posted on January 13, 2007 03:53:47 PM new
kiara's confused AGAIN. tsk tsk tsk
The subject was saddam being EXECUTED....and that and much much more support for saddam is why I said that.
kiara and her ilk felt he shouldn't have been. gotta be sure he doesn't pay for his crimes....can't have that JUSTICE taking place. oh no.....
Kiara tries her normal TWISTING job...but fails....once again.
=====================
liberals are having an extremely frustrating day today....as our CIC shows them who's in charge. LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 13, 2007 03:58 PM ]
posted on January 13, 2007 03:56:10 PM new
PLAN???? mingo/crowfarm???
They HAVE NO PLAN....admitting DEFEAT is all they've offered.
He's now challenged them to offer some/ANY plan. LOL LOL LOL
Bet the whole lot of them can't come up with ONE idea among themselves.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 04:02:02 PM newkiara and her ilk felt he shouldn't have been. gotta be sure he doesn't pay for his crimes....can't have that JUSTICE taking place. oh no.....
Will you please provide a link for that claim you have made about me?
posted on January 13, 2007 04:13:58 PM new
Here we have the dems.....saying that the way we were dealing with Iraq wasn't working. We couldn't continue to 'stay the course' because it wasnt' working.
So...the President changes course...changes the plan to a totally different way of dealing with the situation....and what does he get???? MORE OBSTRUCTIONISM.
Now....they don't WANT to add more troops so we CAN deal with the situation in a much better manner. Nope....now once again they're working so that American will FAIL.
They said they wanted to add more troops also....will they, in the not too distance future, CHANGE THEIR minds on that issue also????
My guess is they will. Because anything this President does....even if they once agreed with it....they'll change their position to oppose him.
As I've said before.....they're on our enemies side..
..and they actively work to aid and abet our enemies.
So un-American.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 14, 2007 09:19:03 AM new
And this also could be the reason this President has decided to send that 'surge' of troops to Iraq.
Would the dems just have us let them continue to work against our troops?
Looks to me like they're RUNNING SCARED....not willing to stand tall and fight the terrorists.
===============
White House defends pursuit of Iranians
AP
2 hours, 22 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
The White House said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in
Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they "put our people at risk."
"We are going to need to deal with what
Iran is doing inside Iraq," national security adviser
Stephen Hadley said.
Added Vice President
Dick Cheney: "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq."
Earlier Sunday, the U.S. military in Baghdad said five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq last week were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq.
Raids that President Bush has approved against Iranian targets in Iraq are part of broad efforts to confront Tehran's aggression, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday while in Jerusalem.
"We do not want them doing what they can to destabilize the situation inside Iraq," Cheney said.
President Bush's revised war strategy seeks to isolate Iran and
Syria, which the U.S. has accused of fueling attacks in Iraq. The president also says Iran and Syria have not done enough to block terrorists from entering Iraq over their borders.
"We know there are jihadists moving from Syria into Iraq. ... We know also that Iran is supplying elements in Iraq that are attacking Iraqis and attacking our forces," Hadley said.
"What the president made very clear is these are activities that are going on in Iraq that are unacceptable. They put our people at risk. He said very clearly that we will take action against those. We will interdict their operations, we will disrupt their supply lines, we will disrupt these attacks," Hadley said.
"We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq."
Iran's government denied the five detainees were involved in financing and arming insurgents and said they should be released.
Hadley asserted that if Iranians in Iraq "are doing things that are putting are people at risk, of course we have the authority to go after them and protect our people."
Hadley sidestepped a question about whether U.S. forces would move across the border to pursue Iranians who are helping Iraqi insurgents.
He said the priority "is what's going on inside Iraq. ... That's where we're going to deal with his problem."
He added, "Anytime you have questions about crossing international borders there are legal issues. ... We intend to deal with it by interdicting and disrupting activities in Iraq sponsored by Iran," Hadley said.
Hadley was interviewed on "This Week" on ABC while Cheney was on "Fox News Sunday."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 14, 2007 10:41:46 AM new
""""Would the dems just have us let them continue to work against our troops?
