PDA

View Full Version : Gates Extends Tours For All 147K Troops to 15 Mos.



Gayle in MD
04-11-2007, 01:49 PM
He admits the forces are stretched, then extends them all to 15 Months, and says it will help the families!!! ANOTHER BSer!! Just what we needed!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070411/iraq-us-troops

/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

eg8r
04-11-2007, 03:40 PM
LOL, the AP is definitely a non-biased organization. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-11-2007, 04:02 PM
This sucks. I don't know how these soldiers are able to go in day in and day out being without their families. I travel about 50% of the time and I cannot wait to come home on the weekends. These soldiers are gone for months. My prayers are with them.

I surely hope they are not reading leftist BS that says we are sending them in for slaughter. How on earth is that a message you would want our soldiers reading while they are sent away from their families?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-12-2007, 06:05 AM
I can definately tell you this much, Ed, they all know that policy as laid out by this administration, is failing, and that their presence in Iraq, amounts to being used, by the Iraqis in power, against the interests of Nationalism, and instead, in a way that empowers sectarian violence, emboldens Iran, the terrorists organizations in the peripheral countries, and they know that sucess is not possible without a political commitment between the various Iraqi sects, and the surrounding countries.

Our occupation, has strengthened Iran and Syria, and basically pissed off supposed allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, all of the surrounding countries have been affected by our actions in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to engage, and also refuses to state clear, concise statements to the Iraqis regarding their long term intentions in the region. Meanhwile, the surrounding countries, like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are providing the terrorist, including alQaeda, with money and training inside Iraq, to kill Iraqis, and our troops. Our troops know that Bush's policies are not addressing the underlying causes of the slaughter in which they fight. Their loyalty, is to one another, not to George Bush, or his policies.

Our forces are stretched thin, and degraded, equipment wise, and as we spin our wheels there, the talliban, and alQaeda, are strengthening, where at one point, we had them almost rendered impotent, and could have smashed them completely, if George Bush hadn't occupied Iraq.

Talk about leftist bs, as you put it, doesn't address the problems, either. Americans need to either educate themselves about the historical problems in the region, understand how the West has contributed to them, and study the factual information regarding the conditions and circumstances in which our troops now find themselves, or shut up with the attacks on those who are up on what is happening, and listen, to the experts, and the dissenters from Bush's failed and failing policies, and his fantasy expectations.

It is clear, that the Hamilton-Baker study, along with virtually all of our experts on the Middle East, former Secretaries of State and Defense, former Presidents, including Gerald Ford before he died, and all of our Arab advisors, such as Allawi, all agree that the Bush policy can go no where, as long as he refuses to address the Axis Of Evil, as he puts it, and work toward diplomatic efforts, and support from the entire region, by bringing people together, instead of insulting them, dividing them, and acting like HE is above any attempts or discussions with them. He needs to recognize that Condoleeza Rice, has failed to enact any positive changes in the area, and is not the person who can do the job, just as Rumsfeld wasn't.

As long as Americans fail to educate themselves about the true plight of our troops, and address the real failures of Bush's policies, and his refusal to state, clearly, to us and to the Arab world, the true goals of the United States in and among the Arab States in the Region, there is no chance for anything but violence and blood shed.

