Chris Wallace brought back GOP's "cut and run" rhetoric
On the March 11 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) about her opposition to the upcoming supplemental spending bill for Iraq: "What message do you think it would send to the terrorists around the world -- to Iran, with its expansionist policies -- if the U.S. showed that after a certain amount of time, a certain amount of loss of troops, that we were going to cut and run, that we were going to leave?" Waters said in response that " 'cut and run' is a kind of language that has been used by this administration and others to intimidate those of us who are responding to the American people's desire to get our soldiers out of Iraq." As Media Matters for America documented, Republicans have frequently used the term "cut and run" to describe Democratic calls to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. The phrase has been widely repeated in the media, including on Fox News (see here, here, and here).
From the March 11 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Respectfully, Congresswoman, are you one of those, what Congressman [David] Obey [D-WI] would call "idiot liberals," who would vote against this spending bill and thereby deny our troops body armor and medical care?
WATERS: I don't know. I think his language was quite unfortunate. That was a mother whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. He's apologized for having used that kind of language, and I would hope that he does not do that again.
I don't know what he thinks about my position and whether he would characterize me that way, but I would hope not.
WALLACE: But by voting against the spending bill, you would be voting against giving the troops body armor, against more funding for veterans and military hospitals.
WATERS: That's not true. That's absolutely not true. What you have in this bill is a requirement that the soldiers would be properly trained, they would have the proper equipment, and it basically backs the president up against the wall, and it dares him to use his waiver authority that they give him.
[...]
WALLACE: Finally, we've got about -- actually, less than a minute left.
What message do you think it would send to the terrorists around the world -- to Iran, with its expansionist policies -- if the U.S. showed that after a certain amount of time, a certain amount of loss of troops, that we were going to cut and run, that we were going to leave?
WATERS: Well, I think "cut and run" is a kind of language that has been used by this administration and others to intimidate those of us who are responding to the American people's desire to get our soldiers out of Iraq.
I guess "Slow Bleed" wasn't polling well amongst the knuckledraggers.
and 'fair fight' isn't popular among the liberal lawyers that are advising our 'leaders.' Let the soldiers fight like they are trained to and we will win. But no... we let Al Sadr sit in a mosque that we can't bomb because it would not be politically correct. Our soldiers can't fire upon iraqi teens throwing rocks and molotov coctails at convoys, because they are just children.
Blame government lawyers for our inability to win this three years ago. If generals were leading instead of politicians our troops would have been home already.
No, blame your idiot President for lying about the reasons for invading. How can you claim to be liberating a people when you're randomly killing civilians and destroying their infrastructure? Puddinhead George is the one who's tied their hands. If all we were planning to do was overthrow Saddam, we would have been done three years ago.
<> Putz.You're serious. Your president has had all three branches of his government to himself since the beginning of this thing, but you're going to try and hang this on the Democrats?
So what else is new?
You're seriously proposing that our military attach mosques? What kind of message do you suppose THAT will send to the terrorists -- not to mention just about every other Islamic person on this planet?
Yeah thats the problem we just arent killing enough innocent people. Lets see how lets get as many Americans killed as possible polls for the wingnut warmongers
Oh I get it... Proposals for cutting funding for troops by voting against spending bills for body armor and running away from Iraq is language that is intimidating eh?
Oh you poor intimidated Congresswoman!
Gotta agree - what a typical "Maxine Waters" response. She loves to play the beaton upon victim whenever it suits her. Apparently this is no different.
Poor Rush. Poor Bill'O. Poor Cheney, Haliburton, Bush, and all other chicken-hawks who are living large(er) off of the US invasion of Iraq.
Who benefits? Who loses? Money & power & greed vs lives of service men and women.
Liberals are far too sane these days for Cons to even begin to understand. I'm done wondering why the most educated communities are Liberal. Every rational person I know thinks that the Democrats have finally grown a spine.
Absolute power corrupts, and our state of affairs proves that the current crop of lemmings is heavy on the Conservative side. Ever look back on history and wonder how even the common man, who could not possibly benefit from the lunatic-in-charge, still followed them?
Exactly. The NeoClowns, led by Dark Cheney, keep repeating this childish rhetoric because it's all they have left. Every rationalization they have used to justify the Iraq debacle has been debunked. All they can do now is use emotional appeals to the feeble minded.
And what about Patriotic Dick C's company, Halliburton, hightailing it to Dubai? Taking that good ol' USA money and building a fancy palace overseas. Bless you, Dick.
EXCUSE ME, BUT DON'T YOU MEAN "DARTH" CHENEY?
