Who can clearly state the current Democrat position on Iraq?

[zipman]

Are you looking for argument or reality?

You're caught in a paradox on that one Zip. If they're truly a puppet, it's a done deal. If they aren't, then you have to acede they they be allowed to make their own way.

So are they independent, or must you suppress your two year old tendencies?

Ishmael

I was looking for some intelligent debate. Clearly I'm not going to find it with you as you won't address the points and keep throwing the "2 year old" insult around.

 

[Ishmael]

I was looking for some intelligent debate. Clearly I'm not going to find it with you as you won't address the points and keep throwing the "2 year old" insult around.

Zip, I may not have lived up to your defintion of 'intelligent', but I have reality pretty much nailed. If realtiy is 'stupid' in your book, I'd suggest you have the problem, not I.

Ishmael

 

[Plasmaball]

Zip, I may not have lived up to your defintion of 'intelligent', but I have reality pretty much nailed. If realtiy is 'stupid' in your book, I'd suggest you have the problem, not I.

Ishmael

translation....I know you are but what am i. yeah you nailed that 2 year old down pact

 

[zipman]

Zip, I may not have lived up to your defintion of 'intelligent', but I have reality pretty much nailed. If realtiy is 'stupid' in your book, I'd suggest you have the problem, not I.

Ishmael

If you think that the Iraqi government is the same as ours then no, you do not have reality nailed. Not by a long shot. In fact, you're not even in the ballpark.

 

[Ishmael]

If you think that the Iraqi government is the same as ours then no, you do not have reality nailed. Not by a long shot. In fact, you're not even in the ballpark.

Of course they aren't. Given the new congress they're considerably more efficient.

Our government has had 200 congressional investigations with no new acts passed. Even if the Iraqi government passed nothing, they can't match that investigation record. *chuckle*

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Of course they aren't. Given the new congress they're considerably more efficient.

Our government has had 200 congressional investigations with no new acts passed. Even if the Iraqi government passed nothing, they can't match that investigation record. *chuckle*

Ishmael

And you have the balls to accuse others of acting like a 2 year old?


Grow up already.

 

[Ishmael]

And you have the balls to accuse others of acting like a 2 year old?


Grow up already.

Of course sparky. I'm not the one complaining.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

It is having the opposite effect and you are just too damn dim-witted to realize it. They are fighting successfully against our tactics which we have been too slow to adjust due to the "stay the course" mentality of Bush.

You and your bros are the ones more interested in attacking democrats than the enemy. Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for us and he has done less to support the troops than all the democrats put together.

His decisions have caused the deaths of far more troops than necessary, have destabilized the region, have emobldened our enemies and weakened our military overall. That's not even mentioning the impact to Iraqi civilians many of whom have fled, the women that have been forced to embrace prostitution to feed their families and increased sectarian divide in the country.

But keep blaming the democrats, that seems to be the only argument you have in the absence of facts.

Fact. Your side of the argument, be they Democrats, Brits, French or Iranians got rid of Blair. You can't get rid of Bush, so you're going for everyone around him from Scooter to Rove and now to Maliki.

Fact. We are not in a military conflict. We are in a political war, one that we keep signalling we will lose because we are effeminant and weak.

Fact. It is our blaming of the wrong people that fuels the political fighters on the other side.

Link: From the other side...

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

 

[Plasmaball]

Fact. Your side of the argument, be they Democrats, Brits, French or Iranians got rid of Blair. You can't get rid of Bush, so you're going for everyone around him from Scooter to Rove and now to Maliki.

Fact. We are not in a military conflict. We are in a political war, one that we keep signalling we will lose because we are effeminant and weak.

Fact. It is our blaming of the wrong people that fuels the political fighters on the other side.

Link: From the other side...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

Thats to bad about your "facts" Even bush is starting to distance himself from Mal. Go for it spin that. The sad part is nobody wants to go after bush. well very few. Everyone knows he is gone in almost a year anyways. Why waste time with a useless sack of crap.

You can't be serious? If this was a "political war" We would not need our military. Political war is, you know, sanctions, and the like.

You mean like blaming Iraq for 9/11. Then i agree.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Oh boy. My turn. I have the endorsement from the VFW in KC.

Bush was adamant in his support of our key ally.

Show me your link to "distancing..."



It's up to the Iraqis as to whom and how confident they are of their elected officials, not Congress, Howard Dean or the President-in-Waiting...

Bush isn't wavering. That's Hillary. She's wherever she needs to be at the moment; Bush is where he has to be.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh boy. My turn. I have the endorsement from the VFW in KC.

Bush was adamant in his support of our key ally.

Show me your link to "distancing..."



It's up to the Iraqis as to whom and how confident they are of their elected officials, not Congress, Howard Dean or the President-in-Waiting...

Bush isn't wavering. That's Hillary. She's wherever she needs to be at the moment; Bush is where he has to be.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/22/ap4045716.html

So basically he had to cover his ass and do a little control damage of his own words.


Adamant? are you kidding. Not when he has to damage control over his own words. Who knows whats going on behind the scenes.
i see you have the talking point down already.

 

[Ishmael]

Oh boy. My turn. I have the endorsement from the VFW in KC.

Bush was adamant in his support of our key ally.

Show me your link to "distancing..."



It's up to the Iraqis as to whom and how confident they are of their elected officials, not Congress, Howard Dean or the President-in-Waiting...

Bush isn't wavering. That's Hillary. She's wherever she needs to be at the moment; Bush is where he has to be.

I think you're wasting your breath on this group bro. They haven't understood the enemy or the concept of political war since the beginning. And they won't at the end either.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Where's the back-pedaling in that article?

It's a link, yes, but unless I'm just to st-st-st-stupid to see it, there's no modifications, no clarifications, no equivocacy, just an endorsement and a positive assessment.

Why do you think Warner jumped the shark to call for troops to come home? Because he's an old-time insider and knows the Generals are going to say troops can start coming home and he wants to be in the vangard of success...

Hillary's trying to book passage too.




Wasting as in killing?

 

[Plasmaball]

Where's the back-pedaling in that article?

It's a link, yes, but unless I'm just to st-st-st-stupid to see it, there's no modifications, no clarifications, no equivocacy, just an endorsement and a positive assessment.

Why do you think Warner jumped the shark to call for troops to come home? Because he's an old-time insider and knows the Generals are going to say troops can start coming home and he wants to be in the vangard of success...

Hillary's trying to book passage too.

For the stupid

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -

President Bush, scrambling to show he still backs embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, offered him a fresh endorsement on Wednesday, calling him "a good guy, good man with a difficult job."

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

For the stupid

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -

President Bush, scrambling to show he still backs embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, offered him a fresh endorsement on Wednesday, calling him "a good guy, good man with a difficult job."

Look at the bottom and see why he was "scrambling."

He didn't know he was going to have to cover Senator Clinton's drive-by bombing of Maliki for political gain.




That's only ONE word in an article my dear sir and you are simply reading too much into to it with too much hope for a bad outcome for the United States because you really, really do hate Bush. Don't you? You can tell me the truth and I won;t hold it against you.

 

[Ishmael]

Poor PB, he read commentary posing as news as news.

It'll make you look like a fool everytime PB and you're batting a 1000.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Bro. He took ONE word out of the Forbes article and fashioned into retreat, when it was actually an attack on Hillary's competence to lead a clusterfuck. You gotta wonder how deep the Rabbit Hole goes...

 

[Ishmael]

Bro. He took ONE word out of the Forbes article and fashioned into retreat, when it was actually an attack on Hillary's competence to lead a clusterfuck. You gotta wonder how deep the Rabbit Hole goes...

Or the twists and turns that it takes to confuse weak minds.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Hand me my sword. I'll undo the fuckin' knot...



Friggin' Intellectuals!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's very obvious from the statements of his own Parliament (what's left of it) that the Iraqi government is on the verge of collapse. Very little political progress has been made on key legislation and several political parties have given that as the reason for their departure.

If Maliki can't pull a fucking miracle out of his hat and get the delegates who have left the parliament (the largest Sunni political bloc, some Shia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, and now three secular delegates) back in there he is going to be facing a very tough go of it.

It matters very little what any of our politicians say about the matter, Maliki's own Parliament is revolting against what they call his divisive leadership style.

 

[Lasher]

So the two of you think that the Iraqi government is as effective as our own?

I find it incredibly ironic that the Bush administration claims be to be fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

If only they'd do the same at home.

 

[zipman]

I find it incredibly ironic that the Bush administration claims be to be fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

If only they'd do the same at home.

Careful, Ish might call you a 2 year old.

I know how much his opinion means to you.

 

[zipman]

Fact. Your side of the argument, be they Democrats, Brits, French or Iranians got rid of Blair. You can't get rid of Bush, so you're going for everyone around him from Scooter to Rove and now to Maliki.

Fact. We are not in a military conflict. We are in a political war, one that we keep signalling we will lose because we are effeminant and weak.

Fact. It is our blaming of the wrong people that fuels the political fighters on the other side.

Link: From the other side...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

LOL, okay, let's look at facts.

1) In Quebec (on August 21st) Bush said the following "President Bush acknowledged a mood of "frustration" hanging over Iraq's fractious, paralyzed government Tuesday. Speaking at a news conference in Canada where he was meeting with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, Bush said Iraqi leaders had made some progress. But he said the government has "got to do more."

"The Iraqi people made a great step toward reconciliation when they passed the most modern constitution in the Middle East, and now their government's got to perform.

"And I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work -- come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections," Bush said.

He said the "fundamental question" facing Iraqis is, "Will the government respond to the demands of the people?"
"If the government doesn't demand -- or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government," he said. "That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

First off, there is no oil sharing revenue as you proclaimed recently. Secondly, Bush is not calling on the Iraqi people to stand behind Maliki, but to throw him out if he doesn't do more.

2) John Warner (republican) "I really, firmly believe the Iraqi government, under the leadership of Prime Minister (Nouri) al-Maliki, let our troops down," Warner said."

Doesn't sound like democrats but republicans criticizing his performance.

3) A powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, CNN has confirmed.


I'm sure it's not surprising that your comments blaming democrats completely ignores republican criticism of Maliki. Do you really think anyone doesn't see through your partisan bullshit?

 

[trucknbuddy2000]

They have a position?

Are we referring to their heads buried in the sand?

 

[unregistered]