If you think our troops don't know that they are being killed everyday, by the very people they have been sent to help, you are very wrong. If you think they don't know that their friends are being blown up because the vehicle that could prevent much of it is being produced too slowly, and that Bush has fought this war on a shoestring, and that they will probably be dead before they get it, then you don't know what's going on over there. Also, if you think it is fair for them to be deployed, over and over, and extended, over and over, and sent back without proper equipment, equipment that could save their lives, arms, legs and brains, by this administration, you are very wrong. They know WTF is going on over there, and that is why the Bill that you have probably never read, which you and the President's decietful co-hearts have labeled PORK, which provides for them protections from being exploited by Bush, (and now by Gates, in whom I am now very disappointed) without decent equipment, training, time back home, medical care, and decent treatment when they are wounded, for them, and their families, all of which are provided for in the "Pork" bill, but with benchmarks for the very political solutions and progress among the warring sects in Iraq, their corrupt government, and with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is the core reason why we are failing over there, and which Bush calls Congressional Micro-managing, then you are simply uninformed. Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, and some brave Republicans, understand the colossal ignorance, and poor judgement, and incompetence of George Bush, and they are trying to protect our troops. Don't think for one moment that the troops don't know that, and believe me when I tell you, your statements on this site would make them much more angry, and feel much more hopeless, and abandoned, than mine.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-12-2007, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and believe me when I tell you, your statements on this site would make them much more angry, and feel much more hopeless, and abandoned, than mine.
<hr /></blockquote> I find it impossible to believe. My views have been pretty consistent with plenty of the soldiers who are over there fighting. You telling them they are going to slaughter is more hurtful than W telling them to stay strong, there is more help on the way. You are too blinded to accept the fact that telling a group of people they are headed off to slaughter is a bad thing so I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. You can knock down the soldiers and W is going to try and protect them (that is if the left will quit being stupid by trying to put a timeline in the bill and possibly remove all their pork fat).

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-12-2007, 01:42 PM
Ed,
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's nothing personal, it's just really sad that there are people in this country, who don't make more of an effort, other than watching news shows, to learn for themselves what is really happening to our troops, and Bush, of all people, isn't considering them at all. Deploying them for fifteen months at a stretch, sending people back when they have undetected brain injuries, from being in the peripheral of so many IED's that their soft tissues in their brains are damaged, sending them back when they're suffering from stress disorders, cutting funding to care for them, in order to get more of them into harms way. He has never provided them with everything they needed, throughout the five years in Afghanistan and Iraq. And you are critical of Democrats, who are trying to force Bush to do right by them. You are out of touch, in the ways that only a blind supporter of Bush, who only gets their information from Republcian talking points, could be.

The Parliament was bombed, inside the Green Zone, todya. Is that a New Way Forward? The surge is nothing more than an escalation of an unwinnable war, which has dont nothing but run us deeper and deeper into debt, increase our enemies, and empower iran, North Korea, and the countries who are pissed that we upset the applecart in their region. The Admjinistration, is framing these 15 month deployments, as though they will benefit the troops, and their families, saying that they will have a better opportunity to be prepared. It's disgusting. And reading your take on it, knowing that you are not aware at all of the truth, is very difficult, when I see and talk with them every week. You truly don't have a clue what they're going through.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-13-2007, 07:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed,
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. <hr /></blockquote> Sure I do. You just don't want to accept the fact that you are not as accurate as you would like everyone to believe. I see hundreds of soldiers monthly (we tend to have a captive audience) and speaking with them as the opportunities arise (there is always time to catch them for a chat) I find that more than not soldiers do not share your twisted views of the war.

The wounded soldiers are not the only one's with a voice.

Go on, continue to knock down our soldiers and send them off to war with doubt and death in their minds, if you think that is what you need to do. Me, I think it is disgraceful.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-13-2007, 08:07 AM
Right, if it weren't for my posts here, the soldiers wouldn't have a clue about the reality on the ground, LMAO! Believe me, Ed, they aren't as dumb as you think they are, and they sure as hell don't have time to surf the net. You don't have a clue.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
04-13-2007, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

I surely hope they are not reading leftist BS that says we are sending them in for slaughter. How on earth is that a message you would want our soldiers reading while they are sent away from their families?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Again I agree with you. We are not sending them in
for slaughter. It sure is dangerous though.
Zealots caught up in civil war and full of hate for
perceived infidels occupying a Muslim country. Ouch!

hondo
04-13-2007, 09:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Right, if it weren't for my posts here, the soldiers wouldn't have a clue about the reality on the ground, LMAO! Believe me, Ed, they aren't as dumb as you think they are, and they sure as hell don't have time to surf the net. You don't have a clue.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, I have talked to literally hundreds of
thousands of returning soldiers and EVERY SINGLE
ONE of them has told me they didn't realize how bad
it was over there til they read your posts.
If you persist in telling the truth you are seriously
hurting the Republicans chances of holding on to
the Presidency. Have you no shame?