Beaten upon victim? What she said was spot on! Am I a victim too Tommy?
You show me where the 'spending bill is for body armor'. . . that's fabricated. Made up.
Please give us the Bill number which proposes to strip the soldiers in Iraq of their body armor. Remember, accuracy counts.
Exactly. Chicken Hawks all around. Hey! It's fun to play 'soldier', ay? Blowing billions by the day? And, people die! Good times.
AA has the rhetoric down.
'Running away from Iraq'?? You guys are too much. Yes, let's languish in the quagmire some more, huh? And, blow more and more cash like there's no tomorrow.
If by 'languish' you mean let's let our soldiers continue to fight under ridiculous rules of engagement, tie their hands and not let them fight like they were trained, then yes, they are languishing.
Call it what you want, but giving the enemy a specific date of our 'departure' is not a good idea. Yes, it's a redeployment. Yes, it's a retreat. Yes, it's a cut and run. "We tried... we can't fight under the current leadership... seeya later."
What is it with you cons and your abhorrence of the rules of engagement?
You've been bitching about them since the mid sixties. It's not like those cons who post here have any real life experience fighting under these rules that you'll always harping about.
Cannonballs apparently thinks we should just carpetbomb Baghdad. Yeah, that would "liberate" the Iraqi people...yessireee.
Well, by their logic... no matter what, W is the CIC and we should just continue on, forever, down this absurd path. This is the main point about all this cut-and-run crap that really burns my britches. Absurd. Rules of Engagement. Please.
Well then. I guess the troops were trained wrong.And who's fault would that be? All together now "the deciederererer"
"voting against spending bills for body armor"
You mean the bills that contained body armor amongst tens of billions of dollars for no-bid contractors rebuilding countries that hate us and want us to leave?
This is typical conservative cherry picking that's necessary to drive home all the 'support the troops' demonization of the Democrats who demand accountability.
Things would be much different if the Republicans would have put forth a bill that was exclusively for body armor or uparmored humvees. Any Dem would have been crazy not to vote for such a bill. But the formerly Republican-controlled Congress simply didn't operate that way. Every appropriations bill had to be sweetened up for the Halliburton/KBR bottom line.
It's also infuriating to see a "news person" perpetuate the myth that Congress is trying to strip soldiers of their body armor and weapons. Do these idiots actually believe that we would take away their weapons, food and armor and leave them in the desert to hitchhike home? Idiots.
Of course. It IS infuriating... Wallace is a sham. Not to mention, uh, where the hell IS the proper body armor and health care??? The Prez has had a blank check till now... Infuriating is right (and, I do mean RIGHT).
what can you expect when one of the idiots who believe this drivel was the first poster in this thread?
No matter how you slice it, it is "cutting" spending for our war effort.
And you can "run"... but you DEMS da facts.
(All you got is complaining about the words...)
rats... It should have simply read "DEMS da facts".
All you got is lies and distortions, troll.
Nice retreat. Puddinhead George is spending money appropriated last year...theoretically. In actuality, he's putting it all on a credit card. If he leaves them over there without funding for a year or more after Congress acts, then their blood is on HIS hands, not theirs.
'Facts' per you. In other words, meaningless.
Cutting spending on the war ONLY means cutting spending on the troops if the Pentagon can't bother to allocate and budget accordingly. If the administration and their war chiefs can't find it in themselves to stop giving Haliburton BILLIONS of dollars to wash down the drain and into executives' swiss bank accounts, it's not the Democrats' fault.
What the Democrats are doing are proposing that we force the administration to act with some modicum of personal responsibility in performing this sloppily led war on the Iraqi people, and to recognize that the American people are not an infinite source of funding for one cowboy's horrendous mistakes. While I realize the Pentagon isn't necessarily used to personal responsibility, they're going to need to learn - and quickly.
Obviously you are privy to information that I've read no where else.
Can you name for me the Haliburton execs to whom you are referring?
Otherwise wouldn't you say you are guilty of perpeptuating a falsehood? Or are you of the opinion that you needn't rely on facts to make your arguments?
Watch C-SPAN in the coming months. Haliburton's graft will be front and center.
An informative bar chart
AA, you need to grow up. You think a concern like Halliburton generated billions playing by the rules and being "decent Americans?" They are moving to Dubai, for Allahssake.
Da facts are America is fed up with you warmongers lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy.
I guess "Slow Bleed" wasn't polling well amongst the knuckledraggers.
- nerzog
Yeah, turns out they actually like Bleeding (slow or otherwise), so it didn't work as a pejorative.
But they really hate to run... it takes them away from their blazing keyboards of honor, and requires an effort, so "Cut and Run" is still operational.
