Let's see, leaving the battleground under the control of the enemy -- that's a pretty good definition for defeat, which the Democrat-controlled Congress just rammed through.And let's not ignore the fact that the "bring our boys home" legislation also carries Democrat earmarks -- $25 million for spinach growers, $74 million for a peanut storage program and $1.2 billion to compensate citrus, avocado and other produce growers.Yeah, right, they really want to help the military. It's politics as usual for the Democrats, regardless of the cost to the soldiers.
Pulling out of Europe and Japan in 1944 would have saved countless American lives too. But we would all be speaking German.
Everyone except the Jews and black people.
wordkyle: you have a good point about the pork that is shoehorned into that bill. (and wtf? our farmers can't make money growing citrus or avocados?)and you have a decent point about "legislating defeat", though i believe the argument back would be that they hope to leave the battlefield under the control of people who are not the enemy (i.e., a democratically elected government and its army). Will that be possible within a year? Doesn't seem likely. But it also doesn't seem like that it will be possible 2 years or 5 years down the road either.
Please recall that we were tricked into invading Iraq by the Bush administration using false information. They have bungled almost every aspect of the operation prior to invasion and since. Thousands of our soldiers have been killed and over 100,000 injured or incapacitated. We have choices - continue this mess or make appropriate changes. The Democrats have NOT included language that would remove all of our troops. It says to remove "combat" troops leaving trainers and security troops there indefinitely. This implies that the Iraqis should finally develop the ability to control their own country and not rely on our troops to do it for them. How can some of you disagree?
Yea, right 11:20, let's pull out all the combat troops and then everyone else will make nice. Jimmy Carter diplomacy. And do tell, what is the difference between combat troops and security troops? Tricked? Nope. Naive? Absolutely.
give me a break Barry...your kind enjoys the rest of the "fair and balanced" media...leave us reasonable folks alone!!!
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
true , most news is biased. but we must get out of that hell hole. win or loose. well,, we cnnot win against every muslim in the world/
Last time I did not pull out soon enough I had to abort nine months later!
If I could venture a prediction:Once the inevitable pull-out occurs, by whatever means on whatever timeline, we will maintain a significant, long-term troop presence in the southeast portion of Iraq.
HHL, I'm sure you're right. Can we all please turn our attention to the point Barry was making with the screen grab, which is that a network which (laughably) calls itself "fair and balanced" throws up the words "LEGISLATING DEFEAT" over their "coverage" of this issue. These are not "balanced" words, you guys. They are deliberately loaded, biased from the start, and they work on the conscious and unconscious levels for the viewer. It's not rocket science, but your basic FOX viewer isn't exactly a media sophisticate who'd be able to look past such a stark message. The imprint is made on the brain, and the rest of the words (e.g. those spoken by the commentators) are just noise.
gleemonex: "your basic FOX viewer isn't exactly a media sophisticate"This is the kind of arrogance Liberals demonstrate constantly. According to "The Project for Excellence in Journalism," the typical viewers for Fox, CNN and MSNBC are pretty much all the same, except for ideology. Fox News viewers are the oldest and earn the most money. So much for your sweeping, inaccurate generalization.You want bias?* How about the media's campaign to make a scandal out of a non-scandal? (US Attorney firings)* How about the NY Times blaring details of a program to defeat the enemy?* How about the mysterious "X" covering Dick Cheney's face during a televised speech in 2005?I'm stopping here for the sake of space, not for lack of humongous amounts of media bias directed against the Bush administration, Republicans and Conservatives.Take your bigoted, prejudiced, arrogant Liberal self, look in the mirror and repeat "I'm superior, and doggone it, I like myself" a thousand times. When that doesn't work, try to understand that because someone is different from you, it doesn't make you better than him. And stupid comments like the one you made demonstrate a distinct inferiority.
Wordkyle at 7:30: "And stupid comments like the one you (gleemonox) made demonstrate a distinct inferiority." uh....wordkyle, now who did you say is feeling superior and arrogant? I'm a little confused, because it seems like you have superiority and arrogance down to an art form. I must have it wrong; I guess I'm too stupid to understand your 7:39 post because normally your posts are so kind-spirited and non-judgmental. I regret that I don't know you personally. Oh, wait, maybe I do.
Hypocrite, I mean Wordkyle, "try to understand that because someone is different from you, it doesn't make you better than him."
