Democrats Smoke and Mirrors – They wont stop the war

When did I say we should close the Embassy? I asked how he thought only 3500 troops would be needed to man it...

Well you were responding, I thought, to my post which said this:

He is probably not assuming that the situation in Iraq is always going to be the way it is today. But the real question is, why can't the idea of closing the embassy be broached? Well, I guess there is a reason it's the biggest, and most expensive, and I guess just all around bushiest, embassy in the whole wide world.

Did you really think there was going to be zero blowback from this adminstration?


So I was just wondering which non-RR candidates, or elected Republicans of any kind, were advocating the closing of our embassy in Iraq. And try not to say the words "Ron Paul".
 
Ok, I never once voted for Bush, not in 2000, not in 2004. I voted Gore in 2000, and Badnarik in 2004. I've been against Bush ever since he decided to ignore our responsibilities in Afghanistan so he could attack Iraq. We need to finish what we started, well, at least that was my idea up until Iraq. When the vote for authorization of force for Iraq happened, I criticized congress and protested. I knew what it meant, just like I knew what this vote meant for Iran. I've been pissed at the Dems for the last 5 years because they keep trying to play it off as if they didn't KNOW Bush was going to attack Iraq. Well, now the Dem's know, and what the hell do they do? More of the same....

At least with Republicans, they aren't hiding that they support it, they are just plain dumb and open about it. I'm thinking the Reps should change their animal to a dog, cause they shit right out in the open and don't care, and Dems to a Cat because they shit but try to bury it.

LOL Great analogies!
 
I did say that if we were to pull this idiocy then we should have done it with far more troops and given them real security. That is a far cry from "supporting the surge". I also said that this "surge" was too small to be very effective and would likely just cause more problems. I did, often, state that the surge was actually one of the things in the Iraq Report that so many Ds wanted Bush to follow, yet they were trashing him for it.

But heck, we can forget what I said and pretend that I "supported" it because it's all good to make sure somebody is not taken out of context when they are a Democrat, but if they have an R next to their name, no matter what they say, they must be bashed mercilessly and if that takes out of context statements then so be it.

Although I do believe that since we allowed this to begin we have a responsibility toward those to end it better than 'just leave'.

Leaving is not my priority, it is the promise never to begin another undeclared debacle. I'm happy with their plans to get out... I am not happy that none of them speak towards the direction that I believe, that we must stop these idiotic War Powers Act debacles.


I don't think you were a full-throated supporter of the war. I think you have been an enabler of the war ;)
 
Well you were responding, I thought, to my post which said this:

He is probably not assuming that the situation in Iraq is always going to be the way it is today. But the real question is, why can't the idea of closing the embassy be broached? Well, I guess there is a reason it's the biggest, and most expensive, and I guess just all around bushiest, embassy in the whole wide world.

Did you really think there was going to be zero blowback from this adminstration?


So I was just wondering which non-RR candidates, or elected Republicans of any kind, were advocating the closing of our embassy in Iraq. And try not to say the words "Ron Paul".
One more time. The only time I mentioned the Embassy is when I asked how Edwards thought only 3500 to 5000 troops would be needed to protect it. I have not promoted the Embassy removal, nor would I much object to it other than the total stupid waste, but then there's nothing for that.

I don't know why you are sticking to this point as if it was important to me. I have made it clear that what is important is promising not to enter another undeclared war. None of your candidates are doing that. One of ours is.
 
One more time. The only time I mentioned the Embassy is when I asked how Edwards thought only 3500 to 5000 troops would be needed to protect it. I have not promoted the Embassy removal, nor would I much object to it other than the total stupid waste, but then there's nothing for that.

I don't know why you are sticking to this point as if it was important to me. I have made it clear that what is important is promising not to enter another undeclared war. None of your candidates are doing that. One of ours is.

Ok, whatever, then your post makes no sense in this context, so I have no idea what you were saying.
 
I agree the Democrats wont end this war, Bush had made certian of that. It will be very difficult to end this war. The Republcians have laid the groundwork for blaming whoever pulls out! Surrender is what they call it, and noone, especally the first woman president, wants the biggest thing they do to be surrender.
 
Last edited:
I won't accept the crocodile tears of bush voters crying that we aren't getting out of iraq fast enough. Or ran cover for bush for years.

USC, Lorax, Desh, and Darla have credibility to criticize the dems on this.

what about me?
 
what about me?


Sorry. I hate to 'fess up, but I think you probably have the chapdog/damo/superfreak/stirfry syndrome. All talk about being anti-war, but pulling levers for warhawk republicans in the privacy of the voting booth.


;)



j/k
 
Sorry. I hate to 'fess up, but I think you probably have the chapdog/damo/superfreak/stirfry syndrome. All talk about being anti-war, but pulling levers for warhawk republicans in the privacy of the voting booth.

;)



j/k

okay. I know we like to kid on this board but Cypress you just crossed the line.

:eek:
 
Back
Top