THE LIBERAL LIE PICTURE GALLERY
Ok, so they met and so they talked. Nancy ran to the cameras and said it was, "productive." Yeah right, there is still no funding bill without pork and attachments, the Dems are still pushing unconstitutional time lines and they won't even allow the bill to get to the VETO desk so the bill can get cleaned up. But old Nancy will quickly negotiate with Assad in Damascus and any other Jihadist, while the troops starve on political vine!
Did you hear the collective giggle of the millions of babies whose lives were saved by the Supreme Courts upholding the legislative ban on partial birth ?
What do the students at Virginia Tech want more than anything else ? To be left alone to cope, grieve and get on with their lives. It's time for the cameras, the reporters and the political pundits to leave the Campus and the survivors alone to allow them to get past the tragedy and remember their friends!
The Democrat strategy for the war. Throw in the towel, cut and run, surrender and bring another generation of soldiers home whose only request is to finish the job and win! Nancy, Harry and your ardent followers, leave them alone and let them WIN!!!!!!!Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:09 AM
31 Comments:
And the depletion of euipment the Troops needed started on April 15th. And each day the Liberal Congress holds up progress deliberatly stabbing our Troops in the back.
Time to start making some phone calls again.
I will never ever vote for a Democrat!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
we are not to judge the democrats by their interpetation of patriotism. They are willing to sacrifice our troops at the altar of liberism and everything anti-GW for more votes.
The great liberal lie is they support our troops.
Marie, you are misinformed and spreading false information. The troops are fully funded through the end of May. The Pentagon could very easily manage to fund the troops through July without any disruption. The non-partisan CRS has examined the issue:
http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/CRSMemo%203-28-07_.pdf
Do you honestly think that Bush would put in the supplemental request on March 9 (that is when he made the request) and only give Congress a month to put together a funding bill? Especially when both the House and Senate had Easter recesses scheduled? If you believe that then, you should blame Bush for being incompetent for waiting until it was too late for Congress to even get a bill together.
The Dems are offering to fully fund the troops for another year. The Iraqi government has to meet certain milestones or our commitment will end. Seems logical.
If Bush vetoes the funding - which provides even more for troop training, equipment purchases, and VA health than the President has asked for - then he will be responsible for cutting off troop funding.
Rob,
Sometimes I wonder about you.
It's been almost 80 days and counting since President Bush asked for the money to fund our Troops, thier equipment is in need of repairs, the Troops need things and all the Democrats can do is drumb up this cockamaymee bill with Peanut Storage in it and an artificial timetable for withdrawl all for political purposes.
How can you honestly set there and have any more faith in the Democrat party?
It's simple - because Bush has been utterly incompetent.
The Dems aren't putting in a timetable for political purposes. The American people want this war to end.
The latest Fox News poll (released yesterday) shows that 54% of Americans are for a timetable.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041907_poll.pdf
I noticed you didn't address the fact that the troops are funded through at least May. In addition, if Bush vetoes the bill then he will be the one who cuts off the funding.
I am not really sure why you are complaining about some earmarks, did you ever look at the nonsense DeLay and Stevens would put into war supplementals when the Republicans were in charge? Earmarks are nothing new.
Quoting Rob: "The American people want this war to end." Rob, you are putting out false information.
I am an "American people". Well, "person" anyway. You do not speak for me. I want these terrorists confronted on foreign ground, not on our soil. If 54% of Americans are for a timetable, then that would mean 54% of Americans still have their heads stuck in the sand, but I don't trust polls regardless of who takes them. A timetable will only give terrorists hope of our withdrawal, so they will sit back and wait until we leave, then all hell will break loose.
Ken, I don't know why I even attempt to reason with liberals. It's a lost cause.
I love the abortion cartoon. It's been snagged. :)
Gayle, you are correct - I should have said that a significant and growing majority of the American people believe Iraq was a mistake and approve of a timetable. We in the majority also do not approve of the job Bush is doing.
