Okay, it's OFFICIAL, this is now "The Republican's War"

[Bill]

They wanted it.

They voted for it.

They got it.

Bush's war is now officially the Republican War.

[Linkster]

The problem with that is that now when Bush vetoes the bill they have from congress - will the Democrats give in -oh well - I guess they already have since they changed the troop-readiness language and the "timetables" to non-binding requirements - so Bush really doesnt need to veto based on the bill he's gonna get
The democrats are just as spineless as the Republicans when it comed to this game - just as predicted

[Bill]

Well, I see the whole thing as political frameing.

Since I approve of the frameing, I'm content with the exercise.

I don't believe we should pull out of Iraq - we broke it, we own it. I support the troops, and believe they should stay there, to fix what they fucked up.

This accomplishes that goal, while starting the process of placing the blame where it belongs.

And yes, I know the dems voted for the war too. They were afraid of their public, which had been whipped into a panic.

When the blame gets placed on the media, when the owners of the media are blamed as they should be, on that day a bit of my faith in america will be restored.

The dems are the first to stand up. For now, that's sufficient for me. The next elections will allow the people to express their opinions about how specific dems betrayed the country at the beginning of the war.

I'm hoping to be saying Buh Bye, Hilary.

[Mr. Blue]

The dems are the first to stand up.

They stand up because the poll numbers say they can stand up (and as far as I can tell they've only succeeded in standing up for some sound bytes)...so goes politics in America. Instead of doing what's right, politicians do what's safe for them politically, and this is why America is going to hell in a hand basket.

What we need is politicians that go in, serve their time, and return to whence they came. Career politicians are the bane of America. They're in a never ending campaign cycle, always worried about whether they'll get re-elected, and they become servants of poll numbers, slaves of lobbyists, and sycophants to special interest groups.

Want bold action? End career politicians.

[Bill]

Well, a lot of people say things like that, but when it comes down to it, there's no way to get it done.

Take conneticut. Those people couldn't give up the perceived political advantage of keeping lieberman. They voted to fuck america, to their own fatass benefit.

I figure one has to accept realpolitik.

[Mr. Blue]

Oh hell, lol, I know I can say "End Career Politicians" until I'm blue in the face. It's never going to happen in my lifetime.

In fact I can almost say the only way America will get a refreshed political system is through a collapse, a period of anarchy, and a rebuilding. Which I believe will happen, but again, probably not in my lifetime.

So, I pretty much vote every election for some disgusting toad that repulses me, but they're not quite as bad as the person that's running against them.

[Bill]

My hope is that a collapse isn't necessary to get at least some improvements.

A new set of laws that recognizes and protects against the secret rule by the wealthy would help at least a little, and might be doable.

But that would only happen if the people get way more pissed off than they are now. And that will only happen if there is greater economic stress among the middle and upper middle classes.

Or if the lower classes riot en mass. And so far, the lower classes have been accepting of their lot.

[Mr. Blue]

The thing is the American population has become easily placated and incredibly brainless. I know it sounds wrong to say it but Americans have become really stupid.

Our culture is failing on all levels and very few people seem to notice it. At times I feel like I'm stuck in a George A. Romero movie...zombies all around us.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

They wanted it.

They voted for it.

They got it.

Bush's war is now officially the Republican War.
You've just now come to this conclusion? Bush sold the invasion of Iraq to the american people the only way he knew he could, a quickie," 3-6 months 'n we'ew outa there". This has officially been Bush's war ever since.

[Bill]

It was a sardonic comment on the political frameing intent of the house and senate war funding vote.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

It was a sardonic comment on the political frameing intent of the house and senate war funding vote.
Look, the Dems did Boy George a big favor by sending him this bill. Boy George likes to act like he's a bad ass. He walks around with his bullet proof vest like they're really his muscles. The truth is that you could put all the Bushes in wet paper bag & none of 'em would come out but by vetoing this bill, Boy George will once again become dellusional & think he's a bad ass. The good news is he's the only one who beleives it.

[Bill]

You keep trying to tie this to bush.

I'm saying the frameing is to the republicans in general.

Are you familiar with the semantic concept of frameing? George Lakoff?

It's the republicans who rubber stamped everything that mad king george has done. It's the republicans who should be blamed.

Them, and the puppet media, owned by the same people who pwned the republicans.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

You keep trying to tie this to bush.

I'm saying the frameing is to the republicans in general.

Are you familiar with the semantic concept of frameing? George Lakoff?

