U.S. Congressman calls for war critics to be hung

[alkemical]

U.S. Congressman calls for war critics to be hung (http://www.unknownnews.org/070216-Republican-agenda.html)

U.S. Congressman calls for war critics to be hung

by Sam Bishop, Fairbanks [Alaska] News-Miner
Feb. 16, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Don Young on Thursday added his voice to the speechifying about President Bush's Iraq policy and bolstered it with what he thought was the voice of President Abraham Lincoln.

The man who Young quoted, though, was not the nation's 16th president but a professor at a Washington, D.C., graduate school.

"I'd like to make a quote," Young began after being granted his five minutes on the House floor. "'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.'"

The quote, Young said, came from Lincoln, "who had the same problem this president had with a very unpopular war, the same problem with people trying to redirect the commander-in-chief."

However, the words Young attributed to Lincoln were written by J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics. They metamorphosed into the illegitimate Lincoln quote on Dec. 23, 2003, in a column that Waller wrote for Insight, a conservative weekly magazine published by the owners of the Washington Times.

Waller, contacted Thursday afternoon, said a copy editor at the Times put quotes around the words, making them appear to have come from Lincoln.

(cont'd on site)

[Spider]

Lol

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.

[Spider]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.

well I never said you was a bright guy

[alkemical]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.


What if the "team" is wrong?

**** this ****. **** this senator. They don't live in my America. People in power like this, deserve to swing in the breeze themselves IMO.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.Yeah, I agree the team needs to be tried and jailed.

[alkemical]

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/upside-down-flag.JPG

[Garcia Bronco]

Hey...like I said...you are either publically an Amercian....or not. There is not an in between. Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.

[alkemical]

Hey...like I said...you are either publically an Amercian....or not. There is not an in between. Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.



Unamerican is what those in congress and the whitehouse are. You support them in office, i charge you with treason.

[Spider]

Hey...like I said...you are either publically an Amercian....or not. There is not an in between. Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.

LOL and some wonder why I called you Hitler ............... Just more trumped up Bullshít so we can keep wasting 9 Billion dollars no questions asked .........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hey...like I said...you are either publically an Amercian....or not. There is not an in between. Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.
LOL

China and Cuba loves your kinda thinking!

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL and some wonder why I called you Hitler ............... Just more trumped up Bullshít so we can keep wasting 9 Billion dollars no questions asked .........

You are under the impression that people care what you think. Nobody does.

[Spider]

You are under the impression that people care what you think. Nobody does.

LOL , nope , I just say what I have to , agree , Disagree , no matter to me , but you are a twit , nothing will change that ........I see a communist , i call them out ....... and you are a commie no doubt about it

[TailgateNut]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.

Well I guess it's time for Civil war Part Deux!
Un-American is not to question what is questionable!

[Garcia Bronco]

Unamerican is what those in congress and the whitehouse are. You support them in office, i charge you with treason.

While I agree with your premise about those that are elected to office and the choices we have, they are only doing what they think is right. So is the other side. The other side is just going about in the erong way and trying to undermind the efforts of our troops in harms way

[Garcia Bronco]

Well I guess it's time for Civil war Part Deux!
Un-American is not to question what is questionable!

There is a right way to do it, and a wrong way.

[Bronco Bob]

While I agree with your premise about those that are elected to office and the choices we have, they are only doing what they think is right. So is the other side. The other side is just going about in the erong way and trying to undermind the efforts of our troops in harms way

Simple solution for that. Take our troops out of harm's way. It's
not like they are accomplishing anything anymore in Iraq anyway.
They are just basically targets in a macabre game of Whack-A-Mole.
Now the insurgents have even figured out a way to shoot down
helicopters. So far 8 have been shot down in the last month. Not good.

[alkemical]

While I agree with your premise about those that are elected to office and the choices we have, they are only doing what they think is right. So is the other side. The other side is just going about in the erong way and trying to undermind the efforts of our troops in harms way

Sorry brah - They don't want to do what's right. If they did, we wouldn't be in the jams we are.

You want to keep playing the left/right game - fine - your game. I've checked out along time ago.

keep waving your flags, especially the white part!

[alkemical]

Well I guess it's time for Civil war Part Deux!
Un-American is not to question what is questionable!

Shhhh quiet. You might be going to camp freedom with me.

[alkemical]

There is a right way to do it, and a wrong way.


Nah, just anyone whom doesn't agree with status quo is a terrorist.

Fine, **** it - i'm a terrorist. No, wait - check that I'm a freedom fighter.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sorry brah - They don't want to do what's right. If they did, we wouldn't be in the jams we are.

You want to keep playing the left/right game - fine - your game. I've checked out along time ago.

keep waving your flags, especially the white part!

Grow up. I am not playing left or right. I am playing me. And while I don't always have the time to spell things out. When our leaders take steps like non-binding resolutions to make a political statement against our troops...I have a problem with that. Either cut the funding..or not.

[Spider]

Grow up. I am not playing left or right. I am playing me. And while I don't always have the time to spell things out. When our leaders take steps like non-binding resolutions to make a political statement against our troops...I have a problem with that. Either cut the funding..or not.

yeah we just dont understand ........................Being a Commie in the land of the free is a bítch .......

[alkemical]

Grow up. I am not playing left or right. I am playing me. And while I don't always have the time to spell things out. When our leaders take steps like non-binding resolutions to make a political statement against our troops...I have a problem with that. Either cut the funding..or not.

Blah blah blah - more talk. You keep playing their game, and you don't even see it. It's a ****ing game to them man - when people like you take the stance of one side or the other - and don't pay attention to the actions of those in power and see they support each other - i charge people like you with Seditious actions, ****ing cowards in this country.


You want to know who the traitors are whom you support:

http://www.intellexual.net/images/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg

[TailgateNut]

Shhhh quiet. You might be going to camp freedom with me.


Not going to be quiet. That would be a crime.
**** that congressman and anyone who agrees with him. I think it is time to stop talking to these idiots. Grab them by their ankles and pound some sense into their brainwashed heads!

[Garcia Bronco]

like I said.....grow up. You are no different than the rest of us. So when you come down off your meds and would like to discuss this in a rational way.....let me know. I'll be delighted to discuss this with you.

[Bronco Bob]

Grow up. I am not playing left or right. I am playing me. And while I don't always have the time to spell things out. When our leaders take steps like non-binding resolutions to make a political statement against our troops...I have a problem with that.


When did this happen? I must have missed that one on the news.
The only non-binding resolution I have heard about was the one
trying to stop Bush from sending more of our troops in harm's way.

[Spider]

When did this happen? I must have missed that one on the news.
The only non-binding resolution I have heard about was the one
trying to stop Bush from sending more of our troops in harm's way.

there are 2 worlds at work here , Reality the one we are in , then there is Garcias world ..... alot of Drama , overracting , making up things that didnt happen ............

[Garcia Bronco]

When did this happen? I must have missed that one on the news.
The only non-binding resolution I have heard about was the one
trying to stop Bush from sending more of our troops in harm's way.

Rob...what you don't understand is that Congress cannot stop that. Hence the reason it is non-binding. It is a political statement..pure and simple...and it's the wrong way to go about it. Congress needs to yank the funding...or get out of the way. But pansy crap is an insult to out people in the field.

