Dems: More troops in Iraq 'not in national interes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a calculated snub of President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday dismissed plans for a troop buildup in Iraq as "not in the national interest" of the United States........

Click Here For Rest Of Story

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In June of 2005 this is what was said by the some of the people who now have decided that this administration's wanting to increase troops in Iraq is wrong :


Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place."I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."



This only proves to me, that many in Washington have an agenda against the President, and that no matter which course of action he would have taken, or decides to take, they'll crucify him anyway.

One thing that I'll concede to many of the democrats in Washington and the liberals in Washington is that they were right when they said that Bush cannot win no matter what. Want to know why? Because they'll do anything that they can to sabotage this President and his administration. Even at the cost of the lives of our troops. This flip flop by them proves it to me!

Undermining, unpatriotic bastards.



Don Cardi

True, Don Cardi.

And what this country needs is more people like you who will point out the hypocricies of the Democrats, the stark contrast of their statements only a few years ago vs. what they say now, when they want the White House back so bad they can taste it.

Of course they must do their best to sabotage this President, because if he is proven right, if his latest strategy is successful, it will make them look like the bufoons that they are.

Except of course, to the ignorant, narrow-minded, Bush-hating constituents that eat this sort of stuff up.

Apple

Honest question:

Do either of you smoke crack?

If it turns out that his sending more troops into Iraq makes us successful in this war, then they'll just do another flip flop and say

"See, we told you a year ago that you needed to send in more troops."

You know that they'll spin it to their own liking no matter what happens. It's what they do best.

When you see things like this pointed out, things that they said only a year and a half ago that they have now reversed thier position on because it suits thier agenda, it shows what undermining selfish unpatriotic bastards that they really are.

Their disgusting ways do provide aid, comfort and rhetoric to the enemy. Look how Bin Laden's number two man jumped on their bandwagon mocking our Commander In Chief on that video tape.

You think that he doesn't know how the left in Washington is undermining our troops with their bullshit? He and our enemies are loving it. It helps them in their attempt to divide this country and win this war.


EDIT : DonVitCorleone, very intelligent contribution to this topic. Post of the year in my book!



Don Cardi

And the award for the largest amount of douchebagotry in a single thread goes toooooo...

On an intelligence scale of 1 to 10, my post is a zero. And it is by far the most intelligent thing posted in this thread so far.

They and them?? And We and Us?? DC, I'm sorry to see you so divisive, and rather surprised, I must admit. While you have definite opinions, I've often found you open to different ideas and viewpoints, if an argument is made intelligently and backed up with facts. Sorry to see you so blatantly standing on one side of the line and pointing fingers at the other.

Sorry SB, but when I do research and find that only 18 months ago these people critisized our Commander In Chief for not providing enough troops are now the same people who are doing everything they can to stop a troop surge because the President may have finally realized that this is what may be needed to win this war, it makes me sick because anyone with an ounce of logic should be able to see right through this facade that the Democrats in Washington have put up in claming that they want what best for our country.

This shows that they want what's best for thier party.

Sorry SB, but f it looks like shit, and smells like shit, then it usually is shit.

It is what it is.


EDIT : DVC - I'd like to thank you for showing us all what an educated person you really are.



Don Cardi

Hmmmmm....and there are no Republicans that have changed their minds or their positions on the war?? Really??? Because it's not as if, as was pointed out in another thread, these folks are all politicians and are just interested in their next term?? Or maybe, like many people, "they" were in favor of an invasion at one time, but feel that the current strategy is not working? That instead of increasing the number of troops, they might want to find a different way to solve this? I guess not.

Of course there are republicans that have changed thier minds. Not denying that. But look at the complete about face that many of the dems in Washington have made everytime our President has tried to come up with a strategy to win this war, be it a correct one or an incorrect one.

And for what it's worth, many of the republicans were against sending more troops in way back, and at the time, the dems in Washington blasted them for that. So in reality those republicans did not really make the 360 degree turn that many of the dems have made now.

How can you deny that the agenda of many of the dems, not all, but many, is to go against whatever this President wants to do?

The proof is in the pudding for over 6 years now.

I cannot recall ever seeing a President hated so much by the opposing political party as this one has been. Even Bill Clinton, who's party lost of control the house during his presidency, got more support from the opposing party than George W. Bush ever did.

It's a shame that this is going on while our country is at war. Again, in my opinion it only feeds the enemy more rheotoric and perhaps while not intentionally, it indirectly helps the enemy's cause.


Don Cardi

The "surge" is not going to work. Period. I am on the record on this point and am not retreating from it unless the facts prove me wrong, at which time I will admit I was wrong.

Everyone on both sides of this argument is losing sight of the fact that there are very few people who reach the pinnacles of power who got there solely on principle. To a large extent they are all "flip-floppers." If this war was going in the right direction there is no way in hell you would see people like Chuck Hegel and John Warner jumping off the sinking ship like a couple of rats. That said, as an opponent of the war from the beginning, I am glad to see them joining in on this "no confidence" resolution.

Clinton was and is hated by the opposing party more than any president I have ever seen. They accused him of complicity in the so called murder of Vince Foster, and turned the "whitewater scandal" which turned out to be absolutely nothing into a witch hunt which ended up in Clinton lying about a blow job and getting impeached for it.