Gayle in MD
04-13-2007, 01:22 PM
If the American people took the time to really research for themselves the real facts regarding what our troops have had to put up with, during and after their deployments, there would be millions on the mall demanding war crimes tribunals, not just impeachement for Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

When I come home after a day with them, turn on the TV, and hear what is being said, the distortions, and the out right lies, and then think of the private, personal stories I hear, and the outrageous treatment these folks have put up with for five years, beginning with Afghanistan, It makes me ill to even look at Bush, Cheney and Rice. Anyone who speaks up for them, is completely ignorant of the facts. When Bush talks about the great treatment our troops deserve
I don't know how he can face them, given his complete disregard for the hell he has put them through, and without taking any measures in their behalf, and in fact, cut funding for VETS! Unbelievable. I just hope the Congress continues to expose the horrible conditions they have been dealing with. Sending people back, with soft tissue brain injuries, and with severe psychological stress disorder, in effect, if they can put one foot in front of the other, back they go, in spite of their circumstances.

Statements like, "Well, I don't know if there's a civil war in Iraq, it's kind of hard to relate, living in this big beautiful White House," stated by Bush not long ago, are so much more revealing of his audacity, lack of caring, and decietful evil nature, his humongous ego, and that is just one of his statements over these last five years which are truly repulsive.

No wonder they have to hand pick the audiences when he goes to the Military speaking engagements. No wonder he and Cheney were afraid they'd get bood right off the baseball field. They really show tremendous guts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
04-14-2007, 05:47 AM
I was just reading some old literature on the 1980 October Surprise. Guess who's name came up in the discussion of the illegal Iran negotiations? That's right Robert Gates. This guy fits right in with the rest of these criminals /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Gayle in MD
04-14-2007, 06:10 AM
Absolutely. The myth he propagated this week, wrapping these inhumane Iraq deployment extentions in language to make it sound as though this was all to benefit soldiers, and their families, is a lie of the worst kind. What they're doing to our soldiers is an inhumane disgrace. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif Listening to his complete BS was disgusting. When the army, and reserves are stretched thin already, and an administration suggests that one way to help is to extend people to fifteen months in hell instead of 12, only the nutty 28% could possibly fail to understand the grossly unfair, uncaring nature of Bush, and his hand picked Henchmen appointees. If they speak truth, they're OUT PRONTO!

It's repulsive. I originally had some hope, when Rumsfeld was bumped, and he was installed, but, I should have known better by now! The Wizard Of UGH, in the White House, would never install anyone with integrity, only those anxious to serve the KING, and support his lies, regardless of the slaughter our soldiers are suffering through. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif
He knows damn well if we reinstituted the draft, people would be screaming from the park across the street, to bring our troops home, so he just continues to beat down the same people, over and over. He's a dangerous egomaniac.
He's wasting American lives, so he can continue to support training for terrorists in Iraq.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

DickLeonard
04-16-2007, 04:42 PM
Eg8r instead of learning Creatron or Simple learn to be a Warrior then tell us how the soldiers in Irag are feeling with your first hand account.####

Qtec
04-16-2007, 05:30 PM
I'll tel you whats disgraceful. The Govt cries every chance it gets that "we are at war" but the profiteering aspect is never mentioned. While GIs are dying and being maimed, Exxon is doing "swimmingly".

[ QUOTE ]
1. Exxon Mobil
The oil giant racked up $39.5 billion in earnings last year, the largest-ever profit in U.S. history. That figure topped the previous record of $36.1 billion, also set by Exxon Mobil, in 2005. Profits were up 9.3% from the previous year, while sales rose 2.2%. <hr /></blockquote>

War is good for some.

Q

eg8r
04-16-2007, 06:20 PM
Why would someone want to do that when we liberals like yourself who are unwilling to pay for the war unless your spinach farmers are paid. You want a date put in stone for our pull out all the while the soldiers need more money to continue their success.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-16-2007, 06:30 PM
There was no funding for the troops, cut from the bill. The bill, actually provides more money for our troops. The money is there, Bush is the one holding it up. He does not want to pressure the people who are killing our troops. The Democrats, do want them held to benchmarks, and also want to derail Bush's attempts to continue to gouge the American people for war money, while he continues to completely F up everything, and answer to no one for his F ups!