[Taco John]

Grow up. I am not playing left or right. I am playing me. And while I don't always have the time to spell things out. When our leaders take steps like non-binding resolutions to make a political statement against our troops...I have a problem with that. Either cut the funding..or not.



Make political statements against our troops? You seriously believe that?

I just don't get that. How could anyone seriously believe that was about condemning the troops?

[Bronco Bob]

Rob...what you don't understand is that Congress cannot stop that. Hence the reason it is non-binding. It is a political statement..pure and simple...and it's the wrong way to go about it. Congress needs to yank the funding...or get out of the way. But pansy crap is an insult to out people in the field.

I still don't see how it is a political statement against our troops.
It's a political statement against Bush's misguided policies,
but Bush isn't our troops. If anything, it's a political statement
for our troops, trying to keep them from just being targets in
a hopeless cause.

[alkemical]

Not going to be quiet. That would be a crime.
**** that congressman and anyone who agrees with him. I think it is time to stop talking to these idiots. Grab them by their ankles and pound some sense into their brainwashed heads!


Hell i'd probably be in line next ya

[alkemical]

like I said.....grow up. You are no different than the rest of us. So when you come down off your meds and would like to discuss this in a rational way.....let me know. I'll be delighted to discuss this with you.


Until you stop supporting the status quo, there's no point in conversation with you. I mean, after all - anyone who disagrees is due for the gallows.

[N.O.Bronco]

like I said.....grow up. You are no different than the rest of us. So when you come down off your meds and would like to discuss this in a rational way.....let me know. I'll be delighted to discuss this with you.

Sorry im gonna go ahead and butt into this conversation, Rational?!?! give me a break. You came in here agreeing with a guy who wants to hang those that excercise there constitutional right and for the media sake there duty. Rationality with you left the door when you came in and said yes i agree in whole or in part to this guys point.

[defenseman]

This thread is a bit over the line, and the congressman in question was wrong in delivering his speech in the manner he did. I do not agree with what he did in the least. There are better ways to make your point than the way he did that is for damn sure............dman

[Hogan11]

Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.

This is what I love the most.....while in the USA I can disagree all I want, but if I go into say Canada, well...I can no longer voice my opinions without being some sort of traitor....screw that.

[defenseman]

This is what I love the most.....while in the USA I can disagree all I want, but if I go into say Canada, well...I can no longer voice my opinions without being some sort of traitor....screw that.

Don't worry hogan, you aren't a traitor. And voice away, I'm thinking that's why TJ started this section of the board. For those of us who desire to get into political skirmishes. That way the "innocents" and "uninterested" don't catch any of the friendly fire so to speak..dman

[Garcia Bronco]

Sorry im gonna go ahead and butt into this conversation, Rational?!?! give me a break. You came in here agreeing with a guy who wants to hang those that excercise there constitutional right

That's not what I said at all...you and josh need to go re-read my first post. I said I agree it's a crime, but I don't agree with the punisment. I cannot understand people that claim to be literate, yet refuse to acknowledge what was actually posted. Perhaps, you got distracted from all the crime in the streets of NO.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is what I love the most.....while in the USA I can disagree all I want, but if I go into say Canada, well...I can no longer voice my opinions without being some sort of traitor....screw that.

So you, as a representative of this country, would go to Canada and publically denounce your own country?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's not what I said at all...you and josh need to go re-read my first post. I said I agree it's a crime, but I don't agree with the punisment. I cannot understand people that claim to be literate, yet refuse to acknowledge what was actually posted. Perhaps, you got distracted from all the crime in the streets of NO.
Perhaps you forgot what you actually said.

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.

[Garcia Bronco]

Perhaps you forgot what you actually said.

Well that would depend on the situation...but generally...I don't agree with the punishment, and it's stated right there.

[Garcia Bronco]

I still don't see how it is a political statement against our troops.
It's a political statement against Bush's misguided policies,
but Bush isn't our troops. If anything, it's a political statement
for our troops, trying to keep them from just being targets in
a hopeless cause.

But it also says to the troops that we are not committed to you in "spirit". They cannot stop the CIC from sending more troops in this instance. However, they can cut funding going forward. What they are doing in this instance is saying "We don't want ot give you the help, but we will continue to fund it." It's one of the more chicken**** things I have seen in my life time from congress. It is a political statement to pass a non-binding resolution. In fact, it's an oxymoron. In your mind you are refering to the troops going in, and I am talking about the troops that are already there.

[Garcia Bronco]

Make political statements against our troops? You seriously believe that?

I just don't get that. How could anyone seriously believe that was about condemning the troops?

read above

[Spider]

But it also says to the troops that we are not committed to you in "spirit". They cannot stop the CIC from sending more troops in this instance. However, they can cut funding going forward. What they are doing in this instance is saying "We don't want ot give you the help, but we will continue to fund it." It's one of the more chicken**** things I have seen in my life time from congress. It is a political statement to pass a non-binding resolution. In fact, it's an oxymoron. In your mind you are refering to the troops going in, and I am talking about the troops that are already there.
:dummy:

[Spider]

Talk about pulling things from your ass ......... in the real world ,what the non binding resolution is , it is telling Bush , hey **** nut , your silly ass plan wont work , been there done that ........ We got a better plan , and we would prefer if you and the other retards sit this out and let us finish ........... your problem Garcia is you put your horse behind the wrong cart , now when the other side comes up with some plan you hike up your skirt and go running and crying foul ......

[Garcia Bronco]

Talk about pulling things from your ass ......... in the real world ,what the non binding resolution is , it is telling Bush , hey **** nut , your silly ass plan wont work , been there done that ........ We got a better plan , and we would prefer if you and the other retards sit this out and let us finish ........... your problem Garcia is you put your horse behind the wrong cart , now when the other side comes up with some plan you hike up your skirt and go running and crying foul ......

What plan? There is no plan. They cannot stop the CIC from sending in those troops. Some are already in route. All they can do is cut funding. McCain has been talking about this for weeks, and I agree with him.

[Spider]

What plan? There is no plan. They cannot stop the CIC from sending in those troops. Some are already in route. All they can do is cut funding. McCain has been talking about this for weeks, and I agree with him.

Anyone that agrees with McCain is in their own world , as for plan check out Murtha , his idiotic Idea is well equipped , well trained , and limits on serving , sending guys over half cocked under trained , is no way to go .......
cutting off funding wont work either ......... 2 options .....
1. Fall back
2. Train the military to be a switch blade instead of a broadsword , make them more like swat and urban warfare .........

[Garcia Bronco]

Anyone that agrees with McCain is in their own world , as for plan check out Murtha , his idiotic Idea is well equipped , well trained , and limits on serving , sending guys over half cocked under trained , is no way to go .......
cutting off funding wont work either ......... 2 options .....
1. Fall back
2. Train the military to be a switch blade instead of a broadsword , make them more like swat and urban warfare .........

Not having read the fine print, Murtha's plan is not to stablize the current situation, but rather a methodology going forward for troop training. If we lose what foothold we have now, it will only make it worse when we have to go back.