I think you're on to something. Bleeding, in their minds, connotes an honorable activity. Remember Jesse Ventura's famous line "I ain't got time to bleed"? Since the Troglodyte mind is incapable of too much abstract thought, they decided to avoid confusion and return to the well-worn "cut and run".
Let's be frank -- If you are a conservative who supported (or still support) this war and cannot see that this whole conjured neocon fantasy has been one huge excuse for glad-handing, graft and blatant theft - of course all in the name of patriotism, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - well... Go talk to a vet from this war. See how fun it is. The current state of the VA healthcare, perpetual stories of poor armament, poor supplies, tainted food/water... of course, much supplied by contractors... all a sham. And, who's getting rich OFF OF WAR!! War profiteering should be illegal.
If, you still 'believe' after ALL this... Good luck to you. Or, better yet... enlist. Your heroes need the numbers.
"Cut & Run" is an old, overused, and disingenuous GOP rhetoric.
But what I found infinitely more interesting was Congressman Obey's attack on the mother of a soldier that had already done 2 tours of duty in Iraq and is scheduled to RETURN for a 3rd at the end of this month.
Where's the outrage here folks?????
Can anyone imagine the UPROAR if a Republican had used the term "idiot Liberals" in attacking a mother of a soldier or any anti-war advocate?
I think it's disgusting. Democrat or not. This guy's the idiot, in my opinion. At this point, I'm outraged by anyone supporting this so-called war.
I think it's disgusting. Democrat or not. This guy's the idiot, in my opinion. At this point, I'm outraged by anyone supporting this so-called war....by greekfurnace
Thank you Greek we are simpatico on this topic.
While I realize we can't just say 'ok guys you're all coming home from Iraq tonight', I am getting pretty frustrated at what appears to be political foot dragging about setting a date and bringing our troops home.
The confrontation between this mother & Obey [did you see the video?--I did] was absolutely disgusting. This guy opened his jacket & asked her "Do you see a magic wand?"...he was so condescending.
I know he apologized. But I for one don't believe that let's him off the hook!
I didn't see the video... I didn't even hear about it until this morning *gulp*. The blatant disregard - disconnect - many politicians seem to have for the 'troops' is alarming and disgusting. There are obviously idiot Democrats. Politicians, as a rule, I generally distrust. This guy Obey is obviously a shining example.
Jeter, you're a good guy. And, you're right. I'm tired of this apology after-the-fact... like some lame apology following a ridiculous (and, in this case... disgusting) show is supposed to suffice. Especially for a guy who obviously doesn't give a damn.
If anyone has a link to the video, I'd like to see it.
Aw shucks Greek thank you for the compliment :-)
I had to really search for the video, but I found it.
I'd only seen a snippet of it on TV, this appears to be the longer complete version.
Nerzog was correct, Obey does not appear to be attacking the mother, he actually gets more frustrated with the fella that joins the conversation.
His remark about "idiot Liberals" is still telling.
Obviously no one has told this guy that it isn't only the Left that wants this war over.
Here's the link & a transcript. It's from Michelle Malkin's website. But don't be afraid to enter...you'll get out ok ;-)
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007025.htm
Yeah... the guy's an idiot Not too cool, IMO :(
Thanks for the link... I enjoy braving the wilds of the rightwing sites now and again ;-)
And of course it's totally off topic and has nothing to do with this discussion. Standard tactic.
It's on topic because it's INCLUDED in the article:
From the March 11 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Respectfully, Congresswoman, are you one of those, what Congressman [David] Obey [D-WI] would call "idiot liberals," who would vote against this spending bill and thereby deny our troops body armor and medical care?
WATERS: I don't know. I think his language was quite unfortunate. That was a mother whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. He's apologized for having used that kind of language, and I would hope that he does not do that again.
I don't know what he thinks about my position and whether he would characterize me that way, but I would hope not.
Too bad you can't read Marv.
Is that why you're so bitter?
If you watch the video, he wasn't attacking her directly, but apparently repeating the charge that liberals were trying to strip the body armor from the troops. I do think his comments were outrageous and he should be called on it. Maybe he's just an idiot. We have idiots on our side, too.
Maybe he's just an idiot. We have idiots on our side, too.
Not as many as we do :-/
But thank you for that honest admission :-)
Lest you forget, Obama's freudian slip where he stated American soldier's lives were wasted...
...And Kerry's supposed slip where he said you If you do well you succeed, if you don't, you end up in Iraq.
The list goes on and on and on...
The problem is the Democrats have to hide what they really mean. That is why they get so upset when they are accused of cutting and running.