Please stop twisting the truth about this bill, Ed, you obviously haven't read it, and as usual, are relying on RNC BS talking points. No funds were cut from our troops. Bush refuses to give them the money, not Democrats. Bush would prefer depriving them, than to have to compromise with Democrats, because he THINKS he is KING. There also is no date carved in stone...adjustments can be made.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-17-2007, 09:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats, do want them held to benchmarks <hr /></blockquote> Which benchmarks are you referring to? I don't remember any benchmarked bills which called for an exact date for troop pull out while a war was still in progress.

eg8r

DickLeonard
04-17-2007, 09:55 AM
Eg8r I have always maintained that only a Fool cuts taxes and goes to War. In the 5 year War the Fool has proved that he was a Fool.####

wolfdancer
04-17-2007, 02:42 PM
Dick, if the people that are so supportive of this war, had any personal involvement in it....we would have been out of there a long time ago.
But as long as it's someone else's son or daughter, someone else's husband or wife..
There is so little support for this war, that we are recycling our troops, until they die.....
AND Ed dares to write...."continued success"

DickLeonard
04-18-2007, 06:26 AM
Wolfdancer the army should be overrun with new recruits with the NRA the most powerful lobby in the country. I forgot they like shooting at targets and animals nothing that shoots back.####

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 07:49 AM
First of all, the Congress did not approve an occupation, nor did they approve intervention in another countrys' Civil War. The Administration, which was obviously determined to invade Iraq, before they ever were installed by the Supreme Court, was also determined to chip away at the powers of other Government branches, and expand the powers of the president, diluting Constitutional law. Their vehicle for doing this was a stated War On Terror, an idiotic premise, which would therefore be unending, and give additional liklihood to their intentions, expanding the power of the White House.

What they are doing in Iraq, is illegal. They were never given authority to occupy and wage an on-going war in Iraq, or to take part in the Iraqi Civil War.

As for your question, have you read the bill? We have the president out there accusing Democrats of cutting funds for our troops, when they actually increased the money for our troops, giving them billions more than Bush was asking for.
The bill is full of protective measures, which will prevent Bush from running these people into the ground, without any concern over what he's doing to them, or any guidelines, or conditions to be met, which would extricate our people from the front lines of an Iraqi Civil War.

Bush, just wants them to hand over the money he wants, and give him free rein, without oversight, without goals, or benchmarks, and without any reasonable strategy for ending U.S. involvment on the front battle lines of a civil war.
The Washington Post, by Staff Writer Shailagh Murry
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) acknowledged that an override is unlikely, but said Democratic leaders are considering other ways to force a change of course in Iraq.

One option, levin said on "Fox News Sunday," is to include the iraqi government benchmarks that the White House established for reducing sectarian violence and building a democratic governing and political system. Secretary Of State condoleezza rice described the benchmarks as "measurable, achievable goaols and objectives" in a letter to Levin and Sen. John McCain R-Ariz) in late january. But most have not yet been met, and so far the United States has not penalized the Iraqi government.

As an alternative to withdrawel terms that Bush is sure to veto, levin saidcongress couls spell out consequences, should the iraqi government keep falling short.

"Those benchmarks would hopefully have some teeth in them, telling the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they must meet their own benchmarks which they set for themselves to reach a political setlement on the sharing of resources and the sharing of power, or else there's going to be a response in terms of reduction in support both militarily and economically," levin said.


Democratic leaders are scheduled to visit the white House on Wednesday (today) to discuss the war spending package. The House and Senate passed separate versions last month, and Democrats will begin this week to draft a compromise. The final product is likely to provide the $100 billion for Iraq and Asghanistan that Bush is seeking, but also call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by next year, language that has drawn repeated white House veto threats.

Cheney said Bush will reiterate on Wednesday his demand that the withdrawel language be dropped, along with the extraneous spending that both bills include. "it's important, I think, to have that heart-to-heart, everybody understands where everybody is," Cheney said.

The House version of the spending bill would set a Aug.31, 08, withdrawal deadline for all U.S. combat troops. The Senate version would begin withdrawing forces this summer, with a completion goal by March 31, 2008.