Bush has lied about far more than sexual indiscretions (which are no one's business anbyway). He has sent 3,000 U.S. troops to their deaths and countless more to lives without arms or legs in a war conceived in lies, waged against the wrong enemy, and for the wrong reasons. This is truly loathsome conduct.

P.S. It was very compassionate of Bush not to mention one word about New Orleans in his State of the Union speech.

Congrats on trying to turn Whitewater and other dastardly deeds into something equitable from taking one too many mint rolls from the Shriners tray without putting any quarters in.

The problem with some of the Democrats within the Senate are those that voted for the war back in 2003 simply to help boast their subsequent Presidential campaigns. Of course I speak of: Edwards, Hillary Clinton, & Kerry.

Then they turn around and say how it was a mistake, blah blah. Yeah it was such a mistake, they only voted so they wouldn't be called pussies out on the campaign trail.

Politics is politics, but the fact that at least 2 of those 3 were other-wise anti-war Democrats(if using their past history as my assumption) then vote for a war, which means they voted against what they thought was right. (In case you're wondering, its Hillary and Kerry. Hell, Kerry voted against the First Gulf War, but now in a more dubious and more doubtful case for the Second Gulf War, he voted for it. Ummmmmm...)

In other words, they sent people to their deaths when they didn't have the courage nor will to vote against this move.

So how can I take them seriously of how the war was a bad idea, blah blah?

Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island was the only Republican that voted against the war. Sure, one could argue that he voted against the war because his state's majority were against it. But his position was that the war was unnecessary. At least he stayed the course until his defeat in last fall's elections.

Because their websites say so!
Because the Democrats are the good guys!
Because Democrats stand for truth!

Here. Take a hit of this acid. You'll feel great too!

Regards,
Double-J

I think the Yankee needs it more.

Hey! You're not a woman, man! That's unfair!

Well...that's it then. Somebody tell G.W. to call back the troops. No point in even trying. dontomasso has spoken, case closed.



We realize you don't want it to work, for reasons Don Cardi has already stated at the opening of this thread.

It is to your credit though, that you're willing to admit you were wrong when the time comes.

I look forward to that day.



Apple

The other problem with some of the Democrats within the Senate is that they are on record during the late 1990s thru most of 2000 stating that Saddam Hussein must be taken down and a regime change must take place in Iraq.

Of course I speak of: Hillary Clinton, & Kerry..

Of course, this was when the Democrats still had the White House and were fairly certain they would continue to have it at least until 2004.

Apple

What's more loathsome, even pitiful... is your utter ignorance...and the ignorance of all who fail or refuse to comprehend what this war is about.

What's even more loathsome that that is the conduct of those who DO comprehend what the war is about, yet go on with their hypocracy only to pander to the ignorant.

Cowards.

Apple

Yes, Apple is here to make things correct, for she will save the world...one meaningless post at a time.

Where's my Dinner???

I think "hate" is a strong word to apply to an entire group or even to individuals.

What is in your opinion what this war is about?

I don't think that an opinion about the causes of the war and daring to disagree with the President's plan for a surge makes someone either loathsome or ignorant. If so, then 2/3 of the country is loathsome and ignorant, as I believe that the most recent polls put those against the war somewhere above 60%. And I don't know what the numbers were backing the President's original invasion plan, but I would bet that the vast majority of the country were in favor of it at the time. Does that make the majority of the country loathsome, ignorant, or flip-floppers?

As DonT pointed out, even the President admits that he based his decision to invade on intelligence information that was later proved to be incorrect. Many people do feel lied to. They've had enough, and they don't feel that sending more troops would work.

Also, aren't our elected officials in office to carry out the wishes of their constituents? Isn't that how a democratic republic works? You vote for the person that will best represent your opinions on the issues. If the majority of the country is against this war, then isn't it their job to carry out the wishes of their constituents???

Enzo, I believe that I can answer that for her being that we've had this discussion probably over a hundered times here on these boards and I think that she believes what I believe this war is all about.

Plawrence and I had this exact conversation in the past and while he and I did NOT agree on what this war was about, we did agree that the problem was that not everyone agreed on what this war was about and that is what caused the division and the debates.

I, and I think that I speak for Apple, believe that our going into Iraq IS PART of the WAR ON TERROR.

Others DO NOT believe that the War in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Many believe that it is a totally seprate war.

And as Plawrence and I said many times in the past, as long as there is that difference in belief, the debating could go on for forever.


If one believes that our going into Iraq to remove Saddam amd his regime IS part of the war on terror, then they support the President's and Congress's decision.

If one does NOT believe that our going into Iraq to remove Saddam and his regime is part of the war on terror, then obviously they do not support the President's and Congress's decision.



Don Cardi

Apple, I hear Sealand is up for sale. What say you and me purchase it? We'll be King and Queen, and we'll have Don Cardi be our Minister of Defense, and klydon1 our Secretary of State?

[/quote]



Apple, I hear Sealand is up for sale. What say you and me purchase it? We'll be King and Queen, and we'll have Don Cardi be our Minister of Defense, and klydon1 our Secretary of State? [/quote]

You know the old saying...In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king