVER in the history of warfare have time limits been used,leave it to the defeatist dems to be the first," just isn't true. In 1999 the Republican congress did exactly that by putting time limits on our military operations in Kosovo. If you're so military, surely you would remember that??
I've never been in the Bering Sea, but I've done my fair share of traveling and bought my first home at 25 and will be retired at age 48. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with anything, however.
You know nothing about my life, and I take comfort in knowing that people like you disagree with everything I say.
If I recall correctly we were arguing about a supplemental spending bill, which I have expertise in reading, writing and analyzing. I suppose if we were arguing about traveling, buying homes, and retiring in our forties you would be the expert in that.
The point Chris, is that the democrats are trying to please their fringe base by imposing timelines, criteria and "goals". This is blantant and typical democrats wanting to have it both ways. They want to be able to say they're fighting for a withdrawl all the while claiming they "support the troops". In reality, although supplying funds, they've done nothing but badger the president and encourage our enemies ... all to the delight of the insurgents and horror of our fighting men and women.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and al Qaeda were all thrilled when the democrats won in '06 and said so. No one is really tickeled pink with the Republicans but at least they're not waving a white flag.
Chris,Kosovo was not a USA war we did not have boots on the ground,so history of warfare is intact,outside support operations by any country other then the ones actually at war is irrelevent,so you are wrong Chris
Well you were rambling on about what the hell you do or did,so I decided to share as well
Chris said:"If I recall correctly we were arguing about a supplemental spending bill, which I have expertise in reading, writing and analyzing."
and also said " hellpig, I don't get it?? Really? I'm probably the only person in this blog who has ever authored a piece of legislation. Or for that matter, to even step foot on either the House or Senate floor. I would be surprised if you or half the people who read this blog have ever even read an actual bill."
you think alot of yourself don't you?
yet you are so delusional and mis-informed,I think your expertise lies in ignorance
Chris,
Have you set foot in the Pentagon?
Please their fringe base?? Last time I checked a majority of Americans disapproved of the way Bush was handling the war and 64% supported a time table for withdrawal. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Check the link. Surely you're not saying that 64% of Americans are part of the fringe wing of the Democratic Party are you???
Pig, Kosovo wasn't a USA war? Oh really? I'm glad you said that and not me.
My rambling at least had something to do with the matter at hand, which was a supplemental spending bill. And not traveling the world and retiring like yours was. I still stand by my comment that I'm probably the only one to actually read, write and study legislation. The rest of y'all appear to just do and say whatever Limbaugh does.
It's not that I think a lot of myself, but if traveling, buying homes and retiring young are the only qualifications for analyzing legislation then I'm more than qualified in the regard as well.
Chris,
You may want to consider revisiting your support of the Clinton econonimic fairy tale you and the left seem so proud of.
The Clinton administration inherited an economy that, although was in the midst of a mild recession, was beginning to turn the corner. The bands hadn't even finished packing up their instruments from the Clinton inauguration ceremony when the media all of a sudden started reporting that the economy seemed to be back on track. Not surprising. Clinton was elected based on lies which continued to metastasize throughout his term.
The American economy cannot change overnight. The perception of it may, but unlike the saying "perception is reality", in this application, it is not.
The FACT is it was Reagan who set this country back on course. You may not remember the state of affairs left to Reagan by the Carter administration. I do. Interest rates bumping 20%, the highest unemployment in this nation's history, gas lines, a military in shambles, more people on welfare than at anytime, and a once proud maufacturing base being disassembled to be relabled the rust belt. No Chris, it was a republican president that started the turnaround.
GB1 was a victim of lies. A minor correction in a white hot economy was played out by the media as a complete faiure of GB1's economic policy. "It's the economy stupid" became the Clinton campaign slogan. Catchy, but deceptive, a harbinger of what was to 'lie' ahead. "No new taxes". Another clever attack by the left when it was the democrat controlled congress that FORCED NEW TAXES. What a sham.
After the historic shift of power giving the republicans control of the congress and their famous "Contract with America", the economy began a robust revival. However, that was not the result of some magic wand Clinton waved, yet he was content with taking the credit. The "largest surplus" you allude to is also controversial. The Clinton's are pros at cooking the books. What you seem to omit was that AFTER being challenged on their numbers, the Clinton administration revised downward their assesment of the surplus. Although I don't recall the exact figure, the difference ended up being greater than the GNP of most industrialized nations. OOPS, a accounting error, followed by the favorite and now famous Clinton excuse,"So What".
And we haven't even considered the "Peace Dividend" Clinton took credit for.
Now today, despite an attack that has cost this country TRILLIONS of dollars, high oil prices, and fighting two (three) wars, we have the lowest unemployment in decades, the lowest interest rates in decades and years of sustained GROWTH in the economy. Yet the media refuses to acknowledge the positive aspects of the economy. Talk about playing politics!
All of that aside. WE ARE AT WAR. A war we MUST win. Not a "situation" as Pelosi so nonchalantly terms it. It's a freaking war. A war we did not start, despite the media's spin and the left's arguement to the contrary. Do you think it's important we win it, or are you ready to buy into the lies of the left and wave the white flag? Wake up.
Chris,
I believe I asked you a question, that you just skipped past... have you set foot in the Pentagon?
"All of that aside. WE ARE AT WAR. A war we MUST win."
lol
Yeah, about that whole "Americans support withdrawal" thing...
* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
* A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
* According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
* Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
Americans DO want withdrawl...when the military, and NOT politicians...say the job is done.