Levin said Democrats remain committed to sending Bush a compromise package with the withdrawellanguage intact, to express the strong concerns among Democrats and some Republicans that the Iraq war is exacting too high a cost for the country to continue."

that language is likely to track closely with the Senate approach, which sets a goal instead of a hard date. "We're toing to send him first of all, hopefully, a very strong bill which would say that we're going to begin to reduce troops in four months as a way of telling the Iraqi leadership that the open-ended commitment is over," Levin said.

If we don't have the votes to override, and it appears that we don't - but we never know until that vote is taken - we will then hopefully send him something strong in the area of benchmarks as the second-best way of putting pressure on the president to put pressure on the Iraqis.

<font color="red">This effort by Democrats, is being rendered by Bush, as not supporting the troops, and cutting off funding for the troops. That is plainly nothing but a lie. Trying to accuse them of micromanaging the the war, is also a lie. The Iraqi government is corrupt, and incompetent. They have failed over and over to meet benchmarks, right from the beginning. How long must our people die because the iraqis can't get their **** together? Bush would have them die until he is out of office, and a Republican majority would have paved the way for him to have his wish. Thankfully, Deomcrats are now in the majority, and if Republicans refuse to do what is right, and support the attempt by Dermocrats to protect our troops from Bush's State Of Denial it will be quite clear, that every life lost, every arm, leg, and brain, lost or damaged, will be laid right at the feet of Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates, and the few, and I do mean few, Generals who have been part of this great stretegic disaster as planned by the American Enterprise Institute years ago. Since a political solutions is the only way out, as all agree, the Democrats are exactly right, IMO, to guage our troops remaining in this quagmire accordingly. If we leave this up to Bush, indefinately, and he is able to continue on his well established, well documented path of denial, lies, and incompetence, void of any reasonable plan, or strategy, for ending the quagmire in which our people are sacrificing life and limb, we will lose thousands more, and for what? Terrorism will not end regardless of what happens in Iraq. We are precisely where we were in Vietnam, back in 1965, and we lost 34,000 more American soldiers, staying five years after we knew that ground troops could not prevail in a civil war, as occupyers in a foreign country, which had never attacked us, and had thousands more to step up and take the place of every enemy we could get.</font color>

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 08:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, the Congress did not approve an occupation, nor did they approve intervention in another countrys' Civil War. <hr /></blockquote> And we did not intervene on another country's civil war. We did intervene on a dictator who was slaughtering innocent Iraqis.

[ QUOTE ]
The Administration, which was obviously determined to invade Iraq, before they ever were installed by the Supreme Court, was also determined to chip away at the powers of other Government branches, and expand the powers of the president, diluting Constitutional law. <hr /></blockquote> One sentence, multitude of lies.

[ QUOTE ]
What they are doing in Iraq, is illegal. They were never given authority to occupy and wage an on-going war in Iraq, or to take part in the Iraqi Civil War.
<hr /></blockquote> Then take them to court.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your question, have you read the bill? We have the president out there accusing Democrats of cutting funds for our troops, when they actually increased the money for our troops, giving them billions more than Bush was asking for.
The bill is full of protective measures, which will prevent Bush from running these people into the ground, without any concern over what he's doing to them, or any guidelines, or conditions to be met, which would extricate our people from the front lines of an Iraqi Civil War.
<hr /></blockquote> You avoided the question I asked and provided your own strawman. There is no benchmark for packing up and removing troops in the middle of the war. Your regurgitation of Levin only solidifies what I am saying. You are just repeating what you hear but you don't know what they are saying. The main thing the left is pushing right now is a date to remove the troops, there is no benchmark for it. Quit throwing out a strawman to divert from the real issue.

[ QUOTE ]
This effort by Democrats, is being rendered by Bush, as not supporting the troops, and cutting off funding for the troops. <hr /></blockquote> This is the truth. The left is standing in the way. They are even going so far as to hope they have enough votes to override the one man that asked for all the money in the first place. You buffoons are acting like it was your idea to send the money, right after you chastised W for wanting to send the money. It is about time W stood up to the lying left and told it like it is. THE DEMS IN CONGRESS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY OF SENDING FUNDS TO THE TROOPS. Spin it however you want but you are wrong and would just be propogating another lie.

[ QUOTE ]
That is plainly nothing but a lie. <hr /></blockquote> Your second sentence in your reply to me was nothing but a ton of lies but it did not bother you to say them so why would you have a problem with anyone else telling a lie?

[ QUOTE ]
Thankfully, Deomcrats are now in the majority, and if Republicans refuse to do what is right, and support the attempt by Dermocrats to protect our troops <hr /></blockquote> Well there is a gigantic lie. The democrats are standing in the way of sending the money because they want a date set for troop pull out. Sorry there is no benchmark for that.

They are drafting a comprise and including the only thing that is causing a possible veto. These fools are blocking money from going to Iraq. If the left in Congress really cared about the soldiers they would do what they could to get the money to the sodiers. Instead, they are trying to get enough votes to overrule the President and force a withdrawal date. And you were praising bi-partisanship a little while ago, what a joke. When the money starts running dry those soldiers will have the left to blame.

On a final note, did you do a copy/paste of Staff Writer Shailagh Murry or did you type it out. If that was a direct copy/paste Murry should be fired and so should the editors. There were so many minor grammatical errors it was sickening to think you might refer to that as a standard of professionalism.

eg8r &lt;~~~probably had a few grammatical errors myself but I am not being paid

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 09:17 AM
Democrats increased the money for our troops. Bush, is the one who won't sign the bill, and therefore, Bush is the one who is holding up the money. All the money he asked for, is in the bill, and more. He has shown that he must be held to account for some real, not manufactured, not overblown, not FOXIZED, not RNC-FANTASIZED, but actual political progress.

How long do you want to watch our people be slaughtered, while Iraqis, screw around, unable to acheive the political solutions which all say, (Rice, Gates, our NSE, the Iraqi Study Group, and all the Generals, retired and otherwise) are the only way that the violence will end.

The Administration, which was obviously determined to invade Iraq, before they ever were installed by the Supreme Court, was also determined to chip away at the powers of other Government branches, and expand the powers of the president, diluting Constitutional law.


[ QUOTE ]
THE DEMS IN CONGRESS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY OF SENDING FUNDS TO THE TROOPS. Spin it however you want but you are wrong and would just be propogating another lie.


Quote: <hr /></blockquote>

The money is there, in the bill, Bush won't sign. He want's it all his way. Those days are over. He's going to learn, he is not a KING! High time!

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 10:30 AM
"There is no benchmark for packing up and removing troops in the middle of the war"
(..that is why we continue fighting over in Viet-Nam??? )

Ed apparently has found a new word...."strawman"....while I think he's just grasping for straws.
I wonder...if we were in an all out war, where the enemy was trying to defeat and occupy this country....would anyone want Bush as CinC...Bush, who flunked out of the National Guard..Bush, who doesn't listen to his advisers, unless the are in complete concord with him?
Bush proved the Peter Principle to be correct, when he was CEO of HEC.....then he proved that he had many more failures left within him.....
evil, or just inept?....we'll never know for sure, because as his failed admin, thankfully is winding down, the document shredders are working 24/7.....
I can't see any College honorariums for GWB.. the students would boo him off the campus...maybe only Liberty University

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 10:56 AM
LOL, he doesn't even have the balls to throw out the first ball, the croud would havwe booed him out of the stadium, hence, he only appears in front of Military men in uniform, who are not allowed to show any dissent, and when dissenters show up at fundraisers, and other republicans events, they are thrown out, or not allowed to enter. Two people have filed laws suits, due to just such behavior by Bush's junk yeard dogs.

Ed really shows his colors when he accuses any americans, and particularly nancy pelosi, of being on the side of terrorists. That's a disgusting comment, and shows him up as unable to debate with facts, and childish in his actions. AllNational Security Estimates say that Bush's policies have emboldened the Terrorists, increased their numbers, devastated our standing in the world, and hurt our country. Ten out of fifteen countries say they do not trust America to handle foreign affairs appropriately. British in Parliament, are calling for an end to the use of War On Terror, saying that such statements are making things worse. Every single thing bush has done, has made the world less safe, more violent, and put our country at greater risk, so say 16 National Security Agencies. Neither Ed, nor Steve, nor their newly found supporters from the nutty right, will address those facts, they're too busy calling everyone else, who does know the facts, liars and supporters of terrorists. A very sad state of affairs, when people refuse to acknowledge the truth, because they can't admit that their judgement was terribly faulty, and has contributed to George Bush's failed policies, and the deaths of so many innocent people.

Gayle in Md.
So Proud I Did Not Vote For George Bush.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats increased the money for our troops. Bush, is the one who won't sign the bill, and therefore, Bush is the one who is holding up the money. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. The dems increased money means there was already money there, prior to their involvment. He does not have a problem with them increasing the money so that is a strawman. He has a problem with the stupid idea that there should be a troop withdrawal date included. The dems are holding up the money and putting our troops in danger becuase they are trying to force their hand. Sorry but your guys are putting our troops in a bad place.

[ QUOTE ]
How long do you want to watch our people be slaughtered <hr /></blockquote> Another one of your disgraceful posts.

[ QUOTE ]
The Administration, which was obviously determined to invade Iraq, before they ever were installed by the Supreme Court, was also determined to chip away at the powers of other Government branches, and expand the powers of the president, diluting Constitutional law. <hr /></blockquote> You love to see your lies in print.

[ QUOTE ]
The money is there, in the bill, Bush won't sign. <hr /></blockquote> He is not signing on the sound principle that it is stupid to try and force a troop withdrawal date. The left is withholding the money because they are trying to legislate defeat.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 11:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed really shows his colors when he accuses any americans, and particularly nancy pelosi, of being on the side of terrorists. <hr /></blockquote> You don't like pot shots thrown at you but come on read for once. No one said pelosi is on the side of the terrorists?

[ QUOTE ]
That's a disgusting comment <hr /></blockquote> Half your posts are disgusting why does it bother you now?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 11:15 AM
Everything is your post is untrue. EVERYTHING. Also, I think it is appropriate to ask yourself how long you want to see this slaughter of Americans continue, when Iraqis want us to get out of their country. How long? How many more must die? And for WHAT?

Americans WILL NOT STAND for more of George Bush's slaughter, incompetence, and lies, period!

The Congress is representing the opinions of the majority of Americans , and Iraqis. Bush, OTOH, is only thinking of his legacy, which is already ruined anyway. Nixon did the same damn thing. It's in his tapes. He made his decision to leave Vietnem according to election tactics. He let the war rage on, and americans killed, according to what wouldmost likely help him in the election. Bush made his decisions to lie to us over and over again, for the same reasons. Those are facts. He also lied about firing Rumsfeld. He lies about everything, even the fish he caught!

Gayle in Md So Proud I Did Not Vote For George Bush, the IDIOT!

eg8r
04-18-2007, 11:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think it is appropriate to ask yourself how long you want to see this slaughter of Americans continue <hr /></blockquote> Your post is disgusting and disgraceful to all our soldiers.

I am a bit bored with this for today, what else is going on? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 11:56 AM
How Long, Ed? How long do you think we should sacrifice our youth, to benefit Iraqis, who say they want to kill us, and they want us to get the hell out of their country? HOW LONG?

Oh, and did your daddy ever serve in a war? I'm sure the answer is NO.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 12:06 PM
Your question is disgusting so I will not answer it.

As far as my daddy, nope he did not ever serve in a war. Any other stupid and pointless questions that serve no purpose? Did you ever play women's professional pool? nope, and never will but you still have an opinion about it. Has anyone on this board ever been on American Idol? Nope but they still have an opinion. Has anyone on this board ever played professional major league level baseball? Probably not but their opinion still matters. You can ask dumb questions all day long but it is getting you no where. You still side with the group of people that are trying to withhold money from our troops.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 12:13 PM
You support this war, but refuse to answer a simple question about it. How Long are you willing to see our soldiers give their lives for Iraqis, who want to kill them?
It's a simple question, and stop hiding behind this ridiculous statement you make which suggests that admitting that there is a slaughter going on in Baghdad, that our troops have been forced to remain in by George Bush, and that we are losing in an on-going losing battle, that the facts somehow insult the troops, or otherwise offend them. They KNOW the facts, Ed, believe me, they KNOW. They are counting the days, figuring their odds, and wondering why the hell they're over there in the first place. How l9ong are you willing to see them stay?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 01:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You support this war, but refuse to answer a simple question about it. <hr /></blockquote> Don't talk to me about not answering a question when you did the very same thing on the other thread where you made some dumb comparison to WWII.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 02:20 PM
Another lie from you? I answered the question. I made the statement that we've been in Iraq, longer than WWII. what don't you understand about that statement. It was not the main point of the post, and as usual, you decided to zero in on it, for the purpose of muddying up the point of the post, as you always do.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

How long do you think our troops should stay in a militarily unwinnable civil war between Shiia and Sunni, who think is it OK to kill american Troops? HOW LONG?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 02:23 PM
Bush, Democrats Give No Ground on Iraq

By BEN FELLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; 3:54 PM



WASHINGTON -- President Bush and Democratic leaders of Congress failed to reconcile key differences Wednesday over a disputed war-funding bill that would set deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Bush met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Cabinet Room for more than an hour. Democrats said afterward they would send the president legislation soon that the White House says he will veto.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he still holds hope that Bush will sign the bill that lawmakers approve.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people," Reid said, standing outside the White House. "I believe signing this bill will do that."

"It gives the troops more than he's asked for and leaves the troops there for considerable periods of time with some goals and benchmarks that have been called for by the American people, the Iraq Study Group and many, many military," Reid said.

READ THE BILL BEFORE YOU WRITE ABOUT WHAT IS IN IT, FOR ONCE! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

eg8r
04-18-2007, 03:59 PM
Harry Reid is the biggest goon of this whole bunch. That idiot wanted us to pull out right away and did not want to vote at all in the beginning because Pelosi and the rest of the gang wanted to give W till Aug or Sept.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 04:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I made the statement that we've been in Iraq, longer than WWII. what don't you understand about that statement. <hr /></blockquote> Another bonehead statement, the question was how many people died in WWII. I did not ask you how long we stayed. You avoided the question because it proves your ridiculous comparison was foolish at best.

[ QUOTE ]
How long do you think our troops should stay in a militarily unwinnable civil war between Shiia and Sunni, who think is it OK to kill american Troops? HOW LONG?
<hr /></blockquote> Hold off on the caps you look like a hysterical lunatic. I don't know the answer because we are not in that predicament. We can win the war if terrorist appeasing congressmen get out of the way and let the military do what it is supposed to. Instead we have your favorite little liar in there trying to legislate defeat. Pelosi is sickening.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 06:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the answer because we are not in that predicament. <hr /></blockquote>

Not in what predicament?

eg8r
04-18-2007, 07:25 PM
The dire doom and gloom slaughter house you try to sell.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 07:31 PM
Did you hear what the Centcom General said today, Ed? His statements were certainly not optimistic. I suppose you know more than the General in charge of everything? what is your definition of dire and degrading, optimism?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 07:36 PM
Wow, we have been dancing all day haven't we.

I guess I am tired and done with your questions, you are trying to pit me against the generals and those who are supposed to know what they are doing and present their information in a non-biased way. You on the other hand like to twist things and come up with your own slant on what people are talking about. My posts are to you not to them and not to explain my defintions only to be compared to what you perceive their definitions to be. I can understand your doom and gloom mentality, it is because you surround yourself with it and know of nothing else to do other than regurgitate it here on the board. I tend to enjoy surrounding myself with people a lot more grounded and don't spend too much time in the doom and gloom and likewise they don't spend too much time telling me how great everything is.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 07:41 PM
Now that you have ranted your way away from the question, again, what's your definition of dire and degrading? How long do you want our soldiers to die in Iraq, to benefit Iraqis, who want to kill them? Pretty simple question, Ed. If you're so sure you want them to stay, why not tell us how long, and how many more must die,before we leave? Militarily unwinnable, does not call for more ground troops.

Gayle in Md.
Thinks she knows what Dire and Degrading means.

eg8r
04-19-2007, 07:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you're so sure you want them to stay, why not tell us how long <hr /></blockquote> As long as it needs to be.

eg8r