I like Murtha.. nothing like an unindicted co-conspirator who discussed taking bribes from Arabs to lead the surrender charge out of Iraq. Oh and while you are at it, check Jefferson's fridge again before putting him on the Homeland Security Committee.
Gotta love that liberal logic...
Democrats are still politicians and still fallable and often still say/do dumb things.
Now, how does that allow you to disregard all the BLATANT criminality going on in your own party and right under your nose? You think this is game, ese? Obviously. They're selling some nice concert-Ts on your way out. Pick some up for your friends.
Greek,
To which blatant criminality do you refer? Might I suggest in the interest of brevity that you leave out conjecture, opinion, and feelings in generating your list of crimes?
See Cunningham, Duke amongst many others.
Yes, that is considered 'blatant' because he was caught and doing time.
I'm glad he was caught and convicted. It show that serving in a war does not make one automatically a saint.
Why do you hate the troops?
Hey baseball hasn't officially started. You can come in from left field.
Sorry. Just trying to use the same sort of logic you began with ;-)
hahah... Better luck next time. ;-)
I thought I did a good job.
Oh, you're right... I guess that would be 'subtle' criminality.
No-bid contracts. Warrantless wiretaps. Abuse of 'signing statements'. "lost" 9 billion dollars. Potential Dubai Ports deal. Torture... it goes on. Far from the few verbal gaffes that you mentioned. But, that's just me. You can go on 'believing' there, trooper.
You mentioned a few but were not specific enough for me. Most of what you described are not criminal. Just what the hell is 'abuse of signing statements'? How is the Dubai ports deal criminal? Come on.. you've got to do better than that.. Remember I asked you to try to refrain from opinon. I'll assume from your answer that you do not know the difference. No problems. I see it all the time here.
That's fine. You think all those things are okay... That's up to you. They are abuses of our government (in the real world...and supported by our history as a government). You think it's okay. I got that.
The number and use of Signing Statements by Bush during his presidency is unprecedented. Again, you think it's okay. I got it.
Just show me the criminality is all I was asking. You have proven to me that you can't. It is just your opinion.
It's not only you, but most of the comments here by those on the left seem to me to have lost the ability to know what is fact and what is their opinion. They mix the two as if they are one.
Now I know I have my opinions and you are welcome to yours. The only thing that gets me is when people try to pass of opinion as fact.
That's not true at all. I have been in numerous "debates" in comments here with people on the right where I am begging them to provide sources for their assertions, and all I get back is rhetoric.
Arguing from assertion is not a fallacy that only conservatives employ, but it's unfair for you to say "most" leftish commenters here do that. Your statement would seem to me to be a species of the exact thing you are decrying.
Val,
In case you missed it, I was stating my opinion.
For you to say it is unfair only shows me that you do not criticallly read what your fellow posters write. (uh.. my opinion.)
Most of my responses today have been correcting misinformation and opinions stated as facts. Although it did get started with me having the opinion that the Dems really are 'cutting and running'. I think the facts bear this out. My memory is a bit foggy at this time but I do not recall any argument saying this is false, only that most here object to the use of the term and or have something negative to say about Bush and/or conservatives.
I am not saying you don't also get the same treatment. We'll have to zero in on it the next time and you can show me.
Oh and where you see me say ... another example of liberal logic. That is simply my oh so humble opinion.
Have a good day.
It's not "cutting and running". It's not our fight to run from. We went in there to depose Saddam and secure his WMD. We did that. It's the mission creep which has drug us into the quagmire. It's a matter of declaring "mission accomplished" and redeploy the troops to somewhere they are really needed.
In your first post, you characterized Rep. Waters as having made "[p]roposals for cutting funding for troops by voting against spending bills for body armor...."
You did not say "in my opinion this is what she is proposing." You simply presented your opinion as fact. As I hope you realise by now, your opinion is incorrect.
Now, if you want to make the case that everything you post is essentially your opinion, you can. I actually agree with that - unless I see something backed up by a reasonably authoritative source, I assume everything I see here is the commenter's opinion. However, it makes your "presenting opinion as fact" charge pretty hollow.
AA where are your links? Where are your statistics?
People keep asking you for info to back up 99.9% of your claims. All you do is throw back more rhetoric or give us some article from freerepublic that usually has nothing to do with the conversation.
So if you make a claim, back it up. Or don't say things like "you libs"
Just what the hell is 'abuse of signing statements'?-Using signing statements to undermine a law passed by the Congress.How is the Dubai ports deal criminal?-It wasn’t but Bush tried to sell U.S. ports to people who had a relationship with Bin Laden. Bush invaded another country because of its supposed relationship with Bin Laden.
