They have been defeated every time because they themselves have caved in every time. All they had to do is simply cut off the funding to “force failure” in Iraq. The only problem is that they know full well that if they did that, Bush would leave our troops in harms way and just let them run out of food, ammo, and everything else and die in mass numbers just for political gain.

WHERE do outrageous mental midgets like this come from!?

Lets all do our part in cleaning up our country; if you see a poli-sci or soc prof, break his jaw.

There have been, what, 48 or more votes by the Dems in Congress to cut and run, but they’ve been defeated every time.

They have been defeated every time because they themselves have caved in every time. All they had to do is simply cut off the funding to “force failure” in Iraq. The only problem is that they know full well that if they did that, Bush would leave our troops in harms way and just let them run out of food, ammo, and everything else and die in mass numbers just for political gain.

Knowing that the “threat” from Iraq turned out to be false, the current rightwing rationale for the invasion of Iraq is “human rights” and “democracy” and “freedom”. If this is the criteria for invasion, then please someone tell me why we haven’t invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, North Korea, Lebanon, Mexico and Cuba, just to name a few? Your rationale falls on its face the minute it is put into proper context.

Socialist: I find it much more likely that Democrats realize that we have come this far to quit than Bush would actually leave troops there to die. That would be an unprecedented national event of neglect.

Proof makes a good point.

It’s a great movie. It does a great job in staying clear from party lines, until the end. Which hints at democrats.

iAMBS: 23 reasons?! cool. do you have a link or something of the sort? I’d love to see it.

There are some who would equate squashing a bug with rape, real torture and murder. Those people are called communists. SocialDemocrats come close.
On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, President William Jefferson Clinton declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons “weapons of mass destruction” and the means of delivering such weapons. He also called for regime change in Iraq. The main difference between democrats and republicans is that one talks a lot about what they don’t do, are unwilling to do or can not do. The other tells the truth, follows through with their promises and actually does something about a problem. In this case, our present CINC had to follow up on Clinton’s failure to address numerous attacks on our soldiers abroad and at home. Remember 1993, the first attack on the WTC? Dereliction of Duty is a good book. Read it. The people elected our President in 2004. He campaigned on the war in Iraq among many other things. He was elected. A majority of the US citizens who voted affirmed congress’s vote to “do something” actually, use all means to enforce the 15-0 UN resolution.
History for you. The draft passed by one vote a few years before we were attacked on December 7, 1941, thank God there were some profiles in courage back then. Just stay out of the way and we can win this war easily.

Not one thing stated by EWS48 are, as far as I can determine, based on any estbalished objective facts. Rather, they are all highly partisan, emotionally based charges made by someone with a severely limited ability to deal in the truth if it runs counter to their prejudices. It is sad that people from any political persuasion are consciously willing to sacrifice the facts upon the time worn and discredited altar of extreme partisanship.

It is certainly appropriate to defend ones beliefs and to prefer one political ideology over another, but when we stop dealing in facts and give our emotions free reign, we only harm ourselves and our cause.

We can argue with full vigor the wisdom of going into Iraq, our staying there after deposing Saddam, the ups and downs of fighting that war and even the idea of trying to establish a democratic government in an area that is surrounded by dictatorial Islamic States. These are all legitimate areas for rational debate. But, to do so at expense of loyalty to this nation and engage in a scorched earth policy of political carping against America just to further a narrow minded political agenda is not in the best interest of our future.

We are in Iraq, after a tough slog from invasion to the current situation wherein it now appears victory is at hand over the terrorists and a near civil war, it would seem that any American even a socialist minded Leftist could find some cause to rejoice in our military success, with a lot of credit to Petraeus and a tiny bit, albeit begrudgingly to President Bush – our President.

Look at Iraq, for instance. Prior to invasion the nation was a human rights disaster.

Spin, spin spin. The US invaded Iraq because it was pitched as a threat to the US.

Period.

Not because “it was the right thing to do” or any such bullcrap. No nation goes to war on that basis.

You wrap up your nonsense with the inevitable dig at the democrats – what a surprise. As far as a party using it as a political issue, the whole notion of invading Iraq was a purely partisan move engineered by the Republicans in order to make it an issuse in the 2002 mid-terms.

4500 kids dead and 25,000 maimed and injured in order to win Congress. That’s not partisan squabbling, it’s a disgrace to this nation and the principles upon which it was founded.

ews48 just demonstrated a titanic intellect in a world of icebergs….Man Overboard!!

iAMBS: 23 reasons?! cool. do you have a link or something of the sort? I’d love to see it.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf