What are your thoughts on 2008?

Nobody in Congress is more qualified to do Gen Patreaus's job than himself. Nancy Pelosi doesnt need to be directing operations on the ground.
 
WRL said:
see what I mean, you hit the brick wall, now google compromise or something...
Click to expand...

If Bush Vetos a bill that would get the troops home, he is denying them funding and leaving them to die!


I dont put that past him!
 
Dont forget that Hillary is a Clinton, and the Republicans were wrong time and time again when they claimed a Clinton was going to loose.
 
uscitizen said:
Pelosi ? Bush ? Whatsa diff. Well for one thing we know that Bush cannot properly run a war.
Click to expand...

The difference is Bush listens to the recommendations on his military commanders for advise on the ground, Pelosi seems to think she can play general. Big difference.
 
WRL said:
The difference is Bush listens to the recommendations on his military commanders for advise on the ground, Pelosi seems to think she can play general. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Umm, do you read the newspapers or just believe what you want to believe? Bush listens to his commanders on the ground? Where have you been the past five years?

And i am just wondering about something. I noticed that one day a week or so ago, someone here said "I wish WRL would come back" and that the very next day, you happened to come back.

So, who were you posting as? Just curious.
 
Darla said:
Umm, do you read the newspapers or just believe what you want to believe? Bush listens to his commanders on the ground? Where have you been the past five years?

And i am just wondering about something. I noticed that one day a week or so ago, someone here said "I wish WRL would come back" and that the very next day, you happened to come back.

So, who were you posting as? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I've never posted under, at least here, a different name.

And Bush does listen to his commanders, the way it should be, and that being so I've directed my criticisms towards those under whose command so much negative events occurred, I've taken exception to Gen. Casey's command of the war, and since he's been replaced, A very competent, successful commander has emerged, Gen. Petraeus, who's counter-insurgency strategy is netting undeniable success, even John Murtha has to admit it. Even Hillery Clinton had to admit it.
 
well... my thoughts are... you have shit on one side and then you have more shit on the other... put em togeather and you have yourself one big pile of shit
 
WRL said:
The difference is Bush listens to the recommendations on his military commanders for advise on the ground, Pelosi seems to think she can play general. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Not True...!

Bush just fires them if they wont say what he wants them to say!
 
bob said:
well... my thoughts are... you have shit on one side and then you have more shit on the other... put em togeather and you have yourself one big pile of shit
Click to expand...

lol... Good ole' American politics at it's finest, it's like a never ending episode of dumb and dumber...
 
WRL said:
Come on, the one thing I fault Bush the most on is not knowing when to let someone go...
Click to expand...

Not with Generals, how many have "resigned" just after saying somethign that did not comform with Bush's plans?
 
Who was the guy just before Betrayus? Was it Zinni or Sanchez? It does not matter, he just plows through them!
 
you spend to much time on the dailykos... Where do you get this stuff from, certainly can't be mainstream...
 
WRL said:
you spend to much time on the dailykos... Where do you get this stuff from, certainly can't be mainstream...
Click to expand...

Ohh, like Newsmax or maybe some article from the 1880's.

The fact that Bush fires generals the second they disagree with him is not reported in the corporate media. Its just a fact you figure out when you pay attention!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top