MR

Pull the dagger out of our friend Carlitto H@@k's back. It's been thrust there by DEMOCRAT senator-NY- Chuck Schumer. According to Sen. Schumer, H@@k his crew along with the rest of our troops are screwing things up even when real progress is being reported. Democrats are disgusting. Totally invested in defeat! Anyone who doubts that should remember Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared the war lost months ago. Way to rally the troops senator. They can NOT afford the U.S. to win there, because it would mean Bush wins Way to put politics ahead of U.S. winning the war on terror, war in Iraq, whatever you want to call it!
Here's an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com, Schumer's "treasonous" (yes I said treasonous) comment is taken from the senate floor.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, September 6, 2007 11:13 a.m. EDT

A Dagger for the Troops
Don Surber of the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail notes an appalling statement by New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, on the Senate floor yesterday:

"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

It is certainly true that the sheikhs have been instrumental in the Anbar success, but they didn't do it on their own. As The Wall Street Journal reported last month (link for subscribers, but we excerpted it last month), "The success in Anbar Province, which lies west of Baghdad, hasn't come easily. The key to the U.S. campaign has been recruiting, cultivating, and rewarding tribal leaders."

As Surber notes, Schumer was one of 77 senators who voted to send the troops to Iraq. Now, in his quest for partisan advantage, he is falsely portraying them as unable to do anything right. It doesn't make us proud to be a New Yorker.

RaiderFan wrote:Pull the dagger out of our friend Carlitto H@@k's back. It's been thrust there by DEMOCRAT senator-NY- Chuck Schumer. According to Sen. Schumer, H@@k his crew along with the rest of our troops are screwing things up even when real progress is being reported. Democrats are disgusting. Totally invested in defeat! Anyone who doubts that should remember Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared the war lost months ago. Way to rally the troops senator. They can NOT afford the U.S. to win there, because it would mean Bush wins Way to put politics ahead of U.S. winning the war on terror, war in Iraq, whatever you want to call it!
Here's an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com, Schumer's "treasonous" (yes I said treasonous) comment is taken from the senate floor.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, September 6, 2007 11:13 a.m. EDT

A Dagger for the Troops
Don Surber of the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail notes an appalling statement by New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, on the Senate floor yesterday:

"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

It is certainly true that the sheikhs have been instrumental in the Anbar success, but they didn't do it on their own. As The Wall Street Journal reported last month (link for subscribers, but we excerpted it last month), "The success in Anbar Province, which lies west of Baghdad, hasn't come easily. The key to the U.S. campaign has been recruiting, cultivating, and rewarding tribal leaders."

As Surber notes, Schumer was one of 77 senators who voted to send the troops to Iraq. Now, in his quest for partisan advantage, he is falsely portraying them as unable to do anything right. It doesn't make us proud to be a New Yorker.

Nobody wins a war.....both the british and u.s. forces have made lots of errors but - christ there isnt a manual - its time to get out and just let chaos reign..............

Coupled with Gov. Spitzer's remark yesterday of "Get a life, buddy," to a journalist asking a question he didn't want to answer, New York is now 0 for 2 in the last day and a half. I emailed Chucky about his military remark, but don't expect an answer, because I've never gotten one before. I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

Gordon from Edinburgh wrote:Nobody wins a war.....

So Hitler didn't lose cuz he chose to eat a bullet?

RaiderFan wrote: Democrats are disgusting.

Shut the fuck up. YOUR Republicans wanted this war, planned this war, and managed this war, poorly I might add, so it's all on them. Deal with it.

Totally invested in defeat! Anyone who doubts that should remember Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared the war lost months ago.

He's right too. We have lost this war. The Bush Administration has lost this war. This is the poorest excuse for an administration in US history. Stop with the "rallying the troops" comments.
Why don't all you fucking neocons sign up and go to batle for this illustrious, brave commander in chief if you feel so strongly about it. Tired of your fucking bitching.

Way to rally the troops senator.

Harry Reid's job isn't "rally the troops." His job is to get them the Hell out of this quagmire that the cheating lying motherfuckers Bush/Cheney put them into.

They can NOT afford the U.S. to win there, because it would mean Bush wins Way to put politics ahead of U.S. winning the war on terror, war in Iraq, whatever you want to call it!

Useless spin. Again, the GOP lost this war, plain and simple. The blood of this war is on Bush/Cheney's hands, NOT the Democrats.


BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, September 6, 2007 11:13 a.m. EDT

A Dagger for the Troops
Don Surber of the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail notes an appalling statement by New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, on the Senate floor yesterday:

"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

It is certainly true that the sheikhs have been instrumental in the Anbar success, but they didn't do it on their own. As The Wall Street Journal reported last month (link for subscribers, but we excerpted it last month), "The success in Anbar Province, which lies west of Baghdad, hasn't come easily. The key to the U.S. campaign has been recruiting, cultivating, and rewarding tribal leaders."