Okay. I was reaching with the Dubai thing... that's just unethical... immoral, perhaps.
No maybe I was wrong; Bush tried to sell the ports to people who had a relationship with Bin Laden. That's treason.
Hey! I like it... rack up another 'T' for W.
Loonz,
You are laughable in your misinformation regading the Dubai ports deal.
Nobody was selling the ports. If you think that, I can understand why you formed your opinion. The company that managed the ports, (which by the way, was foreign owned,) was bought out by a state company owned of the UAE.
The deal that you talk about was for Congress to allow the sale. The executive branch backed the deal, but Congress did not.
If you are going to toss in your two cents next time try to base it in reality. To me it is another example of liberal logic... ;-)
Geeze.. Do I have to do all the work here?
Hey all.. It's been fun. See ya.
No, they were selling the 'port security' to a Dubai company. But, again... you like to make excuses for this absurd behavior. Again, Congratulations.
Greek,
I think you are trying to hard. It looks like a little vengeful nitpicking to me. If you read closely you'll see I did not give an opinion regarding the ports deal but only corrected Loonz loony assertion.
Oh and you are wrong again to say it was only port security. Go look it up then give it up.
He didn't say "only". But nice try.
I looked it up... Dubai Ports World deal. What's your point?
To limit the risk of now being labeled 'troll'... I brought up the Dubai deal as merely another example of the at least unethical dealings the have gone down at the hands of the neocons. You choose to make excuses for all of it. Nuff' said.
Nobody was selling the ports. If you think that, I can understand why you formed your opinion. The company that managed the ports, (which by the way, was foreign owned,) was bought out by a state company owned of the UAE.
The deal that you talk about was for Congress to allow the sale. The executive branch backed the deal, but Congress did not.
Bush backed the sale of the ports to a country that had a relationship w/ OBL (treason). If public opinion was in his favor he would have done what he normally does which is to ignore Congress and undermine their authority.Tiny Print:
"Bush backed the sale of the ports to a country that had a relationship w/ OBL (treason). If public opinion was in his favor he would have done what he normally does which is to ignore Congress and undermine their authority."That's some tiny print all right.
I don't know what's going on.
The commenting system formats like Dick Cheney shoots, is what.
Did you "copy and paste"? Whenever *I* do that, strange things happen to the format of the pasted portion, and often I cannot change pertinent aspects of the format of the paste.
Bush backed the sale of the ports to a country that had a relationship w/ OBL (treason). If public opinion was in his favor he would have done what he normally does which is to ignore Congress and undermine their authority.
What was this relationship that Dubai had with bin Laden that is treasonous?
Please use facts this time.
What was this relationship that Dubai had with bin Laden that is treasonous?
Please use facts this time.
-What are talking about? I said Bush backing a deal to sell the ports to the UAE is treasonous.
-Members of the royal family of the UAE were meeting with Bin Laden. Why do you support selling our ports to people who meet with Bin Laden.
Does the name ABRAMOFF mean anything to you?
"Blatant Criminality"
Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Jack Amramroff, Mark Foley, US Attny Firing, Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, Haditha, FBI Privacy Violation.
Is that enough? Do you want more?
DO YOU WANT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER TO BE THE LAST ONE TO DIE FOR THIS WAR?
DON'T YOU WANT GENERALS AND COMMANDERS TO HAVE THE BA**S TO STAND UP TO A MAN WHO NEVER SERVED, NEVER TRAVELED OUTSIDE THE US AND TELL HIM WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Why did the soldiers family have to send basic supplies to them?. Why did families have to buy and ship their children BODY ARMOR?
The reason that NO ONE, OTHER THAN OTHER MUSLIMS COUNTRIES, HAVE STARED A WAR IS BECUASE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE WILL GO TO WAR!
George Bush Sr. is a smart man and HE DID NOT GO INTO BADAHAD.
Did we "cut and run" in Vietnam? How is Vietnam doing. Does the US have normal relations with Vietnam?
Sometimes proving your a man involves more than how big you D*** is.
Pear,
You are the pinacle of what I call liberal logic.
(Whew.. not only that but caps and bold.)
I tip my hat to you.
Why don't you use facts to back up your argument? Pearlene made some good points, whether you like the formatting or not.
Or he should try to address the first paragraph, since he asked for a list:
But he'll just wave his hands and poof! not a problem.
Gotta love that right-wing logic...
There is no "liberal" logic... there is just logic and illogic.