Looks to me like they're RUNNING SCARED....not willing to stand tall and fight the terrorists."""
Oh for gawd's sake, linduh, you sound like the script from some old B grade Western!
This isn't a gun duel at high noon at the OK Corral!
Do you really believe that if everybody just kills enough of everyone else all the problems will be solved ???That's just plain stupid.
And saying that anyone who doesn't agree with bushy's plan is on the side of the enemies only mean that you and your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.
No one is advocating "running" and you have NEVER posted anything to prove THAT!
About Iran:
Bushy & Co. should've been worried about the borders at the BEGINNING!
It's NOT the borders they're concerned about , it's how to start a war with Iran as they planned to years ago !!!!!!
""Here we have the dems.....saying that the way we were dealing with Iraq wasn't working. We couldn't continue to 'stay the course' because it wasnt' working.""
"""Would the dems just have us let them continue to work against our troops? """
The "dems" ????
How about dem Republicans ???? There are getting to be more and more who oppose your godbush ....and for good reason....more and more and more and more troops led to slaughter is NOT and will NOT solve the mess bush created in Iraq and even some "reps" know it.
posted on January 14, 2007 02:20:31 PM new
Agreed, there are many that oppose what this President is going to do....add more troops.
I like how he put it to all his critics. What solution do you have? We'll see if anyone has an answer to that....I sure haven't read one.
IF we don't add more troops....then what the opposition whines about will continue. More troops would change all that.
So....let's see WHO offers a solution besides the only one they've had....CUT AND RUN.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 14, 2007 04:18:00 PM new
LOL! No answer? Guess all you can handle linduh is the deep discussions like the one you've all day in the Boycott linda thread
posted on January 14, 2007 04:21:27 PM new
Since you've NEVER offered DEEP discussions, mingo, your point is moot.
This President is doing what he believes needs to be done.
It's a darn shame that the dems/liberals can't EVER be on the side of America winning ANYTHING. Why they always have to position theirselves to be on the side of giving our enemies a victory...I'll never understand.
But there are many more important changes this President has made as conditions to this 'change' in direction....which the DEMS/liberals were SCREAMING for....got....and now they're STILL SCREAMING.
If they can't LEAD...then at least get out of the way and allow this administration to TRY.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 14, 2007 04:23:48 PM new
V.P. Cheney said it correctly.....
IF you can't be part of the solution....then don't be part of the problem.
And he couldn't have been MORE correct - in describing the actions of the dems/liberals.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 14, 2007 04:28:21 PM new
"""It's a darn shame that the dems/liberals can't EVER be on the side of America winning ANYTHING. Why they always have to position theirselves to be on the side of giving our enemies a victory...I'll never understand."""
Can't understand ? Why not ask a rep who's against bushy's latest "plan"?
"""V.P. Cheney said it correctly.....
IF you can't be part of the solution....then don't be part of the problem."""
Uh, when exactly is HE going to be part of the solution...hasn't done too well so far !!!!!!!!
posted on January 14, 2007 04:36:54 PM new
How could they when all they had since we went into this war is CRAP from the dems/liberals....fighting this admin. all the way.
HAD they EVER supported a winning solution....chipped in an offered ANY suggestion BESIDES WITHDRAWING....things might be different.
But as I've said...he's not only fighting the terrorists...he's had to fight the liberals too.
No unity from them at all....not even in their OWN party.
Knowing it upsets the radical left....I LOVE that he, as CIC, is the one who WILL go forward to not admit defeat to the terrorists.
Just like bin laden said.....he knows they can't WIN a military victory...but they believe they can win by changing the minds of the anti-war liberals....and WIN that way.
EVEN bin laden can see what your party did in VN and how that forced us out.
