Comments on: Democrats: Bring Troops Home Next Year

White House Issues Blunt Veto Threat To Legislation Calling For Fall 2008 Deadline

[bluestardad]

HERE ARE THE SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION IN 08 WRITE THEM OR QUIT COMPLAINING! ASK THEM WHO IS PAYING THEIR SALARIES? The longer we interject American military and money in the Middle East the longer the problems will exists. If America pulls out of the Middle East then the countries will have to work out their differences. 50 YEARS OF SACRIFICE IS ENOUGH! We cannot want peace in the Middle East more than those who live there!

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[karlimhof]

Pelosi said Democrats would add their war-related provisions to the administration's request for nearly $100 billion to pay for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Hey! Don't we have to our creditors, like China and Japan, if they'll allow us to issue even more debt?

This spiral of billions which Bush has unleashed will be our financial ruin !

[karlimhof]

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

[randalds]

The liberals here try to rewrite history all the time. They rewrite the meaning/definition of a civil war to fit their agenda too. Who's surprised??

Beam me up Scottie, no intelligence down here.
Posted by thgdriver at 01:12 AM : Mar 09, 2007

Who in the Fu*ck cares if it meets anyone's definition of a civil war or not? It's a godawful fu*cking mess that Bush has gotten us into and can't figure a way out of. His buddies continue to push to keep the war going because they're all making huge fortunes off from it and our troops are dying for their blood money. I don't give a da*mn what we call it, just so we get the fu*ck out of it! NOW!

[thgdriver]

The liberals here try to rewrite history all the time. They rewrite the meaning/definition of a civil war to fit their agenda too. Who's surprised??

Beam me up Scottie, no intelligence down here.

[frankly6]

What do neocons call the 70% plus Iraqis that want us to leave their country? Cut n' run Iraqis!

[firststate]

Iraqis object to the presence of an occupying force on their soil, and who can blame them? Saddam was the force keeping Shia and Sunni apart and without him, they are at each other's throats. Military power isn't capable of mending the rift between those groups, it was a millennium old when the United States was created. Democracy can work only if they decide that they want it more than they want to continue killing each other. No outside force can make them want a viable democracy. When we invaded without a reasonable plan to maintain order, we guaranteed the chaos and civil war that we see there now. The only way to win the war in Iraq was to never start it.

The majority Shia could overrun the Sunni, but our soldiers are trying to stop them killing each other. 95% of our military fatalities die at the hands of the Sunnis who are armed and financed by our dear "friends," the Saudis and Jordanians, and only 5% of our military fatalities die at the hands of the Shia who are backed by our bitter "enemy," Iran. Our friends are killing 19 times more of our people than our enemies. There seems to be something wrong with this picture. Maybe somebody at the white house or state department should take a closer look at their basis for determining whether a country is a friend or an enemy. With friends like these ... you know

[randalds]

RandalDS, if Iraq had been turned into a democracy, there would have been money coming out of Iraq for decades. Sure Halliburton made a ton of money, and I agree that money was one of the motivating factors behind the invasion.
Posted by clestes at 10:57 PM : Mar 08, 2007

Absolutely. It was a win-win for Cheney and his masters in the international corporate world. If the war had been a success they would have made trillions of dollars, but since it was a failure they have to settle for only a few hundred billion. Still a pretty good payday considering it cost them nothing personally. After all what do they care about raping the American taxpayers? These are internationalists (including Cheney and the Bush family) and don't give anymore about America then a tick cares about the dog it's sucking blood from. As long as the dog is alive they'll bleed it and we're bleeding. If they suck us dry they'll just find a new dog to bleed somewhere else in the world. China's looking promising.

[clestes-2009]

Check out the article on CNN

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597226-1,00.html

It is a great piece about Cheney and his dwindling influence.

[radiob-2009]

opfor311 Although the Malayasian British war was a success, there are many differences between that war and this one.A working government was already in place, they(guerillas) had no external support(Iran, Saudia Arabia,terrorist networks) and were limited to the Chinese population.A good history lesson though thanks.

[clestes-2009]

RandalDS, if Iraq had been turned into a democracy, there would have been money coming out of Iraq for decades. Sure Halliburton made a ton of money, and I agree that money was one of the motivating factors behind the invasion.

[randalds]

opfor311, you can call it whatever you want, civil war or not. Really does not matter what you call it. The point is, whatever plan Cheney and his neocon gang had for turning Iraq into a democracy is lost now.