It's the republicans who rubber stamped everything that mad king george has done. It's the republicans who should be blamed.

Them, and the puppet media, owned by the same people who pwned the republicans.
Were on the same page. This past week PBS ran a doc on how the media rolled over Boy George in the lead up to the Iraq war. Even Oprah was shown pounding the drum for war, now what does that tell 'ya.

[red states rule]

They wanted it.

They voted for it.

They got it.

Bush's war is now officially the Republican War.


It is Amercia's war.

Democrats are to busy with their six year war on Pres Bush to join the fight on terror

Now, it seems Democrats are going to cave on the surrender bill they passed

They are asking Republicans for help to write a bill that will not be vetoed

[Linkster]

First thing you gotta figure out is that its not a war - for those that have been in a war we know better - so much has been made of this that even the White House has forbidden it being called "the war on terror" anymore

The democrats are doing less than the republicans did during the Clinton and Johnson years - as far as fighting everything - the same way Gingrich did when he ran the place - unfortunately youve got a bunch of spineless democrats in there right now that will capitulate to anything - with the exception of maybe 20 or so members.

And finally - if you know any history - we have done this before only last time we did this little move in Iraq we helped Saddam and the military destroy the democracy they had had for decades - unfortunately most American citizens have no clue that Iraq used to be a democracy until republicans helped the military take over

Have no fear though - we are going to publicize this in the mainstream media and take it to the voters so that they can see what republicans did back then - and before anyone gets their panties in a wad - I am not a democrat
Of course the exposure that will be coming in the next few weeks of how Cheney lost 3 nuke weapons back in the 90s and the real reasons for going into Iraq this time will be front page news as well

[red states rule]

Its was Dems who banned the term "war on terror" - they do not want to offend the terrorists I guess

You are right about one thing - Dems are spinless when it comes to standing up to terrorists. They are now a party of appeasers

Now Dems are scrambling. The surrender bill is DOA and know they have to either fund the troops or cut of the funds. Lord knows Dems do not have the guts to cut off the funds - so they are stuck

[Linkster]

red states - if youre talking about the recent defense committee memo about striking those terms from the appropriations bills - you are correct - it was some dem staffer that came up with that - however the white house announced it some time back that they wouldnt be using the term anymore

as far as anyone being appeasers - I wouldnt know as it looks to me like everyone in the US is appeasing Bush out of their own fears brought on by a Nazi/Roman like campaign just being repeated - if you walk around in the US in fear then its already too late for you - youve already lost

I dont believe there was any surrender talk in the bill as much as their was cutting off money - just like Vietnam when the republicans cut off the funding - I guess that was a surrender too? Id hate to see you with any of my old friends from those days - theyd be real happy to know that we surrendered
As far as cutting money - nahhh - it wont happen - they will just introduce the second bill that they already had on hand - that Bush hates even more - however Id be watching to see how Bush handles the criticism once he vetoes the bill that He is no longer supporting the troops with the arms and equipment they need

[red states rule]

It is surrender plain and simple

The terrorists fully support the bill - that should tell you something


Democrat debate 'victory for Iraqi insurgents'
Terrorists say anti-war statements moment of glory for global 'resistance movements'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 27, 2007
1:24 p.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


TEL AVIV – Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power," he said.

Abu Jihad said he believes if elected to the White House, the Democrats will immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq. He warned if a retreat is not carried out, the U.S. will likely be attacked on the home front.

"The (Democrat) debate showed that like in Vietnam the American people needed these thousands of soldiers killed to see that invading other people will always result in a failure. ... I think the Democrats will win and apply an immediate withdrawal, but if they don't (withdraw), the revolutionary movements in Iraq will intensify attacks, and I think you should prepare for another big attack in the U.S."

Abu Nasser Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND last night's Democrat primary debate proved "the invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario."

Abu Aziz said it was "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

"I think the more Americans receive the bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more the conservatives in the U.S. will be sentenced to be thrown in the garbage," he said.

Abu Muhammad, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group in northern West Bank city of Telkerem, said he believes both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by Israel but said he thinks the Democrats are better for his group's interests.

"They will keep supporting Israel, but, yes, I think the Democrats are preferred and have a bigger chance of withdrawing from Iraq and making deals with Iran and Syria."

Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took joint responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years. Both terrorist groups regularly carry out shootings and rocket attacks against Jewish civilian population centers.

At the televised primary debate last night, Democrat presidential hopefuls heaped criticism on President Bush's Iraq war policy.