[RaiderH8r]

Not having read the fine print, Murtha's plan is not to stablize the current situation, but rather a methodology going forward for troop training. If we lose what foothold we have now, it will only make it worse when we have to go back.

Murtha's plan is to pocket the bribery money from the Arab Sheiks then take their plan to the floor for discussion. That's how Murtha's plan works.

Non-binding resolution, Jesus Christ what a bunch of pussified do nothings. "We don't like what you're doing." Well if you don't like it, sack up and do something about it that you can be held accountable for. Not like they will, but it's precisely what they're afraid of, being held accountable for any fallout that might occur. Here's how this plays in the news:

1. We tried to tell the President to stop
2. He left us no choice but to cut funding
3. So the over two million dead Cambodians are not our fault

Now, substitute Iraqis for Cambodians and you have the 1975 Dem plan redux.

[Rohirrim]

Hey...like I said...you are either publically an Amercian....or not. There is not an in between. Disagree within the house, but when you go outside the house and air the dirty laundry....you are not on the team.

Jawohl, mein herr!. We must grind the dissidents into the dirt with our boots. WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Spider]

Not having read the fine print, Murtha's plan is not to stablize the current situation, but rather a methodology going forward for troop training. If we lose what foothold we have now, it will only make it worse when we have to go back.

LOL Stabilizing Iraq right now , Yeah sending over under trained under equipped troops for a surge is the ticket .......

[Spider]

Murtha's plan is to pocket the bribery money from the Arab Sheiks then take their plan to the floor for discussion. That's how Murtha's plan works.

Non-binding resolution, Jesus Christ what a bunch of pussified do nothings. "We don't like what you're doing." Well if you don't like it, sack up and do something about it that you can be held accountable for. Not like they will, but it's precisely what they're afraid of, being held accountable for any fallout that might occur. Here's how this plays in the news:

1. We tried to tell the President to stop
2. He left us no choice but to cut funding
3. So the over two million dead Cambodians are not our fault

Now, substitute Iraqis for Cambodians and you have the 1975 Dem plan redux.
LOL love how it is the Dems Fault ......... A republican got us into this mess , no matter what the Dems do it wont be good enough , but no blame falls onto the bastard that got us in this fix .......
so #3 is correct , over 2 million Iraqis dead is on Bush and the republicans ......

[Garcia Bronco]

Murtha's plan is to pocket the bribery money from the Arab Sheiks then take their plan to the floor for discussion. That's how Murtha's plan works.

Non-binding resolution, Jesus Christ what a bunch of pussified do nothings. "We don't like what you're doing." Well if you don't like it, sack up and do something about it that you can be held accountable for. Not like they will, but it's precisely what they're afraid of, being held accountable for any fallout that might occur. Here's how this plays in the news:

1. We tried to tell the President to stop
2. He left us no choice but to cut funding
3. So the over two million dead Cambodians are not our fault

Now, substitute Iraqis for Cambodians and you have the 1975 Dem plan redux.

Exactly

[Spider]

Exactly

huh ? you said it was against the troops .......

[BroncoInferno]

I agree with his quote in the crime, maybe not so much the punisment. You are either on the team...or not.

You really say some truly dumb things sometimes.

Deny me my Constitutional right to free speech and YOU should be arrested.

[TailgateNut]

You really say some truly dumb things sometimes.

Deny me my Constitutional right to free speech and YOU should be arrested.

Bingo!

[Denver Crush]

I would never renounce the United States, however I am quite embarrased to be put in the same pot as Adolf Bush.

[Blueflame]

I would never renounce the United States, however I am quite embarrased to be put in the same pot as Adolf Bush.

In combination with your avy, I found the use of this particular word amusing.... Ha! ;D

[RaiderH8r]

LOL love how it is the Dems Fault ......... A republican got us into this mess , no matter what the Dems do it wont be good enough , but no blame falls onto the bastard that got us in this fix .......
so #3 is correct , over 2 million Iraqis dead is on Bush and the republicans ......

You're kidding right? People are falling over themselves blaming Bush. I'm just pointing out what happened the last time Dems defunded a war and were never called on it.

[Spider]

You're kidding right? People are falling over themselves blaming Bush. I'm just pointing out what happened the last time Dems defunded a war and were never called on it.

No I am not kidding , Bush couldnt wait to get us in that war , none of this would be going on if we kept to the task of fighting terrorism , instead of Iraq ....... Dont try and sluff this ****ing mess off onto the Dems , Bush wanted be known as a war president , well he got his ****ing war , it is his baby , it is all on him .........

[RaiderH8r]

No I am not kidding , Bush couldnt wait to get us in that war , none of this would be going on if we kept to the task of fighting terrorism , instead of Iraq ....... Dont try and sluff this ****ing mess off onto the Dems , Bush wanted be known as a war president , well he got his ****ing war , it is his baby , it is all on him .........

The Surrendercrats have a long and distinguished history of leaving people standing on Embassy rooves with their peckers swinging in the breeze.

Clinton/Gore believed Saddam had WMD, Kerry, Billary, Lieberman, et al are all on record believing the intelligence at the time they had it. Bush DID something about it and now the toothpaste is out of the tube, he's the only one who seems intent on seeing the mission through. But, whatever, we have the Britney Spears' meltdown to worry about here. Populist decisions don't win wars.

If these same Fancy pants nancy boys had been around throughout US history we'd be speaking german, saluting the queen, and slavery would be thriving. Bunch of Nancy-crats.

[cutthemdown]

I still think in the long run it will be good America took control of Iraq and got rid of the Hussiens. Saddams 2 sons would have taken over eventually and they were even crazier then Daddy!!. It's a heavier price then Bush/Rumsy/Cheney thought they would have to pay but still I feel in the long run world will be better off for it.

As far as WMD go Saddam was tricky and prob sent them all to his Baath sunni friends in Syria. Does anyone doubt that he had them at one point? or that he would have tried to get them at some point again? I don't! Blaming that on Bush is fair though because that is why we have a president. It was a mistake for Bush to lean invasion so much on WMD. Either that or they should have just lied and planted some good nerve gas somewhere. I mean if Bush is such a lying, evil guy wouldn't that seem like something a person like that would try? No doubt though Saddam was an enemy of the USA and I for one love that he is dead. Him and his punk ass sons!!!!

[Bronco Bob]

The Surrendercrats have a long and distinguished history of leaving people standing on Embassy rooves with their peckers swinging in the breeze.

Clinton/Gore believed Saddam had WMD, Kerry, Billary, Lieberman, et al are all on record believing the intelligence at the time they had it. Bush DID something about it and now the toothpaste is out of the tube, he's the only one who seems intent on seeing the mission through. But, whatever, we have the Britney Spears' meltdown to worry about here. Populist decisions don't win wars.


There is a big difference between thinking Saddam had WMDs and wanting
to keep sanctions, inspections, and other restrictions on him and
going into a country guns blazing and creating utter chaos like Bush did.


If these same Fancy pants nancy boys had been around throughout US history we'd be speaking german, saluting the queen, and slavery would be thriving. Bunch of Nancy-crats.

In each of those cases we were attacked first and were merely defending
ourselves. Iraq was minding its own businesss and Bush attacked them.
Basically pulled a Pearl Harbor on them. That's the difference.

