Key quotes:
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama...
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton...
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards...
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
So perhaps the question should be "Who will not put us into Iran?"
So now the reality of what surrendering means begins to penetrate the minds of those who favored surrendering before.
I wonder what changed for them.
It must be the growing persuasive power of the Nutroots.
That, or New Hampshire voters are more conservative on this than voters elsewhere, i.e., "in locus panderus."
2013? 2013?? 2013???
So what compelling reason do I have to vote for a Democrat next year?
President Clinton won't be out of Iraq in 4 years? Nor Edwards, nor Obama?
Damn that Bush!
"So what compelling reason do I have to vote for a Democrat next year?
I won't be; but for America and Americans, it might be worth the chance for Democrats to actually have executive responsibility for the nation's security in hopes they actually do become responsible.
I don't think Democrats can or will, but I do acknowledge the argument they might - just as a rabid dog might not bite, I suppose.
Yo TIM....
I'll leave this blog forever, never ever say another word on line on any blog if you can give me a one (1)(uno)(ein) cite where a democratic candidate suggest that we surrender in Iraq.
Go ahead.
And if you can't you'll just have to admit that you are a lying weasel who distorts based on either alcoholism or stupidity or both.
And to you other rightwing hacks, please remind me when and where Bush said that he WOULD get formulate a plan to get our troops out by 2013?..Isn't it more like a generation?
Clinton is absolutely right. Who knows what Commander Putz will do in the next 15 months. You don't. I read everything I can I haven't seen anything that resembles anything other than another war in Iran or at least a "preemptive bombing".
The hourglass can't run out fast enough on this fool
Nice comfortable out you've given the Dems, house. They don't have the cajones to defund the war when they hold the majority, and they won't commit to ending the war in the next 4 years.
So we should favor them because they'll raise taxes, is that it?
Pogo said...
They don't have the cajones to defund the war when they hold the majority...."
Yo Pogo...
THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE. Hello? You alive?
If the war is that unpopular, yes they do. Regardless, they didn't even float a bill. What a joke.
Seriously, you'll still vote for them when even Obama won't give a timeline? So what's the upside to the Dems besdies a smaller paycheck?
Seriously, you'll still vote for them when even Obama won't give a timeline? So what's the upside to the Dems besdies a smaller paycheck?
Well, I can't speak for him, but there are many people in our country who honestly believe that one or more of them would do a better job of it than the alternatives available on the GOP side of the aisle.
President Clinton won't be out of Iraq in 4 years? Nor Edwards, nor Obama?
Damn that Bush!
Yes. He deserves it.
Was it not just 2004 that MoveOn and the Democrats were demanding an immediate withdrawal? Is that not going on even now?
Why the change of heart? It's a little disnigenuous now to suggest that things are more complicated than that, and that a more sober plan is called for, even a prolonged stay beyond a single term.
I get the sense they're playing both sides of the field here, promising MoveOn to be home by Xmas or somesuch, while the middle ground is placated with "well I can't say for certain."
Is it fair to say there's been a mixed message, at least from Obama and Edwards?
Ohhhh Pogo you trickster you...
Think about what you are saying for a while...say go stand in the corner and think just about this issue for a while. Then re-read what you wrote. It may be a toughie but reality has some contradictions to your process.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES YOU PINHEAD THEN YOU DON'T BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE. IT DOES NO GOOD. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.
Now, that said, think about why the Republican position that they carry into 2008 is that they want to stay in Iraq forever..generations...50,000 troops in 2025...So why don't the Republicans call the bluff here and bring up a bill that says we want to stay there FOREVER...permanent bases...never leave...Korea redux. Why not?
So all their talk about ending the war was bullshit, and they knew it, and you knew it, and you voted for them anyway.
Is that about right?
"I'll leave this blog forever, never ever say another word on line on any blog if you can give me a one (1)(uno)(ein) cite where a democratic candidate suggest that we surrender in Iraq.
Good bye.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18377827
But, being a Democrat, you'll dishonor your promise.
And we both know it. It's in your nature.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES YOU PINHEAD THEN YOU DON'T BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE. IT DOES NO GOOD. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.
Yet the Democrats keep bringing up timetables for withdraw that they don't have the votes to pass. Curious.