The latest Fox News poll (released yesterday) shows that 54% of Americans are for a timetable.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041907_poll.pdf
Interesting that the majority of those polled identify themselves as Democrats...
What is so interesting about that? Last I checked, Democrats (and Independents) are Americans also.
Unless I am mistaken, our opinions count as much as Republican opinions.
Question: If Rob, Harry Greid and Neville Nancy think that Bush is "utterly incompetent" and that the American people want the war to end, are they willing to pull out the troops NOW and then be held accountable when Al Queda takes over and the largest bloodbath of the 21st Century takes place in Iraq?
We know the answer, but still, I'd like to hear one of these loons answer it.
Rob, yes your opinion counts. You want to know why? Because it is our Military, the very folks who you want to abandon, has protected your opinion. Our Military, and the Coalition of forces, are dying for your right and for the rights of other countries to have the same.
If you don't like it, leave the U.S. and go to Iran or Cuba. Their government/regimes nor military won't give a rats behind about your opinion. Express it and you'll be sent off to be beheaded by a 12 year boy in training who is ready, waiting and willing to take you out.
There is one glaring problem with ANY legislation that proposed even a non-binding time restriction on military opperations of any kind during any conflict, anywhere.
You do not telegraph your intentions for military action to your enemy, period. Be that active military operations, tactical or detailed strategic informatin or withdrawl. I am not talking about presenting an overall strategic objective to an opposing force, sometimes that can be used as a deterrent.
What you do not do is say, "Okay, al Qaeda, Iran and other various insurgents or secretaian alliances, we will be here until the 10th of October 2008. At that time we will begin withdrawing our forces and will subsequently end military operations and support for the Iraqi government at that time. Thus, if you can continue to disrupt our effort to stabilize the Iraqi government until that time, you will then be free to do as you wish. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter."
A public, published timeline is a dangerous concept and it only serves to place our servicemen in more danger. It gives our enemies the ability to strategicly plan agianst us and affords them a level of hope that we should not be allowing.
An internal, agreed upon timeline judged by clearly defined benchmarks would be acceptable. This will never happen because it does not allow for any political capital to be gained.
AMERICA'S NOW DOING THE VERY SAME THINGS THE COMMUNISTS DID TO THEIR PEOPLE. LOOKS LIKE THE CONSERVATIVES LOST AFTER ALL: http://www.deanberryministries.net/index.html
You guys crack me up. Childish names offered by Mike and a nonsensical diabtribe from Pamela. The Constitution and the rule of law gives me the right to disagree - not some power bestowed upon the American people by an almighty military. Disagreeing with the president is no reason to shut up or leave the country. Silly.
At least CC offers a sensible adult argument. Where I disagree with you is in the assumption that we actually have a real mission in Iraq. The Iraqi government that American soldiers are dying for is not a democracy that is worth fighting and dying for. I have talked about the issues related to refereeing a civil war, the problems with nation building, and a number of other issues that make Iraq a huge mistake in other posts and won't rehash those.
Rob,
Of course your opinions count! Maybe I was unclear. When I had clicked on the FOX poll link you provided, I scrolled to the bottom and it looked like the oversampled Democrats....unless I either read it wrong, or unless the nation is now comprised of a majority Democrats. I'd recheck the poll and see for myself, but I actually could care less.
Ahhh Rob, GOD gives you the right to express your opinion, not the Constitution. The Constitution and our military exist to protect and preserve those rights.
Fortunately, there are still those who believe that democracy and our republic are worth dying for.
Lastly, did a majority of Americans favor invading Normandy? How about the Battle of the Bulge? Saipan? Tarawa? Guadalcanal? Iwo Jima? Okinawa?
The American people are captivated by Sanjeya and a game show that asks elementary school questions that the majority of Americans can't answer correctly. I have no problem with ignoring the "majority of Americans". We speak through elections, not through polls. The American people have neither the right nor the expectation that our President make policy based upon a poll.