[Spider]

The Surrendercrats have a long and distinguished history of leaving people standing on Embassy rooves with their peckers swinging in the breeze.

Clinton/Gore believed Saddam had WMD, Kerry, Billary, Lieberman, et al are all on record believing the intelligence at the time they had it. Bush DID something about it and now the toothpaste is out of the tube, he's the only one who seems intent on seeing the mission through. But, whatever, we have the Britney Spears' meltdown to worry about here. Populist decisions don't win wars.

If these same Fancy pants nancy boys had been around throughout US history we'd be speaking german, saluting the queen, and slavery would be thriving. Bunch of Nancy-crats.

you are full of shít .......... I dont give a damn what other people believed , Bush still made the decision to go in , Hell if I get directions from a place where I am to unload , and they send me down a road I am not supposed to be on , do yo uthink I could get by with telling the cop , Bad directions ?
It is time you understood , that a man has to stand by his decisions good or Bad , this it isnt my fault blame everyone else mentality has to go ....

[Spider]

There is a big difference between thinking Saddam had WMDs and wanting
to keep sanctions, inspections, and other restrictions on him and
going into a country guns blazing and creating utter chaos like Bush did.



In each of those cases we were attacked first and were merely defending
ourselves. Iraq was minding its own businesss and Bush attacked them.
Basically pulled a Pearl Harbor on them. That's the difference.

H8ter knows that , he is just twisting things to stay in denial about Bush

[cutthemdown]

No I am not kidding , Bush couldnt wait to get us in that war , none of this would be going on if we kept to the task of fighting terrorism , instead of Iraq ....... Dont try and sluff this ****ing mess off onto the Dems , Bush wanted be known as a war president , well he got his ****ing war , it is his baby , it is all on him .........

He's not spider. He's saying that democrats and the non-binding legislation was sort of just for show. If I was an anti-war person who just voted based on the war I would be pissed all I get is a non-binding resolution that means nothing. It was only Pelosis way of trying to make it look like she has actually done anything yet. Come on dems get to work!!!!!!

[Spider]

He's not spider. He's saying that democrats and the non-binding legislation was sort of just for show. If I was an anti-war person who just voted based on the war I would be pissed all I get is a non-binding resolution that means nothing. It was only Pelosis way of trying to make it look like she has actually done anything yet. Come on dems get to work!!!!!!

Of course it was for show , look last thing we need is Congress in a gridlock , this was testing waters to see how far Reps would go to defend Bush or jump Ship , Kinda like a jab in a heavy weight fight ..... part I took exception to 2 million dead part , that shít cant go unchecked ........ I dont give a damn what the dems do from here on out , those deaths are on Bush's hands

[cutthemdown]

you are full of shít .......... I dont give a damn what other people believed , Bush still made the decision to go in , Hell if I get directions from a place where I am to unload , and they send me down a road I am not supposed to be on , do yo uthink I could get by with telling the cop , Bad directions ?
It is time you understood , that a man has to stand by his decisions good or Bad , this it isnt my fault blame everyone else mentality has to go ....

so then spide you cant vote for MCcain he flip flops and doesnt stand by what he says. Either does Hillary she voted for the war. Obama you cant because he did drugs and that's bad judgement. Edwards voted for war bad judgement. Who are you going to vote for Jesus Christ himself so you can have the perfect canidate?

[Spider]

so then spide you cant vote for MCcain he flip flops and doesnt stand by what he says. Either does Hillary she voted for the war. Obama you cant because he did drugs and that's bad judgement. Edwards voted for war bad judgement. Who are you going to vote for Jesus Christ himself so you can have the perfect canidate?

LOL Shít I cant believe you brought up Flip flop ......... Stay the course , it was never stay the course ...... enough of that shít .........
As far as who voted for the war ....... Let it go or do some reading about how Fife doctored the intel before Congress read it ..Seriously , you talking about who voted for it is a dead issue .......... either you dont know , or you are Bullshítting........ I dont know who I am going to vote for ..........

[Bronco Bob]

LOL Shít I cant believe you brought up Flip flop ......... Stay the course , it was never stay the course ...... enough of that shít .........
As far as who voted for the war ....... Let it go or do some reading about how Fife doctored the intel before Congress read it ..Seriously , you talking about who voted for it is a dead issue .......... either you dont know , or you are Bullshítting

Besides the vote was to use war as a last resort if all else failed.
It was Bush who used it as a first resort without even bothering
to solve the problem any other way.

[TailgateNut]

He's not spider. He's saying that democrats and the non-binding legislation was sort of just for show. If I was an anti-war person who just voted based on the war I would be pissed all I get is a non-binding resolution that means nothing. It was only Pelosis way of trying to make it look like she has actually done anything yet. Come on dems get to work!!!!!!

I personally believe this is only the initial response to Bush's lack of response to the voice of the people and the Iraq study group recommendations. The Democrats want to give the dumb**** a chance to make a change.
But he's like a billy goat. Just keeps ramming his head against the wall, and never learns a damn thing.
I also think Rummy the Dummy was only a scapegoat for Bushs' misadventure and now it's time to go for the head of the operation. Cut off the head, and if the body doesn't die, at least it will pay some ****ing attention.

[Blueflame]

I still think in the long run it will be good America took control of Iraq and got rid of the Hussiens. Saddams 2 sons would have taken over eventually and they were even crazier then Daddy!!. It's a heavier price then Bush/Rumsy/Cheney thought they would have to pay but still I feel in the long run world will be better off for it.

As far as WMD go Saddam was tricky and prob sent them all to his Baath sunni friends in Syria. Does anyone doubt that he had them at one point? or that he would have tried to get them at some point again? I don't! Blaming that on Bush is fair though because that is why we have a president. It was a mistake for Bush to lean invasion so much on WMD. Either that or they should have just lied and planted some good nerve gas somewhere. I mean if Bush is such a lying, evil guy wouldn't that seem like something a person like that would try? No doubt though Saddam was an enemy of the USA and I for one love that he is dead. Him and his punk ass sons!!!!
Of course it will be better... a few decades or so of civil war for control between the Sunnis and Shiites, followed by an Islamic theocracy should be infinitely better than a secular government....

[RaiderH8r]

you are full of shít .......... I dont give a damn what other people believed , Bush still made the decision to go in , Hell if I get directions from a place where I am to unload , and they send me down a road I am not supposed to be on , do yo uthink I could get by with telling the cop , Bad directions ?
It is time you understood , that a man has to stand by his decisions good or Bad , this it isnt my fault blame everyone else mentality has to go ....

If there's a knocking in your engine do you get under the hood to check it out or do you just take a guess based on the noise it's making and hope changing your fuel type takes care of it?

Bush got under the hood. It is what it is, but going all Surrender-crat at this point isn't going to serve any sort of long term goal. Either we take care of this now or later. Whatever you think of that I guarantee you it will be tougher to do if it is put off.