Bringing up unrelated investigations and discredited smears as a way of attacking legislator's foreign policy decisions is a pretty perfect definition of non sequitur. Can't get much more illogical than that.
But, when you can't win the argument, attack the person. It's a time-honoured right-wing tactic, and we're used to it.
It may have been hard to follow, but I was adding to the comment by Jeter2 regarding some of the more well known phrases used by Democratic Presidential candidates. I only brought it up to show once again the disengenuousness of many of the Democrats.
In case you missed it, we're discussing the use of the term 'cutting and running' and why so many liberals seem to cut and run when they hear it.
As I said before on other days, the Dems ought to simple be honest about it and embrace it rather than get their pants all in a bunch and try to deny that is what they actually want. But it looks to me like they are afraid to do so as so many here seem to be.
Only if cons re-embrace "stay the course".
Why avoid being labelled with the phrase "cut and run?" Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a completely negative, Right Wing coined phrase designed to make anyone who believes that we need to be getting US forces out of Iraq sooner rather than later look like an unpatriotic, troop hating coward.
If you must insist that any position of withdrawal be forced to call itself "cut and run," how about we refer to all plans calling for continuing or increased levels as "Stay and die."
Be my guest.
In case you missed it, we're discussing the use of the term 'cutting and running' and why so many liberals seem to cut and run when they hear it.
-When Wallace asked her about cutting and running she should have replied that she and other Democrats were trying to end Bush and the Neocons' Middle Eastern adventure.
simple because its a better strategy than the policy so many warmonger repblicans prefer the lets get as many Americans killed as posssible policy
And I think you warmongers ought to embrace the lets get as many Americans killed as possible language. Its obviously what you want to break down and admit it.
The problem is the Democrats have to hide what they really mean. That is why they get so upset when they are accused of cutting and running.
-Waters should have said that she trying to end Bush’s farce.I like Murtha.. nothing like an unindicted co-conspirator who discussed taking bribes from Arabs to lead the surrender charge out of Iraq.-Why are you framing as a surrender charge in Iraq? I would frame it as stopping a megalomaniac who invaded another country without provocation.
I know you would.
Most people would.
Of course you knew he would it is the sane and rational response and he is sane and rational, the warmongers? Not so much
...And Kerry's supposed slip where he said you If you do well you succeed, if you don't, you end up in Iraq.
Wasn't it just you a few posts back crying about how people should rely on facts? You know better than to insinuate that Kerry would purposely attack our soldiers.
AA,
So it's OK for J. McCain to make the same, 'wasted lives' statement Obama made because...?
Before you say you don't support McCain because he is sell-out, spineless flip-flopper I know you realize I'm only pointing out his statement because you conveniently ommitted it. Really, it's obvious Republicans are totally lacking in rationale for continuing their failed policy of aggression in the Middle East.
The problem is the Republicans have to hide what they really mean. That is why they get so upset when they are accused of Imperialist dogma.
Nothing like warmongers like YOU trying to get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq. Or repeating these stupid lies and talking points like Kerrys botched joke which was OBVIOUSLY about Chimpy McShorbus. The ignorance apparant in your post is embarassing. Its the wingnuts that cant say what they really mean so they have to resort to the silly mischaracterizations and lies that you trot out so often.
YOU FORGET THE REASON HE WAS UNINDICTED IS THAT HE SERVED ON A COMMITTEE TO TRY TO UNCOVER THOSE WHO WOULD HARM US! IF THE GOVERNMENT WON'T DO THE PROPER INVESTIGATIONS, THEN IT'S UP TO OTHERS TO GATHER WHAT INFORMATION THEY CAN, WHEN THEY CAN!
I never liked Obey. I have seen him several times on C-Span, I usually find him overbearing and full of himself.
that is funny, coming from chickenhawks....
hahaha... You won't get it but your note is even funnier.
You object to the term of 'cut and run' but find it okay to label one whom you disagree as a 'chickenhawk'.
I doubt you see the irony.
HaHa, yourself. You obviously have missed the subtle difference...no surprise there. Chickehawk refers to someoe who beats the war drums but refused to serve when they had a chance. Dick Cheney comes to mind. At least those on the left who oppose the war have a shred of logical consistency.
This has nothing to do with labeling those 'who disagree with' as chickenhawks. It's a fact. Your party is full of 'em. Including your hero Reagan. You seem to fit nicely in that category. Now, go look up 'irony'.
So what do you call Senators and Congressmen who authorize the war and then cut and run from responsibility when the going gets a little tough?
Seriously, the implication is that no one who has served in a war has any right to have an opinion and deserve derision for not following your line of thought. That is about the weakest argument one can give, especially when one lives in democracy.
