halatbis: I knew Hillary would hedge her bets on this one and move to the middle as quickly as she thought practical, and with the commanding leads she enjoyes in the polls for the nomination and the general election, she calculated this as being the right time.

You are of course right, it is much easier to carp about what Bush is doing as a candidate, but quite another matter when faced with the reality of making the decisions.

As time moves on, if good news keeps coming out of Iraq the Democrats will take all the credit; and with their currently charging the right with hating children regards the health coverage issue, they can beat up on the Republicans as being people without compassion for the children.

Are you P.M.S.’ing again?

That wasn’t very nice, it was rude without cause and totally unnecessary!

70 brave soldiers died because their country needlessly put them in harm’s way.

Any facts/logic to back up your claim of “needlessly”?
Are you an expert in military strategy? What are your credentials to make this claim?

Please tell me why, considering she didn’t use the words ‘lying or liar’ I am wrong in believing she will spin her words into meaning something else
Neiman

Joel: I absolutely know she was saying Petraeus was lying, I absolutely know what the willing suspension of disbelief means. I also know the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party and they will, if we continue on the path towards victory in Iraq, ‘spin” those clear words to mean something entirely different in her favor, even if and when faced with the clear definition; and if history is an accurate measuring rod – chances are very high they will succeed in getting a majority of Americans to either believe the spin or at least think Republicans are being mean to her because she is a woman and they are being self righteous.

When I said Bill was wrong and Hillary didn’t call Petraeus a liar, I was saying that she didn’t use those exact words and therefore she will try and spin them into meaning something entirely different. It all depends upon what the definition of is – is!

Please tell me why, considering she didn’t use the words ‘lying or liar’ I am wrong in believing she will spin her words into meaning something else and why the Democrats and the MSM will help her change the truth into a lie?

70 brave soldiers died because their country needlessly put them in harm’s way.

It was needless to rescue people from an insane, murderous dictator despite his violating multiple U.N. Resolutions, it was needless to help the poor Iraqi people to experience the fruits of liberty, it was needless to take away WMD’s that were aimed at Israel and were threatening to take over the Middle East (Remember Kuwaiit and bombs dropping inside Saudi Arabia?), it was needless to defend American interests in the Middle East, those interest vital to our infrastructure and freedom? If that is your idea of needless deaths, if you choose to denigrate the valor of our soldiers; then it is obvious you are a liberal girly man, a feel good exterme Left Wing, America hating liberal.

So, is that what you meant by needless deaths?

Joel” Let us not get into a giant misunderstanding. You said “It’s simply a euphemism for: “hey Petraeus, you’re a lyin’ bastard.” Why the dismissive spin on Hillary’s accusation?

You asked why I was dismissive of Hillary’s clear words. I wasn’t! I explained that she and the Democrats would passionately defend her by saying she did not call him a liar and I asked if you thought it was wrong to use that as an explanation of why I said she deliberately didn’t use the word liar.

Perhaps, I am getting tangled in my own words, but we don’t disagree about her calling Petraeus a liar, only that I believe she and the Democrats will be able to defend her because she didn’t use the actual words.

Aren’t you grateful to the Democrats for forcing Bush to change his tactics in Iraq and their turning another Vietnam into a victory for the United States?

I’ll be that is how they’ll spin it!