[RaiderH8r]

Of course it was for show , look last thing we need is Congress in a gridlock , this was testing waters to see how far Reps would go to defend Bush or jump Ship , Kinda like a jab in a heavy weight fight ..... part I took exception to 2 million dead part , that shít cant go unchecked ........ I dont give a damn what the dems do from here on out , those deaths are on Bush's hands

Over 2 million dead Cambodians after the Dems defunded South Vietnam in 1975. You're staring down the same end game here, whether or not you want to believe that is up to you. Personally I'll puke if I have to stare at another image of an evacuation from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Baghdad because the Surrendercrats decided the short term populist goal supercedes long term objectives. But I guess I'm old fashioned.

[Spider]

If there's a knocking in your engine do you get under the hood to check it out or do you just take a guess based on the noise it's making and hope changing your fuel type takes care of it?

Bush got under the hood. i am not a mechanic , so Ilike Bush I could crawl under the hood and not know a damn thing .........


It is what it is, but going all Surrender-crat at this point isn't going to serve any sort of long term goal. Either we take care of this now or later. Whatever you think of that I guarantee you it will be tougher to do if it is put off.
Sunder crats ........ Hilarious! Bush and the republicans get us in a hole and it all shifts to the Dems ...... I push you into a bus , then blame the doctors for not fixing you ............ Freaking priceless

[Hogan11]

So you, as a representative of this country, would go to Canada and publically denounce your own country?

A) The only thing I ever claim to represent is myself.

B) Any person with an ounce of credibility or conviction would never change their opinion just because they crossed a border.

[TailgateNut]

i am not a mechanic , so Ilike Bush I could crawl under the hood and not know a damn thing .........



Sunder crats ........ Hilarious! Bush and the republicans get us in a hole and it all shifts to the Dems ...... I push you into a bus , then blame the doctors for not fixing you ............ Freaking priceless


It's what they do best. Back an idiot, and when the plan is a complete failure and someone steps up to try and fix the mess, they are blamed for the **** ups.

Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way!

[RaiderH8r]

It's what they do best. Back an idiot, and when the plan is a complete failure and someone steps up to try and fix the mess, they are blamed for the **** ups.

Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way!

I guess "Surrendering" does qualify as a fix for some, but not for me.

"Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way"

Oh and isn't this little gem of righteous outrage just so precious? But I know that you wouldn't be advocating violent retribution against those with whom you disagree. I just know it...because that would be a text book example of someone just trampling all over my right to free speech and my own beliefs. And someone as enlightened as yourself would never engage in such treachery. Because such a thing could almost be confused with calling for Bush supporters to....you know....be silenced through force. But not you. Never you, because you wouldn't stand for such an outrage. Good for you, good for you indeed. It's always nice when someone's seething hatred doesn't cloud their better judgement. Refreshing really.

[Garcia Bronco]

A) The only thing I ever claim to represent is myself.

B) Any person with an ounce of credibility or conviction would never change their opinion just because they crossed a border.

That's not what I asked.

[Garcia Bronco]

Deny me my Constitutional right to free speech and YOU should be arrested.

Your rights end when you infringe on anothers rights. Freedom of speech is a foundation of our government, but that freedom has conseqences. If your freedom of expression actively causes negative things to our country, then it's a form of treason. Scale and scope have to be considered, but ultimately if your words/expressions cause morale issues for our troops in a time of war....well....That's problem. Just like a non-binding resolution.

[Garcia Bronco]

There is a big difference between thinking Saddam had WMDs and wanting
to keep sanctions, inspections, and other restrictions on him and
going into a country guns blazing and creating utter chaos like Bush did.



In each of those cases we were attacked first and were merely defending
ourselves. Iraq was minding its own businesss and Bush attacked them.
Basically pulled a Pearl Harbor on them. That's the difference.

He was NOT compling with UN Resolutions...and the UN was taking oil under the table for cash against it's own sanctions. Iraq was minding it's own business in breach...that IS a problem

[Garcia Bronco]

you are full of shít .......... I dont give a damn what other people believed , Bush still made the decision to go in , ....

Congress voted on it. You have to hold them accountable as well if that is the path you would like to take

[Garcia Bronco]

He's not spider. He's saying that democrats and the non-binding legislation was sort of just for show. If I was an anti-war person who just voted based on the war I would be pissed all I get is a non-binding resolution that means nothing. It was only Pelosis way of trying to make it look like she has actually done anything yet. Come on dems get to work!!!!!!

Exactly

[Blueflame]

Your rights end when you infringe on anothers rights. Freedom of speech is a foundation of our government, but that freedom has conseqences. If your freedom of expression actively causes negative things to our country, then it's a form of treason. Scale and scope have to be considered, but ultimately if your words/expressions cause morale issues for our troops in a time of war....well....That's problem. Just like a non-binding resolution.

What does sending them into war without adequate training and supplies do to our troops' morale? Or, if they're injured, hospitalizing them in a hovel that's probably unfit for human habitation?

[Garcia Bronco]

Over 2 million dead Cambodians after the Dems defunded South Vietnam in 1975. You're staring down the same end game here, whether or not you want to believe that is up to you. Personally I'll puke if I have to stare at another image of an evacuation from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Baghdad because the Surrendercrats decided the short term populist goal supercedes long term objectives. But I guess I'm old fashioned.

And that's the problem at this point....these jackasses in non-binding congress land are pandering for votes...and not geniunely interested in anything otherwise.

[Blueflame]

Congress voted on it. You have to hold them accountable as well if that is the path you would like to take

Congress voted for the IWR based on intel that the Bush administration knew to be false. Should those who believed lies be held more accountable than those who knowingly presented the lies?

[Garcia Bronco]

What does sending them into war without adequate training and supplies do to our troops' morale? Or, if they're injured, hospitalizing them in a hovel that's probably unfit for human habitation?

I haven't read anything about anybody going there un-trained or ill-equiped. Of course, un-trained and ill-equiped could be subjective.

[Garcia Bronco]

Congress voted for the IWR based on intel that the Bush administration knew to be false. Should those who believed lies be held more accountable than those who knowingly presented the lies?

Yes. In for penny and in for a pound.

[Garcia Bronco]

I guess "Surrendering" does qualify as a fix for some, but not for me.

"Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way"

Oh and isn't this little gem of righteous outrage just so precious? But I know that you wouldn't be advocating violent retribution against those with whom you disagree. I just know it...because that would be a text book example of someone just trampling all over my right to free speech and my own beliefs. And someone as enlightened as yourself would never engage in such treachery. Because such a thing could almost be confused with calling for Bush supporters to....you know....be silenced through force. But not you. Never you, because you wouldn't stand for such an outrage. Good for you, good for you indeed. It's always nice when someone's seething hatred doesn't cloud their better judgement. Refreshing really.


Indeed Tailgate. Choose you enemies wisely, for you will become them.

[defenseman]

Congress voted for the IWR based on intel that the Bush administration knew to be false. Should those who believed lies be held more accountable than those who knowingly presented the lies?

It's my understanding that Pres. Bush hasn't been found guilty of such to date. Ergo, your claim at it's heart, falls apart. Find him guilty of such, really no s**t guilty, then you have something to go on..dman

[Blueflame]

I haven't read anything about anybody going there un-trained or ill-equiped. Of course, un-trained and ill-equiped could be subjective.
Is it "subjective" if the one saying it is a Major General?