"The first day, I would get us out of Iraq by diplomacy," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of eight rivals on the debate stage.

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will," pledged Sen. Clinton.

"We are one signature away from ending this war," declared Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

He said if Bush won't change his mind about vetoing a bill requiring troop withdrawal, Democrats need to work on rounding up enough Republican votes to override him.

In addition to Obama and Clinton, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also cast votes in favor of Iraqi withdrawal legislation.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who together with Clinton and others voted to authorize the Iraq war, apologized for his earlier support and said he wanted to see a withdrawal.

In November, WND conducted a series of exclusive interviews in which prominent Middle East terrorist leaders said they hoped Americans would sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq.

The terrorists told WND an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.


If Dems have such a great plan, why are they asking Republicnas for help to write a bill that will NOT be vetoed?

Democrats strike up talks with GOP on a new Iraq bill
POSTED: 5:33 a.m. EDT, April 28, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto -- unlike the one Congress will send him next week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Bush repeated his promise Friday to veto the war spending bill and any such measure with a pullout date, even as Democrats renewed their calls for the president to sign the $124.2 billion bill.

"If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one," Bush declared. (Watch the political theater in the funding showdown )

At the same time, both sides were laying the groundwork for a high-stakes, post-veto negotiation. The president invited Democrats and Republicans to the White House next Wednesday to talk about it, and leaders in both parties said they would attend.

Democrats were already looking for ways to draw Republican support for a new spending measure, knowing they would need GOP votes to pass any bill that Bush would sign.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/28/us.iraq.ap/index.html

[Linkster]

I figured you to be a WND and CNN reader - now if you want some unslanted news why not go overseas (other than the Jewish run newspapers) to get an unbiased view - you might as well have quoted Al Jazeerah although they would have probably gotten it closer to the truth - idiot

[red states rule]

I figured you to be a WND and CNN reader - now if you want some unslanted news why not go overseas (other than the Jewish run newspapers) to get an unbiased view - you might as well have quoted Al Jazeerah although they would have probably gotten it closer to the truth - idiot


Nothing like seeing a liberal react to how their policies are embraced by the terrorists

Al Jazeerah did have a broadcast booth at the Dem convention. They were supporting Kerry. You are known by the compnay you keep

[Bill]

The Republicans War is making Al Qaeda stronger and gives Osama more prestige and power every day.

Which was presumably the plan. You need an enemy for a eternal war state.

But, that can be forgiven if they get the oil.

[red states rule]

and the Dems surrender bill will make Amercia safer?

[Bill]

It's basic military strategy. You fight guerillas with police tactics, not with soldiers, except when the guerillas make the strategic mistake of massing forces.

No conventional army has ever won against a guerilla army with popular support, in the history of military actions.

But policing and investigative tactics have stopped a fair number of guerilla forces. The recent Saudi action against their Al Qaeda and wahabist attackers is an excellent case in point.

The republicans made a grave strategic error in deciding to use war tactcs when they should have used police tactics after Afghanistan.

Right now we are bleeding military effectiveness, making the country as a whole weaker, and increasing our vulnerability to the kinds of threats our military is designed to protect us from.

However, the dems timeline is a symbolic and political act, that will have no tactical effect one way or the other, except to pressure the republicans to modify their long term plans, and pave the way for further republican losses in 08.

So, yes, ultmately, the funding cutoff threat will end up making america safer, by politically forcing a redeployment to a more effective military strategy.

It already has, in fact, as Gates has recently said.

[red states rule]

The point is, the surrender bill is DOA, and Dems will cave

They will have no choice but to send a clean funding bill to pres Bush with no surrender date

[Bill]

Which was, as I have been saying all thru this thread, the whole and entire point.

The emergency funding bill gives the war to the Republicans.

It's now the republican's war.

You wanted it. You got it.

[red states rule]

it would be nice if Dems wanted to win this war - of course they would piss off their biggest supporters - the terrorists

[Bill]

It's the republicans war.

Presumably they have the plan to win it. Then they can take all the credit.

[red states rule]

It is America's war

I guess Dems do not want to be included in Amercia

Except at election time

[Bill]

Just think of the glory and prestige the republicans will have earned when they win their war.

There's still a chance they can come out on top.

[red states rule]

Just think of the glory and prestige the republicans will have earned when they win their war.

There's still a chance they can come out on top.


That is why libs are undermining the war and the US military every chance they get

Dems have put their political future in the US failure in Iraq

The did the same with the economy and they lost there

[Bill]

So why are you complaining? Victory is assured, because your heart is true and your cause is just.

