posted on February 19, 2007 07:00:15 PM new
Remember what I told you about LIAR_K being a hypocrite here is proof in her own words?
In her own words see below what a LIAR hypocrite LIAR_K is about the Democrats and BUSHY's Iraq Civil War.
LIAR_K said these words below about the Democrats.
posted on February 13, 2007 12:14:22 PM
"Yep....more voters who THOUGHT the dem party would STOP THE WAR....WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS.....are STILL disappointed about the INACTION of THEIR Congress - both the HOUSE and the SENATE."
"First the senate....now the house."
"Just like I've stated over and over.....the NO GUTS dem party isn't giving them what they WANT."
NOW LIAR_K SAYS 6 DAYS LATER THE WORDS BELOW WHEN HILLARY IS GETTING READY TO INTRODUCE A BILL THAT SAYS START WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ IN 90 DAYS.
posted on February 18, 2007 04:47:11 PM
"Now shes (Hillary) wanting the US to give in to the will of terrorism. And you demos want this traitress *itch as president?
LIAR_K went on to say this about Hillary's bill to start removing troops from Iraq in 90 days.
"screw our security....screw EVERYTHING except that she (Hillary) decide which way is MOST politically expedient for HER to win. It's NOT about what's best for America...it's all about what's best for Hillary."
Hey LIAR_K did you ever think Hillary is doing what the people voted for? I am very glad to expose your LYING Un-American ways again. YES!!!
posted on February 19, 2007 07:13:23 PM newWhether or not Lincoln made that statement is immaterial, the fact of the statement is true more today than ever.
It's a statement of opinion bear, not fact. And if it's immaterial who said it, why falsely ascribe it to Lincoln? Do you, or the nimrod who wrote it in the first place, feel that it's not valid without attributing it to some great American? If you feel that way, doesn't show much courage of conviction, does it?
That the statement is being ridiculed by those of you on the left, tells me you are feeling threatened by it.
I pointed out it's false attribution. People who need to claim somebody important said what they're feeling are wimps in my opinion.
posted on February 19, 2007 08:51:34 PM newThat the statement is being ridiculed by those of you on the left, tells me you are feeling threatened by it.
I think it is the Republicans that are feeling threatened that they have to resort to making up false quotes in order to continue to spread their fears and lies. They continue to believe the lies that Bush keeps telling.
Here is a quote that was actually said by Lincoln.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa"
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." - FDR
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 20, 2007 05:15:02 AM new
Just like BUSHY Bear shows he couldn't care less if what he says is true. On top of that he feels no shame about being a bold faced LIAR.
Hey Bear below is a quote we all know where it comes from.
"There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003.
posted on February 20, 2007 01:19:00 PM new
Prof, apparently I erroneously did attribute the quote to Lincoln. But it still is a quote I firmly agree with.
So sheepa you've never had a slip of the tongue?
Remember "WACO"?
Speaking of Quotes, how about a few from Hill.
I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.
Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can't write anything.
I'm undaunted in my quest to amuse myself by constantly changing my hair.
If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security
Hillary Clinton
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 20, 2007 01:38 PM ]
Hey Chump don't bother making excuses to me I don't believe a word you say.
Your A.Lincoln quoit was just another flat out new-con lie you thought you could get away with.
The sooner you new-cons understand there is no more sleeping middle and working class Americans. Millions of hard working Americans have you new-cons surrounded watching your every move. GET IT NOW?
posted on February 20, 2007 02:08:20 PM new
You think your opinion's are given credence here WACO?
Hey Chump don't bother making excuses to me I don't believe a word you say.
Tell that to your cell mate Bubba.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 20, 2007 02:09 PM ]
posted on February 20, 2007 04:18:15 PM newTying the hands of our troops to accomplish their mission...while doing NOTHING to support or back up our troops. They want to put them in further HARMS way....thereby HELPING our enemies.
Linda, why dont you listen to what an actual member of the military has to say about troop morale and supposedly helping the enemy.
From Ltc Bob Bateman
On another front, a friend of mine sent me the following over the weekend. We are both much used to hearing various politicians talk about how the "troop morale" will be "damaged" by this, that, or the other thing. We also both think that the majority of these speculations come from people who have never been troops themselves, let alone troops in combat, as have we both. Accordingly, my friend finally decided to do what I should have done some time ago. He made a list. Sometimes lists are fun. Below, with only a little editing for explanatory purposes, is the list.
Pundits and politicians seem both greatly concerned and badly informed about troop morale. As a troop myself, I thought I'd start a dialogue of the 10 best and 10 worst things for my morale. I hope others will chime in with their nominations.
Ten worst:
1. Getting blown up
2. Buddies getting blown up
3. Re-securing a town we secured year before last
4. 'Taps'
5. The 'catch and release' detainee program
6. Colostomy bags
7. Civilian young men who won't look me in the eye when I'm in uniform
8. Any scene from any shopping mall anywhere in America
9. Editorials pointing out that casualties are 'light by historical standards'
10. Lies
Ten best:
1. Iraqis willing to fight for their country
2. Good sergeants
3. Clean, dry socks and t-shirts
4. Cigarettes and Chi without body armor
5. The USO at the DFW airport
6. Meeting an Iraqi leader from my last tour who's still alive
7. "Nothing significant to report"
8. Sleep & KBR macadamia nut cookies (tie)
9. Dead generals (this one is hypothetical, at least for the last six years, but Ridgeway said "it's good for the troops' morale to see a dead general every once in a while."