Excerpt:
"“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,” Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Blueflame]

Yes. In for penny and in for a pound.

I disagree. Congress should be able to place confidence in the veracity of a president.

[Blueflame]

It's my understanding that Pres. Bush hasn't been found guilty of such to date. Ergo, your claim at it's heart, falls apart. Find him guilty of such, really no s**t guilty, then you have something to go on..dman
If you can say there's nothing to go on (no proof that the Bush administration knew the intel was bogus), then it's apparent that you haven't been following the transcripts of the Libby trial.

[Spider]

Congress voted on it. You have to hold them accountable as well if that is the path you would like to take

Dont give me that shít , that dog wont hunt anymore
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
look up the Bullshít Douglas Fife pulled , and dont tell me Bush and Cheney was in on it ....... so stop the Bullshít of Congress saw the same intel , they didnt all congress saw was a finished product ..........

[Spider]

I haven't read anything about anybody going there un-trained or ill-equiped. Of course, un-trained and ill-equiped could be subjective.

and you know more then the Generals ? somebody said , you say some of the stupidest things ............. thats a freaking understatement , you equal forrest gump ..........

[defenseman]

If you can say there's nothing to go on (no proof that the Bush administration knew the intel was bogus), then it's apparent that you haven't been following the transcripts of the Libby trial.

No I haven't to date. Feel free to post the results when you get the opportunity..dman

[Rigs11]

It's my understanding that Pres. Bush hasn't been found guilty of such to date. Ergo, your claim at it's heart, falls apart. Find him guilty of such, really no s**t guilty, then you have something to go on..dman

Wow. Funny you should say these things. In the enemy combatant thread you were ready to hang all of them without due process because they were "terrorists". not sure if it's news to you or if you just turn the other cheek, but Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" of them all by the rest of the world.Rven more so than Osama.

[Blueflame]

No I haven't to date. Feel free to post the results when you get the opportunity..dman
The case is currently in the hands of the jury... but testimony in the trial has left little doubt that Scooter did, in fact, lie to the Grand Jury (the charge against him is perjury). I'm reasonably certain he'll be convicted because the "Libby team" essentially presented no defense at all.

[defenseman]

Wow. Funny you should say these things. In the enemy combatant thread you were ready to hang all of them without due process because they were "terrorists". not sure if it's news to you or if you just turn the other cheek, but Bush is considered the biggest "terrorist" of them all by the rest of the world.Rven more so than Osama.

enemy combatants are what they are. AND, if you really read my takes you would see I am for getting them tried as quickly as possible and then you can hang them. Second, Pres. Bush is not an enemy combatant but a citizen just as you or I. He does have the right to exercise whatever legal avenues are available to all of us for the most part..dman

*Yes, I have a heavy hand that leans against enemy combatants. But, get them to trial, then hang them. I have no problem with that..and they, quite simply , are not citizens of the US. End of story.

[defenseman]

The case is currently in the hands of the jury... but testimony in the trial has left little doubt that Scooter did, in fact, lie to the Grand Jury (the charge against him is perjury). I'm reasonably certain he'll be convicted because the "Libby team" essentially presented no defense at all.

And OJ wasn't guilty. We'll see what the jury says...you never know until the jury is out. And honestly, haven't followed it too much, the whole thing makes me sick. I recognize the "perjury" charge and I truly am very disappointed. Very, very sad state of affairs...

[Bronco Bob]

Congress voted on it. You have to hold them accountable as well if that is the path you would like to take

Well, now they are planning on unvoting for the war. Does that make it better?

>>>>>>

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.


While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.

The plan is to attempt to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation that scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week and the week following.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, declined to discuss the deliberations, saying only, "No final decisions have been made on how to proceed."

Any attempt to limit Bush's powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate and could also face a veto threat.

The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.

Several Senate Democrats have called in recent days for revoking the original authorization that Bush sought and won from Congress in the months before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

That measure authorized the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

At the time the world body had passed resolutions regarding Iraq's presumed effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In a speech last week, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq."

He added that Congress should make clear what the mission of U.S. troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies.

"We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war," said Biden, a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

It was not clear whether the measure would explicitly state that the 2002 authorization for the use of military force was being revoked. One proposal that had been circulated would declare that Bush was not authorized to involve U.S. armed forces in an Iraqi civil war, but it appeared that prohibition had been dropped as part of the discussions.

[Rigs11]

enemy combatants are what they are. AND, if you really read my takes you would see I am for getting them tried as quickly as possible and then you can hang them. Second, Pres. Bush is not an enemy combatant but a citizen just as you or I. He does have the right to exercise whatever legal avenues are available to all of us for the most part..dman

*Yes, I have a heavy hand that leans against enemy combatants. But, get them to trial, then hang them. I have no problem with that..and they, quite simply , are not citizens of the US. End of story.

The term, Enemy Combatant, is used by the Bush administration to refer to a person designated by the US President as an enemy fighter, even if he/she is not a member of an army, like Guantanamo prisoners. The term also applies to US citizens, like Padilla. The US courts ruled in 2004 that even if a person is classified as such, he/she could have access to federal courts, which means the right to an attorney, due process, and a trial.

[Blueflame]

And OJ wasn't guilty. We'll see what the jury says...you never know until the jury is out. And honestly, haven't followed it too much, the whole thing makes me sick. I recognize the "perjury" charge and I truly am very disappointed. Very, very sad state of affairs...
Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have perjured himself. His perjury is the primary reason OJ wasn't convicted.

I've followed the Libby case pretty closely... even before he was indicted. What troubles me even more than the public revelation that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent was the outing of her cover network, Brewster Jennings.

[defenseman]

Well, now they are planning on unvoting for the war. Does that make it better?

>>>>>>

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.


While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.

The plan is to attempt to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation that scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week and the week following.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, declined to discuss the deliberations, saying only, "No final decisions have been made on how to proceed."

Any attempt to limit Bush's powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate and could also face a veto threat.

The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.

Several Senate Democrats have called in recent days for revoking the original authorization that Bush sought and won from Congress in the months before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

That measure authorized the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

At the time the world body had passed resolutions regarding Iraq's presumed effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In a speech last week, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq."

He added that Congress should make clear what the mission of U.S. troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies.

"We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war," said Biden, a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

It was not clear whether the measure would explicitly state that the 2002 authorization for the use of military force was being revoked. One proposal that had been circulated would declare that Bush was not authorized to involve U.S. armed forces in an Iraqi civil war, but it appeared that prohibition had been dropped as part of the discussions.

Good thing we didn't try to pass legislation to shutdown WWII when the going got tough. Just an observation..dman T

[Bronco Bob]

Good thing we didn't try to pass legislation to shutdown WWII when the going got tough. Just an observation..dman T

That's because in WW2 there were clear goals and obvious victories.
And WW2 didn't last as long for the US. Even at that, one of the
reasons that Truman dropped the A-bombs on Japan was the
public was getting fed up with the war and he didn't think the
public would stand for the massive casualties that an invasion
of Japan would result in so Truman went for the quick ending.
Who knows what the American publics' reaction would have
been if the war would have drug on and on with no progress
in sight and no clearly defined goals.