Posted by clestes at 10:36 PM : Mar 08, 2007

But to Cheney this war has been a rousing success. It had nothing to do with changing Iraq into a democracy, though they would have welcomed that. This was and is a war for profit. The 100's of billions of dollars the American taxpayers have spent on this war didn't just disappear (well OK so 30 or 40 billion is unaccounted for...small change) but rather went into the bank accounts of war contractors and oil companies. They have made billions and billions of dollars off from this war and make no mistake, Bush and Cheney WILL get their cut somehow. This war did exactly what it was meant to do all along. Transfer huge sums of taxpayer money into the hands of a small wealthy elite. As for the dead, both troops and civilians, well that was just a cost of doing business to these people and after all it's not like any of them lost anyone in this war. They had others dying for them and for their profit. This is not a war, it's grand theft on a historic scale and we're the ones who got screwed. We've been had.

[david1737]

Neo-con. I know that it's frustrating to know that your era has failed and has come to an end. This is what makes you decend into name calling. All that I can say is read the NIE Oct. 2006. Also, The sooner that you can come to tearms with the truth about Iraq the better. The facts are staring you in the face.

[clestes-2009]

opfor311, you can call it whatever you want, civil war or not. Really does not matter what you call it. The point is, whatever plan Cheney and his neocon gang had for turning Iraq into a democracy is lost now. There was a time in the fall and winter of 2003 that it might have worked. But once Rummy made General Bremer the leader and excluded any Iraqis, because no one could decide who to put in charge, whatever chance there was for democracy was gone.

Now it is 4 years later and too much blood has been spilled. When that Shiite mosque was bombed a year ago, it finished whatever small chance remained.

Now the most likely scene is for another dictator to seize power. Since there are now 4 bases in Iraq, I am sure US soldiers will be around to prop up the dictator. As long as he is friendly to the US, of course.

Look at what happened to Iran in 1953. The US govn put the Shah in power and propped him up for 25 years until he was overthrown.

That outcome is at least as likely to happen as anything else and somehow I doubt that all the dead soldiers families think their loved ones was worth that.

[randalds]

Hey Leiberwussy why dont you grab a carbine and go fight? You are quick to call a charge to arms, but I guarentee you would be the first to run to the rear when the bullets start flying. Do us all a favor and shut up.
Posted by LiberalVet at 09:26 PM : Mar 08, 2007

It won't happen because, just like his hero he is a gutless yellow-bellied coward. Besides given his level of maturity (or rather lack of) I'd say he's about 12 or 13 years old and getting his first rush of testosterone. What he really needs is to get laid (outside of a chat-room), but if he's as obnoxious in person as he is here that's not going to happen unless he pays a really, really really desperate hooker. I mean REALLY desperate!

[randalds]

A multi-factioned insurgency is not a Civil War.
Posted by opfor311 at 09:58 PM : Mar 08, 2007

Your picking nits. Of course it doesn't meet the dictionary definition of a civil war and it never will, but that definition is from 150 years ago and doesn't function in today's world. A multi-factioned insurgency qualifies as the new definition of a civil war. Certainly it close enough to meet the description.

[lucasnico]

my brother has been there.....so have many of his buddies...the paint a much bleaker picture than the press portrays....rules of engagement and lack of focus to win are the two biggest complaints....in his words, it's a mess nobody wants.

[opfor311]

Bush lost this war for us when he allowed a CIVIL WAR to break out. Plain and simple.

Bush's war. Bush's failure.




Posted by frankly6

Sorry, but the situation in Iraq does not qualify as a civil war. The only civil war in the Middle East is between Fatah and Hamas. None of the factions in Iraq have an organized force, a command structure, identifiable troops, and are attempting to set up a substitue government.

A multi-factioned insurgency is not a Civil War.

[frankly6]

Bush lost this war for us when he allowed a CIVIL WAR to break out. Plain and simple.

Bush's war. Bush's failure.

[liberalvet]

Better yet, ship all of the Dems and their fellow traitors to Iraq - let's see how Botox girl and KKK Byrd, for example, can handle combat. Not to mention Prune Face Harry, the Drunk Intern Killer and of course Steppin' Fetchit.

We all know how Murtha, Kerry, Hagel, McDermott, and Webb handle it - bring out the white flag, boys - in this case, maybe Byrdie boy's robes will do nicely.

Either Botox Girl Pelosi supports victory and shuts up - or she can get a helmet and a carbine and place her wrinkled a$$ on the front lines.

Now, come a calling, Bozo Fascists, Surrender Monkeys and Traitors!
Posted by Lieber1881 at 07:01 PM : Mar 08, 2007


Hey Leiberwussy why dont you grab a carbine and go fight? You are quick to call a charge to arms, but I guarentee you would be the first to run to the rear when the bullets start flying. Do us all a favor and shut up.