As Surber notes, Schumer was one of 77 senators who voted to send the troops to Iraq. Now, in his quest for partisan advantage, he is falsely portraying them as unable to do anything right. It doesn't make us proud to be a New Yorker.

Schumer voted for troops to go to Iraq, but he didn't know Pinnochio and Jerry's Kids would fuck this up so badly.

Again, you fucking republicans deal with this. This is YOUR war, YOUR president has lied to get us into. Stop blaming the Dems and take some fucking responsibility. And before you tell me I can go to Hell, remember I fought for the United States Army.

Enough already!

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

Rockindeano wrote:Shut the fuck up. YOUR Republicans wanted this war, planned this war, and managed this war, poorly I might add, so it's all on them. Deal with it.

Your precious Hillary ramRodham-Clinton would've done the exact same thing. She made a better case for war before we invaded Iraq than almost anyone else, including Bush.

He's right too. We have lost this war. The Bush Administration has lost this war. This is the poorest excuse for an administration in US history. Stop with the "rallying the troops" comments.
Why don't all you fucking neocons sign up and go to batle for this illustrious, brave commander in chief if you feel so strongly about it. Tired of your fucking bitching.

Who's bitching? I'm not a big supporter at all of the war or how Bush has handled it but ass munches like yourself with your defeatist attitude will be one of the main reasons if we lose this thing.

conversationpc wrote:but ass munches like yourself with your defeatist attitude will be one of the main reasons if we lose this thing.

Oh, so it's my fault, that I see we have gotten our collective asses kicked? Oh, ok.

It's NOt Rummies fault for the piss poor management or lack therof?
It's NOT Paul Wolfowitz's?
It's NOT Bush's fault?
Nor Cheney's?

I see now. it's MY fault we lost the war, and like minded people who clearly see we have lost and admit it.

Again, you bring up Hillary Clinton. The Republicans controlled the White House, The House and The Senate, yet it's the Dems fault we have failed miserably?

Fuck you. When she gets in, I hope she pulls the fuckin plug and gets em all home. This is embarrassing living under this administration; fucking embarrassing.

Rockindeano wrote:He's right too. We have lost this war. The Bush Administration has lost this war. This is the poorest excuse for an administration in US history.

Well at least your presidential candidates had better hope so!

Rockindeano wrote:Harry Reid's job isn't "rally the troops." His job is to get them the Hell out of this quagmire that the cheating lying motherfuckers Bush/Cheney put them into.

And he should go about it by telling the nation that our troops are screwing everything up over there? Like I asked, you wanna pull that knife out Carlito's back?

Rockindeano wrote:Useless spin. Again, the GOP lost this war, plain and simple. The blood of this war is on Bush/Cheney's hands, NOT the Democrats.

Yeah just like the millions of Cambodian's that were slaughtered was on Nixon's hands and not the John Kerry's of the country and the protesters and stoned flower children in the 60's and 70's

You people embarrass yourselves more and more with each pasing day.

I feel sorry for anyone who publicly admits to being a republican.

Hey, why don't you publicly ask Carlitto if he supports his Commander in Chief?

I would love to hear his take on it.

Rockindeano wrote:Oh, so it's my fault, that I see we have gotten our collective asses kicked? Oh, ok.

How do you know this when the # of enemy killed isn't made public?
Would you still think that if the # of enemy killed is over 10-1? 20-1?
I personally think the # exceeds that.

Rockindeano wrote:Hey, why don't you publicly ask Carlitto if he supports his Commander in Chief?

I would love to hear his take on it.

It doesn't matter to me if he does or not. I respect the job that he and his boys are doing. They could call me and the president every name in the book, and I'd still respect the hell out of them for getting the job done, regardless of what Reid and Schumer say.

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:Oh, so it's my fault, that I see we have gotten our collective asses kicked? Oh, ok.

How do you know this when the # of enemy killed isn't made public?
Would you still think that if the # of enemy killed is over 10-1? 20-1?
I personally think the # exceeds that.

Are you fucking high?

You think because there are 50 times more innocent Iraqi lives lost than our soldiers, we have won? Jesus Christ.

I would love to see your take on this war if they were allowed to show the coffins coming home. This being Free speech America, the press are NOT allowed to show that.

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:Oh, so it's my fault, that I see we have gotten our collective asses kicked? Oh, ok.

How do you know this when the # of enemy killed isn't made public?
Would you still think that if the # of enemy killed is over 10-1? 20-1?
I personally think the # exceeds that.

Are you fucking high?

You think because there are 50 times more innocent Iraqi lives lost than our soldiers, we have won? Jesus Christ.

I said the enemy. Not innocent Iraqi's!!!!! Pay attention please!
By the way those innocent Iraqi's that support us would be toast if you and your democrat party got their way! Do you care about the innocent Iraqi's or not?