Wow Billy, where do I ever mention Clinton economic policies? In fact, when do I ever mention Clinton? If you are referring to the comment about Bush inheriting the largest surplus ever and turning it into the largest deficit ever (which is entirely factual), then I would have to call your reply the biggest waste of time and effort I've ever seen. But no where do I mention Clinton or his economics.
mdconservative, sorry to pass over your question but yes I've set foot in the Pentagon. I was just there last November. I have a confidential security clearance. I understand that's not much, but I have no clue what stepping foot in the Pentagon has to do with debating a supplemental spending bill, which is what the post was about and what my first comment was about.
Chris ... I happened to click over to your blog and immediately saw that you list Glenn (AKA Sock Puppet) Greenwald and Media Matters as sites I suppose you recommend.
Dude ... you're hopeless.
P.S. ... talk to Greenwald, maybe one of his alter egos can get your security clearance upgraded to secret.
move-on and soros that explains it.......and for the record Chris the cherry picker I said Kosovo was not a USA war
Hellpig ... been over to Chris' blog lately? You're the subject of his latest post.
cool darwin thanks,I was going to post but I didn't want to increase his visitors to 3,shit even I get more comments then this socialist POS
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults
24 71 5
Republicans
58 34 8
Democrats
5 93 2
Independents
19 74 7
.
"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"
Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
4/20-24/07
64 32 4
4/9-12/07
57 38 5
"Currently, President Bush and Congress disagree about what to do about U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Who do you think should have the final say about troop levels in Iraq: the President or Congress?"
President Congress Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
4/20-24/07
35 57 3 5
4/9-12/07
44 49 3 4
"The Democrats in Congress have proposed to fund the Iraq war only if the U.S. sets a timetable for troop withdrawal, too. George W. Bush has stated he will veto that proposal. If George W. Bush does veto it, what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"
Withhold
Funding Allow
Funding Unsure
% % %
ALL adults
36 56 8
Republicans
12 84 4
Democrats
51 41 8
Independents
38 52 10
Who in the hell can read that? Is that the way they presented to people? No wonder no one believes polls.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!
i'll break it down for you, you blunderheads
""Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?""
Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
4/20-24/07
64 32 4
64 percent said we should set a timetable for withdrawl
32 percent said we shouldn't
and 4 percent weren't sure.
I wonder if the 64 % includes people who think we should leave now?
My bad lester ... I just saw it was a CBS News/NY Times poll. If I has seen that earlier I just would have ignored it.
What about these polls? They're probably a thousand times more realistic than the one you quoted.
* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
* A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
* According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
* Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
all the major polls have pretty much the same results. I don't know why you would have a problem with one in particular. I guess that's why your president is at like 28% approval, because you have nonsenical criteria.
the polls you cite use leading questions.
"* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007)."
this is useless. it doesn't say that people feel there shold or shouldn't be a withdrawl date, it says having one hurts the troops. the troops feelings are not relevent to the issue of a withdrawl, technically speaking.
"* Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007). "
again, it doesn't say that they, as a RESULT, DON'T want to withdrawl.
this is why my poll is good and normal and yours is bad and weird.
all polls are bullshit IMO
I don't read alot of them as I am not all that concerned with what other people think except in certain circumstances.
whoaaaaaaaa I had to run outside I thought the world was ending............Lester and I agreed on something
lester "again, it doesn't say that they, as a RESULT, DON'T want to withdrawl."
lester ... EVERYONE wants a withdrawl, just not set on the democrats timeline. I think the polls reflect that. A withdrawl yes, after we and Iraq determine it's prudent to do so.
The CBS/Times poll I'm sure used skewed demographics. That's the only way they could come up with answers like they did.
Have you watched any of the major network news programs lately? It's laughable. They're trying so hard to paint a specific picture. It's obvious and only a die hard, US soldier effigy burning moonbat would believe them.
"this is why my poll is good and normal and yours is bad and weird."
You are a funny guy. I hear Rosie O'Donnel is looking for someone to cheer her up. Give her a ring. Maybe you could give her something "special".
There is most evidently too much hate in this world. How is it in your place to hate others for what you accuse them of: hating Bush and the troops? I assure you, most liberals have no intention of hating other Americans. Perhaps they don't even hate you.
darwin- people REALIZE withdrawing could and probably will have certain negative effects but they still want the withdrawl.
So if i say I think that iraq will be chaotic after we leave and that gnereals rather than senators should lead a war and that timetables will send a message to the terorists, it doesnot follow that I don't want a withdrawl.
a plus b does not necessitate c.
Thanks Caesium. For someone that hates hate you used it five times in your post.
Nice thoughts, but my experience is the left feeds off hate. Now this may purely be the vocal fringe of the left talking, and if so ... it's giving you guys a bad rap. Best to get your fringies under control because they seem to have the rest of you silenced and cowed.
darwin- people REALIZE withdrawing could and probably will have certain negative effects but they still want the withdrawl.
Since the democrats are purely political animals and don't give a flying shit about anything except staying in power why don't they just withhold all funding? I mean according to you that's what the people want, right? The democrats should bite like a bluefish on a trolling line. They live for votes, and if the people say pull'em out, well why don't they just go for it?
Maybe it's a little too late to post this. But, I spent 4 years in the Pentagon as a beltway bandit.
And you know what. noone there liked Clinton. He was standing outside in the quad shaking hands. And the only people who shook his hand were the Civilians. I was a contractor and I wouldn't shake his hand. He was offended. But, who cares.
Good man Sparky
Chris,
Nowhere do you mention Clinton or his economic policies? Then what or who are you comparing Bush to? So sorry for my asssumtivtuity. (that's a Bushism)
Maybe you should talk to someone about your denyatism. (another Bushism)
Mmmmmm, I like Sparky.
because he hated clinton for no reason other than that he was a democrat.
you'd make a good moonbat
I assure you, most liberals have no intention of hating other Americans.
A cursory visit to Kos, HuffPost, Dumbasses Underground, etc., would disprove your assertion.
Commenting by HaloScan