Looks like you radicals fell for it AGAIN....are repeating it once again....because you can't LEARN from history...from past mistakes....so you continue working to hand our enemies a DEFEAT against your own Nation.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 14, 2007 04:41 PM ]
posted on January 14, 2007 04:41:47 PM new
linduh, the president , as YOU have pointed out repeatedly, has the final decision, he's the CIC , the Decider, a strong man.....the reps have held the power.....so how can you blame the Democrats for the mess in Iraq?
BTW, YOU can blame all you want....the rest of the world knows who created the mess in Iraq...and it wasn't the Democrats
Now:
mingotree
posted on January 14, 2007 02:58:32 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Murtha , Pelosi, and Kerry....
posted on January 14, 2007 04:45:29 PM new
Or we could discuss your thread about New Orleans but you seemed to have lost interest in that quite quickly
posted on January 14, 2007 04:46:32 PM new
"united we stand, divided we fall"
And the dems have done NOTHING but to try to insure we FAIL.
Withdrawing is NOTHING but admitting defeat...quitting...giving the victory to the terrorists.
Not even all the dems in the current party are going to vote for that nonsense.....it's just that we usually only hear what makes the news....the most vocal anti-war liberals.
They blame the division on this administration....but I see this division as being created by the liberals.
They WANT to see America FAIL. They've called our troops TERRORISTS as has helen and KD.
You're all wrong. And you don't have the power of the executive branch of gov. THANK GOD.
You question, as usual, makes no sense.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 16, 2007 10:05:24 AM new
It appears the UK will be sending two ships to the region to help.
NewsMax.com
Monday, Jan. 15, 2007 9:00 p.m. EST
British Navy Ships Move to Counter Iran
Russian Missiles Delivered to Iran
U.S. naval forces in the Mideast are getting a little help from an old friend.
Britain's Royal Navy is sending two minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, beefing up an allied effort to thwart Iran's growing power in the region, according to the Times of London.
The United States increased pressure on Iran recently, seizing its agents in two cities in Iraq. They were accused of supporting militant Iraqi groups, a charge that Iran denies.
That sort of behavior is what prompted the United States to beef up its presence in the Gulf, adding two aircraft carrier groups and an air defense battalion.
"We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in the area for a long time into the future," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Times.
England is sending the minehunters HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey for two-year missions aimed at keeping shipping routes open.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 18, 2007 09:10:57 PM newWhat did I tell you????
The GUTLESS dems aren't going to do what they said they'd do IF elected.
Again, they've gone back on their word/promised actions. tsk tsk tsk
No surprise to me though.
=================
Of course in her interview, pelosi FORGETS to mention how MOST of the dem party VOTED to go to war in Iraq...and continues to refer to it as Bush's war. ROFLMHO......She can't pretend they fought against him....they SUPPORTED HIM.
from ABC news, today, and IN PART =
Jan. 18, 2007 — There may be a growing battle between Congress and the president over the Iraq War strategy, but new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she won't block funding for additional troops.
Pelosi's position, revealed in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, came a day after a group of senators announced a bipartisan resolution condemning the Bush administration's plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 20,000 troops.
While the Senate resolution would be non-binding, it would send a message to the president, and at least a dozen Republican senators have already offered their support.
Below is an excerpt from Sawyer's interview, in which Pelosi said Democrats in Congress would not be held responsible for putting the soldiers in the troop surge in additional harm's way by blocking funds.
The complete interview with Pelosi will air tomorrow morning on "Good Morning America."
Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun.
Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that.
Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
Watch the full interview Friday, Jan. 19 on "Good Morning America" from 7 to 9 a.m.
Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.
It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.
Sawyer: But short of that - questions posed, resolutions passed - short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?
Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.
But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.
==============
Can't even use their POWER of the purse strings to stop this war...this surge.
NO GUTS....just as I said before. They're all TALK and no show. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 18, 2007 11:59:58 PM new
Yes,lindugh, the Democrats, unlike bush, will do nothing to further harm the existing troops. It's very anti-troops and anti-American to feel the way you do about it...shame on you !
Now...why haven't you answered any questions or provided proof of Democrats saying we should "cut and run" ???