Rockindeano wrote:It's NOt Rummies fault for the piss poor management or lack therof?
It's NOT Paul Wolfowitz's?
It's NOT Bush's fault?
Nor Cheney's?

Apparently, you don't read very well. Typical lib. You must've missed the part where I said, and I quote..."I'm not a big supporter at all of the war or how Bush has handled it". I've made statements on this board before about how the Bush administration hasn't fought the war appropriately. Of course, you skip right over those because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Fuck you. When she gets in, I hope she pulls the fuckin plug and gets em all home. This is embarrassing living under this administration; fucking embarrassing.

IF she wins, she won't do it.

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

Here's a newsflash....I tend to agree with that. I have already stated I am not a Republican and NOT a neocon. Never have been....never will be.....and I am not a fan of Bush. I am not, however, going to trash the military. The 10th Mountain Division at Ft. Drum in NY has taken a major hit in lives lost. That's only one group. Then add the untold numbers of National Guard soldiers overseas, leaving the flooded areas , etc. of the country without those extra hands to help in those communities.

I've also stated that Bush has said that "we have to fight the terrorists 'over there' so that they don't come here," and that they're already here, in our backyards. And that he won't build the fence to keep them out, so why are we over there? As long as our military are there, however, I support them. They're doing what they're told to do, like they have a choice if they don't want to stay.

As for Rumsfeld, he would have sold his mother if somebody offered him a dollar.

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

No, it doesn't. The president gets intel that not all House and Senate officials do.

He is the president. The buck stops with him. He had Colin Powell go before the UN and lie on 1441. Why the fuck do you think Powell resigned? he couldn't stand the corruption.

You repubs make me sick.

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

No, it doesn't. The president gets intel that not all House and Senate officials do.

B.S. They get the exact same intelligence. Just cause some House and Senate officials don't take the time to read it doesn't mean they don't get it.

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

No, it doesn't. The president gets intel that not all House and Senate officials do.

B.S. They get the exact same intelligence. Just cause some House and Senate officials don't take the time to read it doesn't mean they don't get it.

Oh ok. I see. So then it was ok for Bush and his security council to NOT read the pending briefs about commercial aircraft being used as weapons prior to 9/11?

Face it, your guy is a moron and he is stupid. Flatout fucking stupid.

Game over.

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

No, it doesn't. The president gets intel that not all House and Senate officials do.

B.S. They get the exact same intelligence. Just cause some House and Senate officials don't take the time to read it doesn't mean they don't get it.

Oh ok. I see. So then it was ok for Bush and his security council to NOT read the pending briefs about commercial aircraft being used as weapons prior to 9/11?

Face it, your guy is a moron and he is stupid. Flatout fucking stupid.

Game over.

But is WAS OK for Clinton and his administration to record those cool terrorist training sessions Al-Qaeda conducted throughout his entire administration? Not giving the OK to kill Bin Laden while our military had him in its cross hairs 8 times was another wonderful decision.

Rockindeano wrote:Oh ok. I see. So then it was ok for Bush and his security council to NOT read the pending briefs about commercial aircraft being used as weapons prior to 9/11?

Those contents of those briefs were general. They had no idea when any possible attacks would happen. They'd been threated long before Bush got into office as were other previous attacks in '93. Anyway even if Bush knew the exact time and day what could he have done. RACIALLY PROFILE PASSENGERS? Oh no my friend, the democrat party and the ACLU would have none of that, EVEN AFTER 9/11!!!
Remember Al Gore gushing in pride when he was randomly pulled out of line going through airport security? Proud we're pulling little old ladies and searching them.

Saint John wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

yak wrote:I support the military wholeheartedly, but believe they are stuck there doing the work that the Iraqis should now be equipped to be doing on their own.

They are stuck there based on a FUCKING LIE.

A lie your presidential pick repeated numerous times after she read the same intelligence the president read!!! That doesn't matter though does it?

No, it doesn't. The president gets intel that not all House and Senate officials do.

B.S. They get the exact same intelligence. Just cause some House and Senate officials don't take the time to read it doesn't mean they don't get it.

Oh ok. I see. So then it was ok for Bush and his security council to NOT read the pending briefs about commercial aircraft being used as weapons prior to 9/11?

Face it, your guy is a moron and he is stupid. Flatout fucking stupid.

Game over.

But is WAS OK for Clinton and his administration to record those cool terrorist training sessions Al-Qaeda conducted throughout his entire administration? Not giving the OK to kill Bin Laden while our military had him in its cross hairs 8 times was another wonderful decision.

Feel free to butt the fuck out. You have NO clue of which you speak.

We are talking of the CURRENT president, you know, the guy who has fucked up the entire country and the entire world. You moronic republicans just spin the Willie card whenever nothing goes your way.