But then we're talking liberal logic again....
ps. What term of endearment do you have for Senators who vote for war authorization and then run from the responsibility that it entails. Hmmmm.. "cutting and running" comes to my mind be they Democrat or Republican.
Supporting the troops? Money for armor?
Why don't you check this link out and see who is REALLY supporting the troops through their votes and not their rhetoric.
http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
I think you will be shocked to find out the biggest warhawks don't seem to be able to provide care or body armor for the troops.
Able-bodied people who can serve and don't, yet support the continued death of others are chickenhawks. A club whose membership you seem to covet. Example. Clinton got out of Vietnam and spoke out against it. Consistency. Bush supported the war but hid out in Alabama instead. Pretty cowardly there.
You've topped my list of reverse logic for today.. (so far.) Draft dodging in Clinton's case is principled, but serving in the armed forces by bush is bad.... Gotta love liberal logic!
They both dodged Vietnam. Clinton at least had the balls to also denounce the war. Bush paid lip-service to the war and then used his dad's connection to be sure that he wouldn't go. Pretty simple really. Even for you.
Ahh yes. More liberal talking points that are false regarding Bush. The commanding officer has said that Bush 42 had no influence. Bush served actively as a pilot for more than two years. Only to a liberal is that draft dodging.
I guess you take your notes from Dan Rather. After all, lets not let facts get in the way of liberal logic. ;-)
Of course it's draft dodging. It was one of the ways kids avoided the draft in those days. Limbaugh used a medical condition. Cheney got deferments. And so on and so on. All we ask if that you want to be a armchair warmonger, put your ass where your mouth is and get on the front lines. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
No one entered the National Guard or Reserves with any expectation of being sent to Vietnam. I know many people who served in the Guard and Reserves during those days. They all joined so that they would not have to go to Vietnam.
Two years didn't cut it back then in the Reserves. Anyone else who did what GW did would have been activated and would have eventually been sent to Vietnam.
Bush requested not to be sent overseas.
Pleas show me where he requested that.
Did you look at the document I linked to?
take a real good look at the document, specvially the area circled in red.
You are speaking from ignorance my friend.
This is another example of mixing fact and opinon and stating it as fact.
Ignorance?
Please explain!
"This is another example of mixing fact and opinon and stating it as fact. "
Hypocrite. Earlier in the thread you referred to "Obama's freudian slip". Since you are not Mr. Freud, you are "mixing fact and opinion", the very thing you piously criticize others for. You're more like Mr. Fraud than Freud.
The ignorance is all yours bubba, I would have to say its an ongoing pattern with you on this subject.
Sure Bush 42 didnt just Sid Adger an old friend of the family.
What conflict did Clinton get us into that cost us over 3,000 American lives and counting?
"...when the going gets a little tough?"
That's how you see the Iraq war... "going a little tough"? The Iraq war may possibly be the worst blunder in the history of American foreign policy; and the military planning was botched from the start. Our soldiers are dying and being wounded because they're caught in the middle of a civil war. Going a little tough? That's like the captain of the Titanic saying "we're taking on a little water."
What term of endearment do you have for a President who lies to commit troops to an unnecessary war, can't pay for it yet insists on tax cuts for billionaires, and refuses to face reality? "FUBAR" comes to mind.
In my opinion, the ones who are "cutting and running" are the ones bound hand and foot to a failed strategy. A responsible leader would recognize that when you're in a hole, the first thing you do is to stop digging...
Hmmm... I think the above comment cover it pretty well. Your use of 'cut and run' is, again, a prop used by your neocon buddies to label anyone who doesn't support their bad behavior.
There are obviously levels of subtlety that escape you. For instance, I personally do not think that voting for the war and then, once this jingoistic fervor died down and people came to their senses... speaking out agains the war = a chickenhawk or 'cut and run'. We - as has been shown... oh yeah, I forgot about 'outing' a CIA operative for personal gain... the gain of this absurd war... not to mention disregarding weapons inspectors, etc - were lied into this thing... So, again, you support these abuses by our government and good graces. Good for you.
As Reagan said, "There ya go again.."
You are mixing fact and opinion and stating it as fact and even then it doesn't make sense. "Personal gain... the gain of this absurd war". It is getting difficult to follow.
AA, I'll issue you a challenge: Go to that IAVA website I linked about a page back and find me a group of Republicans who have consistently voted for the well-being of our troops when it comes to body armor or health insurance for them. I will await your list. Is this what you mean by cutting and running? I think you will find that the Republicans have cornered the market.
"It is getting difficult to follow."
If only MMFA posts could have pop-up illustrations for people like you.