Please explain to me how propping up a corrupt government that is heavily influenced by Shia theocrats and which is closely aligned to Iran is worth dying for.
It is clear that you believe a good use for our military is to become nation builders halfway around the world. But please explain to me how that helps our republic.
I will agree with you that we speak through elections. The fact that not a single Democratic incumbent facing re-election, or open Democratic seat, went to a Republican was a clear rebuke of the Republican Party (and largely a statement on the war). I am quite sure that Republicans in Congress are just as interested as Dems in finding a quick end to the war - otherwise they will face another landslide against them in 2008.
"The war?" Since when have we been at war with Iraq? This was an invasion, and now it's an occupation (and a clumsy one at that.)
Mission Accomplished.
Actually it was not an invasion. It was, purely technically speaking, a resumption of hostilities due to violations of the cease fire agreement we reached with Iraq in 1993. Also, regardless of any technical appalations, whenever a large amount of American forces are engaged in military operations where they are in danger of losing their lives, we are at war.
Under a purely technical definition Vietnam was never a war, nor Korea for that matter. I doubt that those serving on the line cared much for the distinction. They were at war.
My dad was in both, and he seems to remember people trying to kill him.
Just as peace is more than an absence of conflict, war is more than a Congressional declaration.
You are right, CC. Those on the line don't know the difference.
Did we declare war on Iraq in 1990? I can't honestly remember, as I was in the sands of Saudi and Kuwait. The finer distinctions of international politics were somewhat less important than knowing when my next care package of marlboros was going to arrive....lol.
No, it's not technically just an invasion. It's also an occupation.
God, really. You folks need everything spelled out for you.
Actually mudkitty it would be you who need things spelled out to you.
As defined in the Hague Convention of 1907: Article 42: a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Military Occupation only occurs when an occupying military power supplanted the government of an occupied territory. Under such conditions, persuant to Article 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
So since the Iraqi government has assumed authority of the country and has established a constitution and a defacto government, we are no longer engaged in a military occupation. That only existed between the time that we had removed the old regime and the establishment of the current Iraqi governing body.
However, for the sake of argument, if we were currently the "occupying power" in Iraq, then we are bound by international law to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Look dude, I'm the one who always says "we broke it, we have to fix it."
Most people learn that in kindergarten. Except for republicans.
My point was that we are not an occupying army.
My point is we ARE an occupying army. To deny that is to have fallen down the rabbit hole.
The above statement by CC is the craziest single statement I've ever seen on a right wing blog. He's literally denying reality.
Really? Let's judge the truth for a second.
Who is in charge of the Iraqi goverment at this time?
Who is in charge of establishing and enfocing civil laws in Iraq?
Who is in charge of maintaining a justice system in Iraq?
Who is in charge of maintaining Iraqi economic policies?
Who commands the standing Iraqi armed forces?
Who commands the standing Iraqi police forces?
If you will kindly answer all of those questions for me, we will see if we are in a military occupation or not.
Cheney of course.
[url=http://www.caterpillarboots.us.com][b]caterpillar boots[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.goldengoose-sneakers.us][b]golden goose[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.adidassuperstar.org.uk][b]adidas superstar[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.airjordanretro.uk][b]jordan retro[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.nikeair-max.us.com][b]nike air max[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.michael-kors-handbags.com.co][b]michael kors handbags[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.ferragamobelt.us.org][b]salvatore ferragamo belt[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.jordan12.us.com][b]jordan 12[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.chromehearts.com.co][b]chrome hearts outlet[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.kobebasketballshoes.us.com][b]basketball shoes[/b][/url]
michael kors handbags
adidas tubular shadow
red bottom heels
nike air max
coach outlet sale
chrome hearts online
longchamp handbags
kobe shoes
lebron shoes
calvin klein outlet
Post a Comment
<< Home