[defenseman]

That's because in WW2 there were clear goals and obvious victories.
And WW2 didn't last as long for the US. Even at that, one of the
reasons that Truman dropped the A-bombs on Japan was the
public was getting fed up with the war and he didn't think the
public would stand for the massive casualties that an invasion
of Japan would result in so Truman went for the quick ending.
Who knows what the American publics' reaction would have
been if the war would have drug on and on with no progress
in sight and no clearly defined goals.

Good call. I believe this is at the root of why we are in the fix we are in presently..dman

[TailgateNut]

I guess "Surrendering" does qualify as a fix for some, but not for me.

"Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way"

Oh and isn't this little gem of righteous outrage just so precious? But I know that you wouldn't be advocating violent retribution against those with whom you disagree. I just know it...because that would be a text book example of someone just trampling all over my right to free speech and my own beliefs. And someone as enlightened as yourself would never engage in such treachery. Because such a thing could almost be confused with calling for Bush supporters to....you know....be silenced through force. But not you. Never you, because you wouldn't stand for such an outrage. Good for you, good for you indeed. It's always nice when someone's seething hatred doesn't cloud their better judgement. Refreshing really.

Twist my words if you wish. I stated ""Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way"

No where in that sentence do I say you do not have the right to voice your opinion. I do however have no respect for your position.....and as far as I'm concerned you should book your one way trip asap, because to support this arrogant administration should be considered a criminal act.

[Rohirrim]

It's pretty obvious to even the most jaded person that Bush has singlehandedly ruined the United States at home and abroad with his arrogance, his incompetence, and his narcissisum. And he's not done yet. The damage he has inflicted may take decades to repair. Some of it (abroad, for instance) may never be repaired, and in fact, may get much worse before it gets any better. You'd think, by now, more Americans would be getting angry and start standing up for their country, but no. Instead they stand up for Bush. This is a perfect example of why people should invest themselves in ideals (like liberty) instead of people. People may fail to live up to ideals, but the ideals themselves never fail. That's why we instituted the government that we have. When our leaders fail to live up to our principles, we remove them. It's incorporated into our laws. It's liberty we stand for, not leaders. When we forget that, we're doomed.

[RaiderH8r]

Twist my words if you wish. I stated ""Anyone who still backs Bush deserves no respect! They can all go to hell IMO,
in fact I'd love to show them the way"

No where in that sentence do I say you do not have the right to voice your opinion. I do however have no respect for your position.....and as far as I'm concerned you should book your one way trip asap, because to support this arrogant administration should be considered a criminal act.

No, you simply point out that I have the right to voice my opinion and follow it up with a thinly veiled threat. You then further advocate a level of criminality on my part for those beliefs. I keep looking for the sarcasm but I'm missing it so I can only assume you're serious. Are you suggesting I be tried for Treason? What law have I broken and what should be my punishment for having the audacity to hold my own beliefs and opinions? This is really funny because you have a lot in common with the Congressman in question. You're going to complain about something this serious and within the span of 24 hours assert my criminality for my belief system.

Book my one way trip asap :rofl: when are you going to quote scripture?

[Garcia Bronco]

Is it "subjective" if the one saying it is a Major General?

Excerpt:
"“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,” Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A Major General in the Oklahoma National Guard just said he didn't like the rifles they are using. Doesn't mean that the rifles his troops have don't work. While I wish they all had 100,000 dollar battle armor a-piece and the latest guns available sometimes the financials at a 10,000 foot view aren't there for that kind of scope. There are people in all kinds of jobs that don't like the equipment they have, however it doesn't mean the euipment they do possess won't get the job done.

[Garcia Bronco]

I disagree. Congress should be able to place confidence in the veracity of a president.

I disagree. I think whether they trust the President or not, they have to give due diligence. And if they were, "lies" as people like to put it, then they should have investigated. Congress has access to the same intel the executive branch does.

[Garcia Bronco]

and you know more then the Generals ? somebody said , you say some of the stupidest things ............. thats a freaking understatement , you equal forrest gump ..........

If you saw the movie, Forrest Gump is an American Hero. Thank you.

What other Generals have said what the Oklahoma National Guard have said? Any Joint Chiefs say that their troops are untrained and ill-equiped?

[Garcia Bronco]

Well, now they are planning on unvoting for the war. Does that make it better?

.



It's taking a stand. which is what we are talking about here. It will be interesting to see the final draft. Just skimming the article...it will be difficult to guage exactly what an AQ operative is. You know...since it's not a well defined organization.

[Bronco Bob]

A Major General in the Oklahoma National Guard just said he didn't like the rifles they are using. Doesn't mean that the rifles his troops have don't work. While I wish they all had 100,000 dollar battle armor a-piece and the latest guns available sometimes the financials at a 10,000 foot view aren't there for that kind of scope.


So in other words you go to war with the army you got. Basically
the Don Rumsfeld answer to why the troops don't have the proper
equipment to fight the war.


There are people in all kinds of jobs that don't like the equipment they have, however it doesn't mean the euipment they do possess won't get the job done.



If I was working at a job where the equipment I was working with put
my life in danger, I'd quit. Unfortunately our soldiers don't have the
option to quit.

[Spider]

If you saw the movie, Forrest Gump is an American Hero. Thank you. you are welcome , now give me a life is like a box of chocolates

What other Generals have said what the Oklahoma National Guard have said? Any Joint Chiefs say that their troops are untrained and ill-equiped?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/international/middleeast/30armor.html?ex=1288324800&en=25b6f8e797e94261&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Even as American forces are relying more on Iraqis to fight the insurgency, the Iraqi Army is facing some of the same procurement problems that American troops have experienced in getting adequate armor and other equipment, according to interviews in Iraq with American and Iraqi military officials. But if the Americans have faced an uphill battle in getting vital gear - their shortfalls continue to this day - then their Iraqi counterparts are confronting a herculean task.
We're competing with the Army on that," said Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who led the transition unit until last month.

General Petraeus and other unit officials said they had been grappling with an enormous task that was handed to them more than a year after the invasion of Iraq. They emphasized that they had moved quickly to obtain critical gear like guns, ammunition and body armor but that equipping the new army was a vast logistical challenge.

"There has been enormous progress, but there is a great deal left to be done," General Petraeus said.
good enough for you ?

[TailgateNut]

No, you simply point out that I have the right to voice my opinion and follow it up with a thinly veiled threat. You then further advocate a level of criminality on my part for those beliefs. I keep looking for the sarcasm but I'm missing it so I can only assume you're serious. Are you suggesting I be tried for Treason? What law have I broken and what should be my punishment for having the audacity to hold my own beliefs and opinions? This is really funny because you have a lot in common with the Congressman in question. You're going to complain about something this serious and within the span of 24 hours assert my criminality for my belief system.

Book my one way trip asap :rofl: when are you going to quote scripture?


You are in fact wasting your time if you are looking for sarcasm. This is a serious matter and my position is as previously stated. In my opinion those who allow this farce to continue and still support it are the ones who do not support our troops.
They advocate the continued "creation" of exponentially higher numbers of terrorists than would exist if we would have not started this war and would not continue the occupation of Iraq.
They justify the loss of our soldiers' lives in a war based on lies and scare tactics!
They justify sending soldiers to war without the neccessary support, leadership and supplies!