8:54 and 8:59: Nice try, kids, but you lose. Sweeping generalizations about people you don't know (as gleemonex demonstrated by implying that ALL Fox news viewers are ill-informed) does demonstrate inferior judgment, inferior debate skills, and inferor thought processes (by rendering opinions without bothering with facts.)Nowhere did I say that gleemonex IS inferior -- as he flatly said about Fox viewers.If I'm arrogant and superior-acting on this board it's because I'm not willing to idly sit by and let Liberals get away with the crap and nonsense they post trying to pass it off as truth. Back up what you say with facts or face the consequences. I'm always ready to be convinced by a superior argument, but you guys didn't do it.
Wordkyle, Let's go back to the start of this:Fox News: "Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq" You think that's a fact? To (mis)quote Your High&Mightyness - "I'm not willing to idly sit by and let anyone get away with the crap and nonsense they post trying to pass it off as truth."I was really shocked that you didn't think I made a superior argument. It's so unlike you.
Awh, c'mon Wordkyle, are you trying to say that YOU don't think gleemonox is inferior to YOU? You really think gleemonx is your equal? No way I'm buying that. But go ahead, waste your time trying to convince me.And yep, I don't know what gleemonx thinks, but I do know I think that ALL Fox News viewers that only get their news from Fox News are certainly ill-informed, as evidenced by the FACT that Fox News announced a bill on their pseudo-news show as "Democrats are trying to legislate defeat in Iraq." Most Republicans would not agree that it is a fact that Democrats are trying to legislate defeat in Iraq. They may disagree what to do about Iraq, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that any sane American Congressman would really make it a goal to legislate defeat in Iraq. We may disagree on the methods, but we are on the same team here & no American I know wishes for defeat in Iraq. But some of us do think there is no happy ending to the Iraq war, no matter which political party gets their way.But it's your beloved FOX News that is presenting opinions disquised as facts. "Democrats are trying to legislate defeat in Iraq". How can you NOT say that is an opinion? Now write me back, telling me how my opinions are inferior to yours. Ready, set, GO!
Okay, kids, let's run through this:1) Liberals try to attack Fox News for bias, while ignoring the bias on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times et al. This is disingenous, but something that Conservatives have learned to deal with. (Dan Rather tried to influence a presidential election with trumped-up evidence. Where was your outrage then?)2) Gleemonex made a sweeping statement about "basic Fox viewers" that demonstrates the Liberal arrogance I mentioned. ("I know what's better for you than you do." -- the implied basis for all Liberal social programs.) 3) I do not believe that I'm a superior person to gleemonex or anyone else on this board. I believe that I have a superior political philosophy to that of Liberals.4) Democrats are heavily invested politically in America's defeat in Iraq. Good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats. The military funding legislation they forced through demonstrates their intent. If they genuinely, honestly wanted to end the war in Iraq, the Democrats could simply cut funding. They (apparently) have the votes to force that through. But they know that they would be damaged politically by doing such a thing. So they load the bill with deadlines and earmarks, knowing that the President will likely veto it. By playing politics which delays military funding, the Democrats are weakening the American military in Iraq (i.e., contributing to America's defeat.)Joe Lieberman learned the hard way what happens to a Democrat who publicly departs from their "America last" agenda.
all you people arguing with wordkyle just don't get it, do you? Time and time again he brings out points to ponder, and just because he disagrees with you politically, you resort to name calling and badgering.He makes some valid points (whether you like to believe it or not), and there's one thing I completely agree with: The Liberals are more consumed with defeating Bush than they are "protecting our troops." That's what particularly makes me sick. The point was made about Democrats LOADING Up the spending bill with things that have NOTHING to do with the war. How can you refute that? The answer is YOU CAN'T. But rather than try to refure it, you just go back to your "Bush sucks" ranting.Is Bush doing everything perfect? No, of course not. Is he trying his best? I believe so. You see, I don't think he's the evil, despicable, stupid person all of you liberals think he is. I think he's doing the best job he can in a very difficult situation. But you liberals are all the same: shoot at what you think is an easy target, spew the same rhetoric, and eventually people will believe you if you yell loud enough. And if peopel disagree with you, then they're targets of your spewing just as much.
the only time it bothers a dem to spend money is if we r winning.
Post a Comment