Anyway, the glaringly obvious problem with your "they just don't have the votes" argument is that they don't have to pass anything to cut off funding. They have to NOT pass something -- specifically, they have to prevent appropriations funding the war from passing. That takes a grand total of 41 votes in the Senate, and President Bush gets no say in the matter.
The two real reasons the Democrats aren't going to defund the war are:
(1): They know the anti-war folks, just like blacks and gays (or conservative Christians and hawks in the Republican party), have nowhere else to go. All they have to do is ring the bell and they'll salivate on election day. Actually ending the war would deprive them of the "OMFG surrender IMMEDIATELY" vote and they'd be back in the political minority again.
(2): They know that if they yank the rug out from under the US military when it is nowhere NEAR being militarily defeated, and when the majority of troops still feel positive about the mission, they'll earn themselves the "We Have No Balls" label for yet another generation or two, and they don't want that.
Igor: Wait Master, it might be dangerous... you go first.
(Young Frankenstein)
Tim....I've been civil and understanding of certain mental deficiencies exhibited by right-wing fools on here for a while. If you read (or can read) my post, I asked you to show me evidence that any candidate advocated surrender in Iraq. You push off a post on a vote that doesn't mention any candidate by name nor does it contain the word surrender.
Is this what Kingsfield described as a brain turned to mush?
"You push off a post on a vote that doesn't mention any candidate by name nor does it contain the word surrender."
I'm not surpised, a mere thirteen hours after predicting a broken promise, that the promise was broken.
Speaking of "certain mental deficiencies," you are certainly projecting. Only those with such deficiencies, or (more likely) those committed to arguing in bad faith would disclaim the Democrat intention prior to the 26 September 2007 Democrat debate was to surrender in Iraq as quickly as possible. The linked news article was one of hundreds of such articles on just one of those efforts in the U.S. Senate, for which all the Democrat candidates for President currently in the Senate voted.
Only an idiot would honestly think otherwise (or do you ascribe the nutroots frustration with Democrats in Congress with their inability to nationalize health care?). I know you are less than honest, so you know exactly that's what the Democrats have been trying to do since at least November of 2003, yet you continue to play word games as if none of us know exactly what you and they are doing. You can lie all you wish - just don't think you can get away with it.
You push off a post on a vote that doesn't mention any candidate by name nor does it contain the word surrender.
You should rephrase your offer, then. You asked for a Democrat who "suggest[ed] surrender", not a Democrat who used the word "surrender" in reference to Iraq.
If I say "someone should throw HDHouse off a tall building" you would be entirely within your rights to say "Revenant called for my murder", even though the word "murder" appears nowhere in that sentence.
Many Democrats have declared that we cannot hope to defeat our enemy in Iraq and that we should therefore unilaterally withdraw from the country and cease hostilities. Choosing to yield to an opposing force is called "surrender"; look it up. That is what Democrats are advocating. You are probably right that no Democrat has been honest enough to spade a spade -- but that makes them, not us, the dishonest ones.
Really, though, we all knew the minute you made your offer to leave the blog forever that you were going to pull the "it doesn't count unless they actually say the word 'surrender'" stunt. That's why I, for one, didn't bother rising to the bait.
"That's why I, for one, didn't bother rising to the bait."
Revenant,
Nor should you have; I thought myself honor bound, as the challenge was issued to my post.
But yes, of course, "we all knew the minute (HDH) made (his) offer to leave the blog forever that (he was) going to pull the "it doesn't count unless they actually say the word 'surrender'" stunt."
It was as obvious as the Democrat withdrawal from Iraq = Democrat surrender in Iraq.
tim and revenant...
aside from you being shitforbrains the post cited by tim is not on point, doesn't mention or hint at surrender or anything of the kind.
i asked for "presidential candidates stating specifically:
"I'll leave this blog forever, never ever say another word on line on any blog if you can give me a one (1)(uno)(ein) cite where a democratic candidate suggest that we surrender in Iraq."
so go ahead you chimps. put up or shut up. I like Ann so I don't make this challenge in jest. But you can't do it and I know you can't do it and I can sit here an laugh at you as hysterical bumpkins without an ounce of brains between you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा