frogs Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 Third - our soldiers went to an Iraq invasion based on lies of the administration -- over 3000 of these soldiers paid the ultimate price based on Bush's lies --- I consider this murder Kind of agree with you ... but still, one is responsible for one's own actions, and the soldiers, too, murdered, because they got money and benefits. Without those, too few would have fought the war to make it a war. So it's the stupidity of Bush and the greed of soldiers. Quote
Guthrie Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Posted January 21, 2007 Third - our soldiers went to an Iraq invasion based on lies of the administration -- over 3000 of these soldiers paid the ultimate price based on Bush's lies --- I consider this murder Kind of agree with you ... but still, one is responsible for one's own actions, and the soldiers, too, murdered, because they got money and benefits. Without those, too few would have fought the war to make it a war. So it's the stupidity of Bush and the greed of soldiers. it just isn't fair to blame these guys who put their lives in the hands of a moron Commander in Chief - they enter the military and know they will be called upon, if needed, to face the enemies of America, in the front lines - they MUST be able to trust the orders they are given just to do their job - - they have been betrayed - it's up to us to peacefully assemble and demand redress from the govt - for ourselves, and for the soldiers who can NOT protest Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 it just isn't fair to blame these guys who put their lives in the hands of a moron Commander in Chief - they enter the military and know they will be called upon, if needed, to face the enemies of America, in the front lines - they MUST be able to trust the orders they are given just to do their job - - they have been betrayed - it's up to us to peacefully assemble and demand redress from the govt - for ourselves, and for the soldiers who can NOT protest Nonsense....most service members feel much better actually serving under the likes of Reagan or Bush than not serving under the likes of Jimmy Carter. Save the betrayal and guilt trip for back home, along with BS about apple pie and Chevrolet. The US Government armed them and sent them, just as they always have. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Posted January 21, 2007 it just isn't fair to blame these guys who put their lives in the hands of a moron Commander in Chief - they enter the military and know they will be called upon, if needed, to face the enemies of America, in the front lines - they MUST be able to trust the orders they are given just to do their job - - they have been betrayed - it's up to us to peacefully assemble and demand redress from the govt - for ourselves, and for the soldiers who can NOT protest Nonsense....most service members feel much better actually serving under the likes of Reagan or Bush than not serving under the likes of Jimmy Carter. Save the betrayal and guilt trip for back home, along with BS about apple pie and Chevrolet. The US Government armed them and sent them, just as they always have. when were you last in Sadr City? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 when were you last in Sadr City? I preferred Beruit. Better beaches. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Posted January 21, 2007 and did you hear about the blast or find it a moving experience? how much time did you spend hooded and in a closet? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 and did you hear about the blast or find it a moving experience?how much time did you spend hooded and in a closet? Yes, it was a moving experience.....President Reagan ordered us to come home because of Cold War realities. President Bush has no such restrictions. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Posted January 21, 2007 shame on you Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 shame on you Thank you. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 It was one of the worst days in two years in Iraq today. 25 soldiers killed in 24 hours. The militias are now starting to fight Americans. Support for Bush has dropped again to the lowest level according the Wall Street Journal. And yet, he keeps plowing ahead. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16732376/ I don't know that the surge is going to make much of a difference at this point. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 It was one of the worst days in two years in Iraq today. 25 soldiers killed in 24 hours.The militias are now starting to fight Americans. Support for Bush has dropped again to the lowest level according the Wall Street Journal. And yet, he keeps plowing ahead. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16732376/ I don't know that the surge is going to make much of a difference at this point. Maybe President Bush is trying to beat Jimmy Carter's lowest record for support. Either way, he ain't a gonna quit. Bless his heart! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Maybe President Bush is trying to beat Jimmy Carter's lowest record for support. Either way, he ain't a gonna quit. Bless his heart! He is almost there for that level of support. Perhaps in two more years, he will be lowest in history. I wonder if it will hurt the Republicans as long as it did Democrats for the Presidency. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 He is almost there for that level of support. Perhaps in two more years, he will be lowest in history.I wonder if it will hurt the Republicans as long as it did Democrats for the Presidency. Not sure what "lowest in history" means.....Bush was elected to a second term after the invasion of Iraq. Republicans had a very good run, and the Democrats are no shoe in to prevail for as long, especially if they go soft again on national security. Ironically, Hillary is in a better position with her "yes" vote for war than the other pretenders. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Not sure what "lowest in history" means.....Bush was elected to a second term after the invasion of Iraq. Republicans had a very good run, and the Democrats are no shoe in to prevail for as long, especially if they go soft again on national security. Ironically, Hillary is in a better position with her "yes" vote for war than the other pretenders. Lowest in history is flirting with Nixon's numbers. I'd be hard pressed to think of a Republican candidate who would be strong enough to win the next election. McCain is so big on putting more soldiers in Iraq and the public is so adamant that no more go. I have no idea who will be get the nod for the Democrats. The announcements are so early as to be unheard of. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Lowest in history is flirting with Nixon's numbers. I'd be hard pressed to think of a Republican candidate who would be strong enough to win the next election. McCain is so big on putting more soldiers in Iraq and the public is so adamant that no more go. Technically, Harry Truman has the lowest rating of 24% for April-May 1951 (Korean War). Nixon, Carter, and Bushes have all danced with lower than 30%. Bush by the numbers....quite unremarkable either way compared to other two termers: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm It really means nothing to the mechanism of government. The next poll that counts is in Nov 2008. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Technically, Harry Truman has the lowest rating of 24% for April-May 1951 (Korean War). Nixon, Carter, and Bushes have all danced with lower than 30%.Bush by the numbers....quite unremarkable either way compared to other two termers: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm It really means nothing to the mechanism of government. The next poll that counts is in Nov 2008. Newsweek has the president's support at 24% for Iraq. It could sink even further. As for two years from now, the only Republican who might be able to do well might be one that has no connection to Bush or Washington or the war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720627/site/newsweek/ Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Newsweek has the president's support at 24% for Iraq. It could sink even further. As for two years from now, the only Republican who might be able to do well might be one that has no connection to Bush or Washington or the war. No, it's not that simple. Iraq is a major issue, but not the only issue, and plenty of hands got "dirty" on that. President Bush is like any other lame duck president, and the political ebb and flow is rather routine. Hell, many Republicans and conservatives distanced themselves from Bush long ago for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq. Whoever gets elected will still be an American. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 No, it's not that simple. Iraq is a major issue, but not the only issue, and plenty of hands got "dirty" on that. President Bush is like any other lame duck president, and the political ebb and flow is rather routine. Hell, many Republicans and conservatives distanced themselves from Bush long ago for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq.Whoever gets elected will still be an American. That might be true that there are other issues. I have no idea in truth what the election in 2008 will hold. I just know that Republicans were saying they were going to hold the Senate and Congress with conviction right up to the mid-term itself. I think they should take a step back before declaring victory in 2008. I hardly think it is in the bag. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 That might be true that there are other issues. I have no idea in truth what the election in 2008 will hold. I just know that Republicans were saying they were going to hold the Senate and Congress with conviction right up to the mid-term itself. I think they should take a step back before declaring victory in 2008. I hardly think it is in the bag. Agreed...nothing is in the bag. If the Democrats don't self destruct with internecine warfare, they will prevail for the 2008 election cycle. They never should have lost to George Bush to start with, but still managed to hose it up twice. Maybe Ralph Nader will come back to complete the trifecta. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Agreed...nothing is in the bag. If the Democrats don't self destruct with internecine warfare, they will prevail for the 2008 election cycle. They never should have lost to George Bush to start with, but still managed to hose it up twice. Maybe Ralph Nader will come back to complete the trifecta. Newt Gingrinch was saying he might run today. Maybe that would help the Republicans. Quote
blackascoal Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Agreed...nothing is in the bag. If the Democrats don't self destruct with internecine warfare, they will prevail for the 2008 election cycle. They never should have lost to George Bush to start with, but still managed to hose it up twice. Maybe Ralph Nader will come back to complete the trifecta. Newt Gingrinch was saying he might run today. Maybe that would help the Republicans. Newt would hurt the republicans big time and there is no republican clamoring for him to get in the race except from the far right. No far-right, pro-war candidate will win in 2008. In fact, Newt and McCain are the only ones running. Quote
Guthrie Posted January 22, 2007 Author Report Posted January 22, 2007 Shrub is the worst president in American History. He will be recorded as such. Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
blackascoal Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Shrub is the worst president in American History. He will be recorded as such. Absolutely. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 No far-right, pro-war candidate will win in 2008. In fact, Newt and McCain are the only ones running. I thought Rudy Guiliani was going to be running. I figure it'll come down to either McCain or Guiliani. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
jdobbin Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 I thought Rudy Guiliani was going to be running. I figure it'll come down to either McCain or Guiliani. If there is two more years of a bad results in Iraq, McCain's support could badly fade. Guiliaini might be there but he will wait for a bit. It is a very long time to spend millions a year before the first primaries. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.