We've got a beautiful country where we can openly argue these points.
But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what the point is?

Arguing is fun yes, but short of a lurking 12 year old, nobody is going to change anyone's minds... on anything.

...And you guys wonder why my generation is politically neutral...

You people are impossible.

Let me put it to you this way.

You are defending a president with an approval rating of 30%.

Please stop typing. I already know what you are going to say before you say it. Congress has an approval rate of 25%. Yup, but ironically, 58% of the country wants a Democrat to fix and run the country, opposed to 38% for a Republican. The problem with Congress is there are just enough Republicans in there to fuck things up.

St John, call me drunk from the ND bar tomorrow. Stay out of jail. I need to sleep for work tonight.

Rockindeano wrote:You are defending a president with an approval rating of 30%.

We all know you think a high approval rating is everything. Clinton was a master at politics over fixing a problem. Dude polled on where he should go on vacation and whether the family should get a dog Having our boys pull the trigger on Bin Laden would have hurt those #'s Thanks Bill. Nice poll #'s you had though

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:You are defending a president with an approval rating of 30%.

We all know you think a high approval rating is everything. Clinton was a master at politics over fixing a problem. Dude polled on where he should go on vacation and whether the family should get a dog Having our boys pull the trigger on Bin Laden would have hurt those #'s

I'm quite sure he hates not taking that asshole down, but a war in Iraq's not going to do it. I support our troops 100%, I just don't support the reason we are in Iraq. Bush is getting our soldiers and Iraqi's killed over fucking oil. That's what the war is about and has always been about. His dad did the same thing. Went to war to protect nothing other than oil, that's the only reason they gave a shit that Iraq invaded Kuwait. There's all kinds of human strife and suffering in Africa and we don't do shit about that. Why? There is nothing in it for the U.S. How fucking sad is that?

Rick wrote:

RaiderFan wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:You are defending a president with an approval rating of 30%.

We all know you think a high approval rating is everything. Clinton was a master at politics over fixing a problem. Dude polled on where he should go on vacation and whether the family should get a dog Having our boys pull the trigger on Bin Laden would have hurt those #'s

I'm quite sure he hates not taking that asshole down, but a war in Iraq's not going to do it. I support our troops 100%, I just don't support the reason we are in Iraq. Bush is getting our soldiers and Iraqi's killed over fucking oil. That's what the war is about and has always been about. His dad did the same thing. Went to war to protect nothing other than oil, that's the only reason they gave a shit that Iraq invaded Kuwait. There's all kinds of human strife and suffering in Africa and we don't do shit about that. Why? There is nothing in it for the U.S. How fucking sad is that?

I disagree. I think the president had to face a few facts that were probably quite disturbing. First, Al-Qaeda was hell bent on coming to America and killing civilians. Couple that with the fact that our borders have more holes than Randy Johnson's face and you have a problem. Next, the oil you speak of is vital to our economy. If we let these lamp rubbers cause the price of a gallon of gas to go $10 a gallon, our economy would be brought to its knees. Couple that with porous borders, a country that wanted to play shell games with the U.N., and the fact that Al Qaeda would face our military OFF of our soil and you have more than enough reason to fight there.

Rick wrote:I'm quite sure he hates not taking that asshole down, but a war in Iraq's not going to do it.

Well we've killed thousands upon thousands of them including Al-Zarqawi, and captured others and have thwarted other attacks across the world saving who knows how many lives. Does that count for anything?

Rick wrote:I support our troops 100%, I just don't support the reason we are in Iraq.

Our stated objective is to build a functional pro-US democracy in Iraq. That's what the troops are fighting for.

Rick wrote:Bush is getting our soldiers and Iraqi's killed over fucking oil. That's what the war is about and has always been about.

So Bush and the US raided the oil fields and stole all the crude? Is that why our gas prices have plummetted? I thought Bush lied about WMD's? He said nothing about Sadaam's numerous UN resolution violations? Throwing out weapons inspectors?

Rick wrote:His dad did the same thing. Went to war to protect nothing other than oil, that's the only reason they gave a shit that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

That's why Bush Sr. also took Iraq and Kuwait's oil and gave it to American oil companies

Rick wrote:There's all kinds of human strife and suffering in Africa and we don't do shit about that.

Yeah like millions dying of Malaria because of environmentalists opposition to the use of DDT which had it under control for years.

Rick wrote:Why? There is nothing in it for the U.S. How fucking sad is that?

Oh excuse anyone who wants the US military used to protect US interests instead of a meals on wheels program. Aren't you the one crying how you can't afford anything? What do you think would have happened if Bush Sr. had let Sadaam have Kuwait's oil and perhaps march on into Saudi Arabia? Gas prices would be way above what they are now. And we'd have to kiss Hugo Chavez ass because a certain party won't let us drill for our own oil.