10. Truth
Conspicuous by its absence is any speech by any politician, except those that fall in category 10. Hope this helps.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 20, 2007 05:21:10 PM new
Bear said "You think your opinion's are given credence here WACO?"
The difference is I am not looking for credence. Truth is the vase majority of Americans me included have you new-con's number and really don't believe a word people like you say.
Bear you do it to yourself every time you come out with a LIE you get slapped in the face.
You need to realize once and for all you new-cons are truly surrounded and will not be allowed to spread your LIES,TWISTED TRUTHS AND TOTAL BULL ROAR any longer. If you can't adjust to the new political climate in the U.S. you new-con types will soon become totally insignificant.
"The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006
posted on February 20, 2007 10:14:33 PM new
A GREAT question that no liberal in this forum will EVER answer. Because it's their MO to NOT answer, on ly ask questions.
From RealClearPolitics
February 20, 2007
Will Embarrassing the President Make Us Safer?
By Ed Koch
Over the last few years I have written of my fears that we Americans, as a people, have lost our will to fight for our freedom.
We have come to expect that wars can be fought without casualties, even the relatively modest casualties we have suffered in Iraq. During World War Two, more Americans were killed or wounded on Iwo Jima in one month than have fallen in Iraq in almost four years. Of course, every military death and severe injury is a tragedy. Nevertheless, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that our army in Iraq is "about broken," which appalled and frightened me.
Added to those two disturbing dangers to our national security is a new and third factor: denial of a military threat to our armed forces.
Such a denial allows us to avoid addressing the threat with an appropriate military response.
We are not at war with Iran, but Iran seems to be at war with us. In the last year we have suffered at least 170 American military deaths in Iraq and 640 American soldiers have been injured as a result of Iranian manufactured and supplied explosives supplied to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists.
These explosives are planted at the side of the road and are activated when U.S. military vehicles pass by. They are especially dangerous because their high technology design allows them to penetrate armored vehicles and kill and maim the occupants.
All American leaders, including the President, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, agree that these weapons are manufactured in Iran. They are provided to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists by an Iranian military unit known as the Quds Force.
What we are not able to state with certainty is whether, according to The New York Times, "senior leaders of Iran's government are directly involved in the attacks."
The Times states, "Based on evidence gathered inside Iraq, American intelligence analysts have concluded that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force is supplying Shiite groups with Iranian-designed weapons, called explosively formed penetrators."
The Times reported, "Because the Quds Force, which operates outside Iran, has historically fallen under the command of Iran's senior religious leaders, intelligence agencies have concluded that top leaders in Tehran are directing the attacks."
General Peter Pace is quoted in The Times as saying "that American forces had confirmed that some bomb materials found inside Iraq were made in Iran, but 'that does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.'"
The Times points out the [Iranian revolutionary] "Guard has also been accused of supporting terrorist attacks outside Iran, notably the 1996 truck bomb attack on the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American service members.
In December, a federal judge ruled that the government of Iran bore responsibility for the Khobar Towers attack and ordered Tehran to pay survivors of those killed more than $253 million."
So what do we know with certainty? There are those in Iran, on a significant scale, supplying Iraqi insurgents and terrorists with deadly bombs responsible for killing and injuring 820 American soldiers in the last year.
Is it reasonable to believe that is possible without the approval of sectors of the Iranian government? I refer to the civil government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the theocratic and supreme government of the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the dominant government official.
In dictatorships where dissidents seek to engage in activities prohibited by the state, those so engaged usually end up on the gallows. They are enemies of the state. It is beyond the realm of common sense to believe the Iranian government is aware of the supply activity as it is, the U.S. having made it public on several occasions, and is neither actively or passively, and knowledgably engaged in that activity.
In fascist, Nazi, communist, theocratic and totalitarian states that extensively control the lives and political conduct of their citizens, there is very little crime, and practically zero crime against the state.
The Times reports why the Iranian government is engaging in this kind of behavior, writing, "Still American intelligence agencies have concluded that over the past year the Iranian government had adopted a new policy of directly confronting the United States inside Iraq.
The policy officials assess is aimed partly at raising the cost of American involvement in the Middle East, teaching the Bush administration a lesson about the cost of regime change and putting pressure on American forces to leave.
"But another reason, they say, is to dissuade the Bush administration from taking a more confrontational policy toward Tehran by sending a message that Iran can ratchet up the attacks on American forces in Iraq."
It appears that Iran has succeeded in staring us down and preventing us from taking appropriate military action to protect our troops and punish those seeking to harm them.
\
Iran will not be required to pay a price because our army is "about broken" and is not capable of responding. How awful and unnerving for the U.S., the sole remaining superpower in the world.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress are seeking to humble, embarrass and, if they can, destroy the President and the prestige of his position as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for the safety of our military forces and the nation's defenses.
By doing so, they are adding to the dangers that face our nation. And so I ask again them again: do you think that leaving a power vacuum in Iraq will make us safer?
If, as a result of the power vacuum, the terrorists are emboldened and God forbid we sustain here in the U.S. civilian casualties comparable to those caused in Iraq by car bombs,
will you publicly accept responsibility?
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
"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."