Now that was funny!
Again, live in your cloud of purity. It's all going according to plan, right? None of this is illegal, unethical, immoral? Abuses of government? Nothing is related to anything else? Fine. You're a cheerleader.
Since about 95% of what you post is baseless assertion and not only biased opinion but completely unsuportable biased opinion, I think you are a blatant hypocrite for taking this tack
"A little tough."
You're pretty brave with other people's lives and limbs, pal.
So what do you call Senators and Congressmen who authorize the war and then cut and run from responsibility when the going gets a little tough?
How about "responsible" and "concerned" and "realistic?" I'm good with those. Seems we've got some responsible, concerned, and realistic congresscritters on both sides of the aisle.
Seriously, the implication is that no one who has served in a war has any right to have an opinion and deserve derision for not following your line of thought. That is about the weakest argument one can give, especially when one lives in democracy.
Um, yeah. Where were you with that argument when Clinton was running his first time?
ps. What term of endearment do you have for Senators who vote for war authorization and then run from the responsibility that it entails. Hmmmm.. "cutting and running" comes to my mind be they Democrat or Republican.
They deserve my disdain for their earlier vote. But at least they've come to their senses. The term I have for our unyielding, uncaring President, though, now that it's clear his adventure is a disaster by any measure is "pigheaded."
Well, that's the nicest of the terms, anyway.
What do you call Presidents who stubbornly stay with the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy when its CLEAR there is no military solution in Iraq which even the military commander IN Iraq General Patreas says so?
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/03/08/us-commander-says-no-military-solution-to-iraq/
U.S. commander says no military solution to IraqPolitics – BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on ThursdayGeneral David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month
I disagree with Oliver north's politics but I would never call him a chickenhawk. Chris Wallace is a chickenhawk and I definitaly disagree with his politics Errrrrrrrrr FOX 's Ailes politics/
Ollie North is many things, but he is not a Chickenhawk.
Convicted felon, YES!
The difference...
It's one thing for a newsperson to adopt a euphamistic descriptive term or phrase crafted by one party to cast one of its policies or practices in a favorable light. It's quite another for a supposedly objective newsperson to adopt a perjorative phrase or term crafted by a party to belittle its opposition and stifle dissent by casting the opposition in an unfavorable light..
Fox News is the propaganda arm of the GOP & the dead-ended Bush administration. So isn't it shocking that Wallace, without exhibiting any sign of shame, would propagandize for them.
I'm still waiting for the number of that Bill the Dems are proposing that will strip the body armor from our troops. Maybe they've tucked it into the one where they're taking away their guns. Or maybe it's in the one where they're requiring all of our troops to wear big red bullseyes on their backs.
Oh, wait...Bush already put big bullseyes on them when he said "Bring 'em on".
Is Wallace taking about Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al?? All famous for cutting and running.
Ah! the "Cut and Run Party",the Party of Lincoln:Tricky Dicky ran from Viet Nam,Ford ran from Vietnam,Ronnie Raygun ran from Beruit,Poopy left his mess in Somalia to Clinton to clean up! Why was a phased withdrawal in Vietnam a good thing, and now it's a bad thing! Bush is hoping he can last till Jan 20,2009 so he can have someone else clean up after him,which is par for the course for him!
Another American Duped @3:36,March 12 Clinton's draft number was 311 and during his year of eligibilty that number wasn't reached,so how did he "Dodge the Draft",please explain,in your words? What is your status right now in regards to service in Iraq:Too young( don't worry ,you'll get your chance),already served,Young Republican,Gay,to valuble to yourself,too old (your're never to old)? Exactly what is keeping you from joining Gunga Din's Swimmingly Good Crusade for Oil? By the way,do you know who's paying for this Middle East Clusterf**K?
IF THE SO-CALLED "BRAVE ISLAMIC INSURGENTS" WOULD GROW A SET AND WEAR UNIFORMS SO INNOCENT CIVILIANS WOULDN'T GET KILLED BY ACCIDENT IN THEIR STEAD, THIS "WAR" WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER THREE YEARS AGO. BUT SINCE THEY WON'T OBSERVE THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT USED BY "CIVILIZED" NATIONS/ARMIES, I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS FARCE ANY LONGER! GET OUR MEN AND WOMEN THE HECK OUT OF THERE! THE SOONER THE BETTER. AND NOW THIS ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TROOPS AGAIN AFTER THEIR SO-CALLED "FINAL" SURGE? PLEASE!
I seem to remember that King George said the same thing about our revolutionary war tactics and I am sure Hitler said the same thing about the French resistance.