Democrats go on Negatives As Usual
FDR and Harry Truman would be rolling in their graves at this bantering BS.
Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency.
Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.
Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.
Oh Jesus, here they go again. Blah blah, it's not related, it's a lie, this did no good...... Would they prefer we had waited and the terrorists came here and killed Americans on our own soil? Only if it made Bush look bad.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Predictable little poisoned dwarfette strikes again. Pelosi is a leader, how? What's her solution? None of course.....
Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.
"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.
Bush said he understands the public concerns about a 27-month-old war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. But he argued that the sacrifice "is worth it."
Yeah, since Libya and Syria are now being more reasonable and letting go of their weapons programs and territories they occupied illegally. Also, Saddam did kill over 1 M of his own citizens. 1,700 US lost in 2 years? We lost over 2,700 at Pearl Harbor, in ONE DAY.
Battlefield, absolutely. Again, Democrats, would you have preferred the terrorists come HERE and kill us HERE? Or would you prefer we bottle up the enemy and kill them off, away from our civilians? Also, if this is such a popular Iraqi rebellion, against us, why are the majority of the terrorists foreign nationals? Why are mercenaries fighting for the Iraqis? They are not fighting for Iraq, rather to help some mullah or terrorist maintain control in the region.
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
He offered no shift in course in Iraq and said he did not believe it necessary to send more troops. U.S. forces in Iraq total just under about 140,000 and they constitute the bulk of the coalition fighting force.
If we sent more troops, what good does that do in getting the Iraqis to do this themselves and us leave as soon as business is done?
Appearing on television news shows Wednesday, some key lawmakers took issue with that position.
Of course, cameras, lights, TV, bunch of shills....
Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."
the RINO turned to the right for once, bravo John McCain.....
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."
Yeah and you lost the election, shut up Scarecrow. Oh wait, getting Tennis Elbow in Vietnam must make him a military expert huh? So how many spitwads would you have authorized us to use, Mr. President? Oh wait, YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT!
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."
Rush job? Like we did in Vietnam, huh? Thank God Biden isn't a cabinet official. We'd be screwed. Again, more troops gets ours out quicker, how?
McCain, R-Ariz., defended Bush's call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the U.S. shore. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, McCain said that those spreading violence in Iraq "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win in Iraq."
Bush's speech marked the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government. The president cited advances in the past year, including the January elections, infrastructure improvements and training of Iraqi security forces.
Damn right, good work again Senator McCain!
Democrats also criticized Bush for not offering more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq along with his frequent mention of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Yeah, since it reminds them THEIR PRESIDENT had 8 years to prevent it and did nothing, DID NOTHING EXCEPT MONICA.
"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."
Looooooser! That's you Reid, you asswipe!
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said some of the president's critics are mischaracterizing his remarks. Bush has said there were no ties between al-Qaida and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but McClellan said Wednesday that "September 11th changed the equation in terms of how we confront the threats that we face in the 21st century."
Bush urged Americans to remember the lessons of Sept. 11 and protect "the future of the Middle East" from men like bin Laden. He repeatedly referred to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists and said they were killing innocent people to try to "shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001."
Nice work Scotty!
Beyond their criticism, Some Democrats said they thought Bush strengthened his credibility. "I think he told the American people why it's important," said Biden.
Said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: "The president needs to do more of what he did last evening. This is a beginning."
Mixed feelings? Bet Dodd is considering running on the DNC ticket in 2008. Thus his middle of road quotes.
Well, out of all of this bantering and harping, at least some good came out. We clarified Iraq cannot be scheduled by the OLD RULES of war. We stated our solutions to training the new Iraqi military. And of course, stated progress in Iraq, that is ignored by the liberal press, aka propaganda ministry. And, finally, John McCain came off like a conservative. He's probably posturing for the 2008 run, but at least he came on the right side. See, some Vietnam vets were REAL AMERICANS, like the majority, and the Swifties. Real ones, unlike Scarecrow.
Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency.
Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.
Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.
Oh Jesus, here they go again. Blah blah, it's not related, it's a lie, this did no good...... Would they prefer we had waited and the terrorists came here and killed Americans on our own soil? Only if it made Bush look bad.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Predictable little poisoned dwarfette strikes again. Pelosi is a leader, how? What's her solution? None of course.....
Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.
"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.
Bush said he understands the public concerns about a 27-month-old war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. But he argued that the sacrifice "is worth it."
Yeah, since Libya and Syria are now being more reasonable and letting go of their weapons programs and territories they occupied illegally. Also, Saddam did kill over 1 M of his own citizens. 1,700 US lost in 2 years? We lost over 2,700 at Pearl Harbor, in ONE DAY.
Battlefield, absolutely. Again, Democrats, would you have preferred the terrorists come HERE and kill us HERE? Or would you prefer we bottle up the enemy and kill them off, away from our civilians? Also, if this is such a popular Iraqi rebellion, against us, why are the majority of the terrorists foreign nationals? Why are mercenaries fighting for the Iraqis? They are not fighting for Iraq, rather to help some mullah or terrorist maintain control in the region.
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
He offered no shift in course in Iraq and said he did not believe it necessary to send more troops. U.S. forces in Iraq total just under about 140,000 and they constitute the bulk of the coalition fighting force.
If we sent more troops, what good does that do in getting the Iraqis to do this themselves and us leave as soon as business is done?
Appearing on television news shows Wednesday, some key lawmakers took issue with that position.
Of course, cameras, lights, TV, bunch of shills....
Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."
the RINO turned to the right for once, bravo John McCain.....
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."
Yeah and you lost the election, shut up Scarecrow. Oh wait, getting Tennis Elbow in Vietnam must make him a military expert huh? So how many spitwads would you have authorized us to use, Mr. President? Oh wait, YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT!
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."
Rush job? Like we did in Vietnam, huh? Thank God Biden isn't a cabinet official. We'd be screwed. Again, more troops gets ours out quicker, how?
McCain, R-Ariz., defended Bush's call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the U.S. shore. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, McCain said that those spreading violence in Iraq "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win in Iraq."
Bush's speech marked the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government. The president cited advances in the past year, including the January elections, infrastructure improvements and training of Iraqi security forces.
Damn right, good work again Senator McCain!
Democrats also criticized Bush for not offering more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq along with his frequent mention of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Yeah, since it reminds them THEIR PRESIDENT had 8 years to prevent it and did nothing, DID NOTHING EXCEPT MONICA.
"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."
Looooooser! That's you Reid, you asswipe!
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said some of the president's critics are mischaracterizing his remarks. Bush has said there were no ties between al-Qaida and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but McClellan said Wednesday that "September 11th changed the equation in terms of how we confront the threats that we face in the 21st century."
Bush urged Americans to remember the lessons of Sept. 11 and protect "the future of the Middle East" from men like bin Laden. He repeatedly referred to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists and said they were killing innocent people to try to "shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001."
Nice work Scotty!
Beyond their criticism, Some Democrats said they thought Bush strengthened his credibility. "I think he told the American people why it's important," said Biden.
Said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: "The president needs to do more of what he did last evening. This is a beginning."
Mixed feelings? Bet Dodd is considering running on the DNC ticket in 2008. Thus his middle of road quotes.
Well, out of all of this bantering and harping, at least some good came out. We clarified Iraq cannot be scheduled by the OLD RULES of war. We stated our solutions to training the new Iraqi military. And of course, stated progress in Iraq, that is ignored by the liberal press, aka propaganda ministry. And, finally, John McCain came off like a conservative. He's probably posturing for the 2008 run, but at least he came on the right side. See, some Vietnam vets were REAL AMERICANS, like the majority, and the Swifties. Real ones, unlike Scarecrow.
posted by NDwalters @ 7:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home