You missed the beginning of the sentence when he says, "I think we will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism."

Guess he thought wrong.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:You missed the beginning of the sentence when he says, "I think we will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism."

Guess he thought wrong.

We all know he was saying what he thought. :)

Doesn't surprise me he was Kerry's running mate. Starting to sound like him now.

"The U.S.-led war on terrorism is "a bumper sticker, not a plan" that has weakened Washington's global standing, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said on Wednesday as he unveiled his defense policy plans." :johnkerry:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070524/ts_n...wards_dc_1

translation: when the public overwhelmingly supports action we are for it and with the president, once bad news starts and moveon.org gets the train moving we will change positions.

this is also why they hate Fox News so much, how dare they not cover this up, how dare they ask politically tough questions. They also did an excellent debunking of Al Gore in his new book the other day, its better than this on the subject of war and Iraq.

GGniner Wrote:translation: when the public overwhelmingly supports action we are for it and with the president, once bad news starts and moveon.org gets the train moving we will change positions.

this is also why they hate Fox News so much, how dare they not cover this up, how dare they ask politically tough questions. They also did an excellent debunking of Al Gore in his new book the other day, its better than this on the subject of war and Iraq.

When the democrats ask politically tough questions, they're called unpatriotic.

NIU007 Wrote:When the democrats ask politically tough questions, they're called unpatriotic.

Examples?

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:When the democrats ask politically tough questions, they're called unpatriotic.

Examples?

Just seems like every time someone questions whether we should stay in Iraq, whether we'll be able to win, they're considered defeatists, somebody who is willing to lose the war, willing to allow the soldiers that have already been killed to have died in vain, "surrendering", etc. This is from watching many of the Republicans in their speeches on C-Span.

Speaking of which, if the fighting in Iraq is really part of the war on terror, than it is not really the "Iraq war" it is simply one battle that is in Iraq. It is very possible to win a war even though you lost a battle.

NIU007 Wrote:Just seems like every time someone questions whether we should stay in Iraq, whether we'll be able to win, they're considered defeatists, somebody who is willing to lose the war, willing to allow the soldiers that have already been killed to have died in vain, "surrendering", etc. This is from watching many of the Republicans in their speeches on C-Span.

Speaking of which, if the fighting in Iraq is really part of the war on terror, than it is not really the "Iraq war" it is simply one battle that is in Iraq. It is very possible to win a war even though you lost a battle.

Well, "My" deal with that is that any questioning done should have been done behind closed doors while troops are on the ground. NIU, I have no problem with debate. It makes us great. However, certain measures should be taken to protect those that are sent into harm's way, and yes, I do believe that certain Democratic politicians, that voted to send them there, have acted VERY irresponsibly with their words. You may call it "freedom of speech", our enemy, however, calls it a victory for their side. Osama Bin Laden knew this after Somalia. I was there. No, not during the Ranger mission. We had pulled out. The time for open debate, IMO, is over. When our troops are back, debate openly to your heart's content. We didn't have CNN/Fox/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/Reuters/etc., when the Constitution was created. Our forefathers had no idea that our words would resonate so powerfully with our enemies. That I believe wholeheartedly. As the world changes, so must Congress. It isn't uncommon for Congress to enter into closed session. This is one of those times.

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Just seems like every time someone questions whether we should stay in Iraq, whether we'll be able to win, they're considered defeatists, somebody who is willing to lose the war, willing to allow the soldiers that have already been killed to have died in vain, "surrendering", etc. This is from watching many of the Republicans in their speeches on C-Span.

Speaking of which, if the fighting in Iraq is really part of the war on terror, than it is not really the "Iraq war" it is simply one battle that is in Iraq. It is very possible to win a war even though you lost a battle.

Well, "My" deal with that is that any questioning done should have been done behind closed doors while troops are on the ground. NIU, I have no problem with debate. It makes us great. However, certain measures should be taken to protect those that are sent into harm's way, and yes, I do believe that certain Democratic politicians, that voted to send them there, have acted VERY irresponsibly with their words. You may call it "freedom of speech", our enemy, however, calls it a victory for their side. Osama Bin Laden knew this after Somalia. I was there. No, not during the Ranger mission. We had pulled out. The time for open debate, IMO, is over. When our troops are back, debate openly to your heart's content. We didn't have CNN/Fox/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/Reuters/etc., when the Constitution was created. Our forefathers had no idea that our words would resonate so powerfully with our enemies. That I believe wholeheartedly. As the world changes, so must Congress. It isn't uncommon for Congress to enter into closed session. This is one of those times.

I can understand where you're coming from on most of this and I don't want to take a short-sighted view of the battle in Iraq. I figured we would be in Iraq for several years before it ever started, though I didn't think the level of violence would be quite what it is now. I do expect to see some progress and hope that Petraeus or at least someone will give us an honest assessment after the next few months on whether we're making progress. I don't want a politically skewed analysis of our prospects in Iraq, and this is what I'm afraid we'll get, which will lead to more bad decisions. I'm not optimistic though, the type of battle where there is no front line is not the kind that the US military is best at, it seems. If we surge in one place, the enemy moves elsewhere and regroups. We're like the British fighting the colonies.

I don't care what the terrorists say, I care what they do. If they feel like doing a victory dance, fine by me. It's the sign of an overconfident enemy.

lets just cut through the crap, the Democrats are politicizing this crap because they can and its easy(and the far-left which is very wealthy is pulling the strings), the end game is the Courts, ultimately they get power and the all the important Supreme Court nominations around the corner with the next president, if modern Liberalism is a religion, the SCOTUS is the gods. if a Republican wins and the Senate isn't tilted towards Dems the Courts will be constructionist for the next 30 years, they can't have that.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=EAuzdGYrMjA

this isn't to say some criticism might not be justified but by in large they left legitimate criticism and went into outright lying and misinformation a long time ago.