PS: I don't give a flying *&^% what you think, and believing that you are wrong, is my right!

[RaiderH8r]

You are in fact wasting your time if you are looking for sarcasm. This is a serious matter and my position is as previously stated. In my opinion those who allow this farce to continue and still support it are the ones who do not support our troops.
They advocate the continued "creation" of exponentially higher numbers of terrorists than would exist if we would have not started this war and would not continue the occupation of Iraq.
They justify the loss of our soldiers' lives in a war based on lies and scare tactics!
They justify sending soldiers to war without the neccessary support, leadership and supplies!

PS: I don't give a flying *&^% what you think, and believing that you are wrong, is my right!

You failed to address, well, anything I said. But that's alright, your blind hatred and anger have made you a tool for the dark side. Let the hate flow through you.

With this exponentially higher number of terrorists how do you account for no single act of terrorism occurring on American soil for 5 years? Sure, they're probably taking a powder and exercising their religion of peace.

Going to war is like having a baby. You're never going to be as fully prepared as you would like to be, it's going to cost more money than you expected it to, and you're going to make life altering decisions and mistakes. Most importantly, once it has been undertaken you can never go back to the way it was previously. Which is precisely what some Surrender monkeys believe will happen "if only we would leave". Bunch of Little Neville Chamberlains out there, just give me peace at any cost.

But I'm still amused that you propose a measure of criminality for those who do not believe as you do. Perhaps I should just be....ummm...how to put this...."re-educated"?

[Spider]

[quote]With this exponentially higher number of terrorists how do you account for no single act of terrorism occurring on American soil for 5 years? Sure, they're probably taking a powder and exercising their religion of peace. 8 years for clinton inbetween attacks , and he didnt have ot invade iraq ........ pretty damn good

Going to war is like having a baby. You're never going to be as fully prepared as you would like to be, it's going to cost more money than you expected it to, and you're going to make life altering decisions and mistakes. Most importantly, once it has been undertaken you can never go back to the way it was previously. Which is precisely what some Surrender monkeys believe will happen "if only we would leave". Bunch of Little Neville Chamberlains out there, just give me peace at any cost.
no things will never go back like before , Bush ****ed so many people in so many ways , but just cause it doesnt go back to the way it was , doesnt give Bush a free ride to continue on ****ing up ..........

[freak6]

While I agree with your premise about those that are elected to office and the choices we have, they are only doing what they think is right.

lmfao!

Garcia trusts the Government to do what is right!!!

BWWWAAAA HAA HAAAAAAAA

Downing St. Memo

August 6th PDB

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

[Hogan11]

That's not what I asked.

I believe it was:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco
So you, as a representative of this country, would go to Canada and publically denounce your own country?

..and I answered:


A) The only thing I ever claim to represent is myself.

B) Any person with an ounce of credibility or conviction would never change their opinion just because they crossed a border.

And if you consider denouncing the President the same as denouncing the country, then you need help.

[TailgateNut]

lmfao!

Garcia trusts the Government to do what is right!!!

BWWWAAAA HAA HAAAAAAAA

Downing St. Memo

August 6th PDB

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv


But they are doing what they think is right. Not right for America, not right for the world, but right for their pocketbooks and their own agenda!

[alkemical]

DeLay says top Dems close to treason (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_504197.html)


By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"We have people dying," he said. "Not just our soldiers, but innocent citizens dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of these evil people, and you have your elected leaders making these kinds of statements that embolden the enemy. It's unbelievable."

Reid said yesterday the Democratic-controlled Congress would push legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later. He said Bush is in "a state of denial" over the war.


On Thursday, Reid angered the administration and congressional Republicans when he said that the war in Iraq is "lost."

"I believe myself that the secretary of State, secretary of Defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost," Reid said.

The withdrawal timetable would be attached to a funding bill needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has threatened to veto legislation that includes a withdrawal date.

Bush cannot afford to lose this fight, DeLay said. The president must demand a "clean bill" that does not set a withdrawal date or include so-called pork barrel spending on unrelated projects, he said.

"(Bush) comes back and says, 'I want a clean bill, and unless I get a clean bill with no pork in it, I'm going to veto it,' " Delay said. "See who blinks."

DeLay, who resigned from the House in June, is promoting his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender."

He remains under indictment in his home state of Texas on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Because he gave up his leadership post in September 2005 after a first indictment, and then decided not to seek re-election after winning the Republican primary last year, DeLay said he has contributed to conservatives' political soul-searching.

"I have to take some responsibility for this," DeLay said.

His resignation and subsequent scandals that roiled the GOP leadership helped Democrats seize control of Congress last year, DeLay said. He faulted Republicans for not coming up with a new agenda.

"What are you going to present to the voters in '08 as a reason to vote for you? You've got to come together, and you've got to have an agenda."

Delay praised the president, but had harsh words for his handlers: "If they let George W. be George W., he'd be just fine."

The administration, DeLay said, needs to stand up to Democrats. He criticized the administration for replacing former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the November election.

"It's lack of backbone," DeLay said. "The Rumsfeld thing was reaching out, and we're all going to get along, and we're all going to sit around the campfire and sing 'Kumbaya.'"

Bush met yesterday in the Oval Office with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who is in Washington this week to try to build congressional support for Bush's Iraq policy.

Senate and House members also planned to meet to resolve differences between their war funding bills, which both include timetables for a troop withdrawal.

"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said. "And I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake."

As for his indictments, DeLay said he was set up by the Democrats as a "poster boy" for political corruption, and insisted that his prosecution has been "dragged out" for political reasons.

After an appeals court threw out one charge of conspiring to violate Texas election law, the district attorney appealed. The other charges have not been brought to trial.

"It's not good enough to defeat somebody politically or vilify him publicly," DeLay said. "They've got to carpet-bomb you and drive you out of office, disgraced, bankrupt, your family busted up, headed to jail."

But DeLay quickly added that he's not complaining or whining.

"I'm still fighting," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Andrew Conte can be reached at aconte@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7835.

[Rohirrim]

That's what this country needs, ethical advice from Tom DeLay. :rofl:

BTW, folks. The founding fathers set this county up so that elected civilians would be telling generals what to do. U.S. History, 101.

[alkemical]

I laughed when i saw tom delay was talking ****.

[Rohirrim]

Welcome to Moron Central:

"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said.

Sorry, George, but that's what the Constitution says. I know you once said, "It's just an old piece of paper," but hey, it works for us.


As for his indictments, DeLay said he was set up by the Democrats as a "poster boy" for political corruption, and insisted that his prosecution has been "dragged out" for political reasons.

And you've never done that, Tom. Righhhhhht. Perhaps you could tell us once again how you got the nickname, The Hatchet?


"It's not good enough to defeat somebody politically or vilify him publicly," DeLay said. "They've got to carpet-bomb you and drive you out of office, disgraced, bankrupt, your family busted up, headed to jail."

You mean like blowing 40 million on Whitewater? Impeachment over a bj?

But DeLay quickly added that he's not complaining or whining.

Yeah, right. Give that boy a towel.