Laugh as the dems cut the ground underneath them with all this talk of re-deployment.

Dream of the victory parades, and the endless adoration of the Iraqi people.

There's nothing to worry about. Support the troops!

[red states rule]

If Dems have their way that scene would take place in Iran

[Bill]

I'm sure the glorius Republicans have taken that into account in their detailed and brilliant planning for their war.

Victory is inevitable. Iran trembles before the Republican moral superiority.

Surely God will guarantee Republican Supremacy.

[red states rule]

Even the troops (who libs claim they support) are speaking out against the Dems

I am waiting for the knives to come out and go after them

[Bill]

Waiting for the knives, you say...

Support the troops!

[red states rule]

Waiting for the knives, you say...

Support the troops!


It will be intersting to see how Dems react to letters like this

WASHINGTON - A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: "We need to stay here and help rebuild."

In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.

"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.

Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family's house, or watching "several terrorists die" on the same strip of pavement.

But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has "turned to complete s- - -" during a bloody insurgency.

He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.

"If Iraq didn't want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?" he asked.

"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.

"We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, 'Hey, that's not nice' again."

"And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time."

Rock's candid e-mail swept across the Internet after Dollard posted it on his site, and it was picked up by the Drudge Report and numerous other Web sites.

"What does [Reid] know about us 'losing' besides what he wants to believe? The truth is that we are pushing al Qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. We are here to support a nation."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/news/worldnews/white_flag_harry_furor_worldnews_geoff_earle__post _correspondent.htm

[Bill]

As far as I'm concerned, the troops can stay in Iraq.

[red states rule]

and win - something Dems do not want

[Bill]

I can't see anything stopping the troops from winning.

When do you figure they'll get around to that?

Support the troops.

[red states rule]

I can't see anything stopping the troops from winning.

When do you figure they'll get around to that?

Support the troops.



Libs constantly smear the troops and attack everything they do - that way they can say they think about them constantly

Kerry, Durbin, are Kennedy experts at that

[Bill]

Our boys are pretty tough, I can't see them not winning just because of what Ted Kennedy thinks.

Reid is obviously a physical weakling - surely his opinion can't stop our boys from laying down fire and killing the insurgents.

Really, when you think about it, claiming that what Kerry says has any influence on wether or not out guys can win is pretty damn insulting to the military.

I thought you said you supported the troops? Sounds to me like you are calling them pussies who get all weak and faint and we-can't-win-now because of Ted Kennedy?

And you didn't answer the only important question, which is when are the republicans going to win the war?

[red states rule]

When troops hear the "support" libs are shoing them it does not help their moral

of cousre here is a great example of how libs really feel about the troops

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only

[Bill]

So? Burn an anarchist effigy. Hell, burn a hundred. Where's your counter demonstration?

You're trying to tell me our boys are going to get all disheartened and weepy because some hippie in freekin oregon burned an effigy?

You are insulting the troops, calling them weaklings and moral cowards. Implying they can't pull the trigger because some hippie don't support them.

That borders on sick.

[red states rule]

Libs love to show their support for the troops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anRyWT9nQg

While putting their lives on the line they hear elected Dems smearing them - oh well it is not the first time dems have done this and it will not be the last

[Bill]

Once again you insult the troops. What possible difference does it make what a few hippies and anarchists do?

I've never seen a dem or a self-proclaimed lib show that clip, and I'd bet a hundred dollars that I never will.

Poor bastards can't even burn an effigy right. They have to keep relighting it. Then they can't get the flag to light. They finally get it going, tho.

It's nothing much compared to the pics of the iraqi guy crushed under tank treads. Or the beheading clips.

[red states rule]

I am not insulting the troops

I am pointing out the support libs are showing the troops

Of course, attacking the messenger is what libs do best to deflect from the message

[Bill]

First you post the link to that sick video, gloating about it.

Then you try to say that hippies and anarchists represent all so-called liberals, which is ridicuous and stupid to boot. An empty rhetorical tactic worthy of the type of mind that posts nasty anti-troop propaganda where it will be seen by the public.

All the while implying the troops are pussy weaklings who care about what hippies and anarchists think and do, whose morale will be crushed because of a little crowd of oregon hippies.

Then you cry about attacking the messenger.

Boo hoo, poor messenger! Boo hoo, I'm crying now! I showed my filthy clip and didn't get the response I wanted, so watch me cry!

[red states rule]

I never knew the truth would push you over the edge

When I least expect some lib flips out







OK, I do expect it

[Bill]

Boo Hoo! Now I follow my script, perfected by fox news, and act smug.

Follow your script all you want. Nobody believes it any more.

Cry all you want.

[red states rule]

You are the one crying when liberal support for the troops is exposed to the light of day

[Bill]

Look how well he follows his script.

Red state rhetoric - no thought required, just stick to the script.

Too bad your war ain't going so great. Too bad about those investigations and scandals.

And the response your script requires is:

[red states rule]

You want more examples of Dems support...........

But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Kerry of Face the NAtion


“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” Kerry in a speech


"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin on the Senate floor

[Bill]

As you say, Iraq is officially the republicans war.

[red states rule]

As I said, there is nothing like the support the troops get from the Dems

[Bill]

There's the scripted response I was looking for.

Look on the face of the republican base, and despair.

[Linkster]

Bill - I love it when a plan comes together - especially because if I remember correctly you arent a democrat either :) Let the republicans have the war, the oil, the bills and quite frankly, I want to vote republican to make sure they get in office for another 4 years (I figure it will be during that term I'll die and would love to see the whole world crumble around both them and the dems) :)

[Bill]

I've been a registered and contributing libertarian ever since I could register to vote.

I did vote democrat in 04 and 06 - I felt I had no other choice.

I also voted for Ross Perot when he ran.

As a libertarian, by definition I am opposed to wars of agression.

[Mr. Blue]

I've been a registered and contributing libertarian ever since I could register to vote.

Good for you Bill, I've always liked the Libertarians, they offer an interesting view on politics, and I've been tempted to support them myself.

[dragonfly5]

It is Amercia's war.

Democrats are to busy with their six year war on Pres Bush to join the fight on terror

Now, it seems Democrats are going to cave on the surrender bill they passed

They are asking Republicans for help to write a bill that will not be vetoed

Well, just 2 more years of this asshole President and then we will finally have a Democrat, probably Hillary Clinton, as president. Then we will finally get the troops out of Iraq and end Bush's illegal war!

BTW, only a complete dumb ass would call it a "surrender bill." To leave a country you should not have been in in the first place is certainly not surrender.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Congratulations, Mr. Red State!! http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/9219/bushvoterinbredredneck1or9.png
122 posts in one day.


You just keep plopping 'em out http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3165/dogshitanimation1zh5.gif
one after the other.


Feel better now? http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7142/dogsmilefo5.gif

[red states rule]

Well, just 2 more years of this asshole President and then we will finally have a Democrat, probably Hillary Clinton, as president. Then we will finally get the troops out of Iraq and end Bush's illegal war!

BTW, only a complete dumb ass would call it a "surrender bill." To leave a country you should not have been in in the first place is certainly not surrender.

Looking at your field - which one

50% say they will not vote for Hillary

Obama does not have a clue on how to fight terrorism. When asked what the first thing he would do if the US was attacked he said he would make sure the first responders had what they needed

No retaliation?

[Linkster]

Based on the background talk in the Capitol this week - I would have to predict that the Republicans will give the generals in Iraq till September to see results - then if nothing is happening to reduce the civil war - they will start switching sides as they have to pander to their voting public - it will be interesting to see how many jump ship (although it was real interesting to see the actual vote results this last week where republicans voted "present" instead of "yes" on the funding bill) - and of course McCain didnt even take the time to vote - he didnt want to get caught for his vote later on :thumbsup:

[Betty Blowtorch]

Hey Mr. Red State
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2957/dirtyharrymeduy7.jpg
(who lives in a blue state)

Does your mommy know
you're using her computer?

Has she given you permission?

[stefan segal]

Red...I know it doesn't occur to you repugs that adding force to anhilate terrorists simply adds more terrorists. It's like getting more vigouous and using a bigger swatter on mosquitoes...there's no end to it...sounds like job security for carlsile and the other death sellers.

You repugs have single-handedly made men of consciouns around the world want to see us hurt.

We, as a country have acted despicably and are worthy of hate for multitudinous criminal acts...we need to change our act...and we will as soon as we scrape your type off our shoes.

Stefan

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Looking at your field - which one

50% say they will not vote for Hillary

Obama does not have a clue on how to fight terrorism. When asked what the first thing he would do if the US was attacked he said he would make sure the first responders had what they needed

No retaliation?
You like the GOP so much, move to Russia, where comminism is experiencing a comebqack.