Posted on 01/10/2007 7:09:18 PM PST by onyx
Edited on 01/10/2007 8:01:20 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
It is reported that Senator Lott has a list of 10 names of GOP senators who have elected to stand with the democrats, instead of supporting our own WAR TIME, GOP POTUS.
Brownback;
Coleman;
Lugar?;
Snow;
Collins;
Hagel;
and likely
Voinovich;
Smith;
Two have not yet been named (outed).
.
Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia also might be persuaded. Warner said he supports the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which strongly cautioned against an increase in troops unless advocated by military commanders.
There are some on this thread who have made it a hobby giving theirs. Just letting some know how irritating, to use your word it is.
Thank you, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, from the bottom of my heart! :-)
Do I consider leading the fight to impeach the fight popularly elected POTUS in American history to be more noteworthy than voting the 'wrong' way on judges or detainees? You bet I do.
Find me someone else in South Carolina who's did something even more courgeous, and votes conservative more than 90% of the time, and you'll have a better Senate candidate. Good luck.
Amazing what short term memory people have on FR. It turns out the Clintonites were right all along-- conservatives easily forget.
Curiously I don't think GWB intended to be a Wilsonian evangel. It was mission creep. Began as a WMD issue..Morphed into removing Saddam and the Baathists then evolved into a democracy gambit...then became an anti-terror gambit then a nation building gambit and then a lets turn Iraq intoa platform for "remaking the map of the middle east." The ultimate in mission creep.
My read?...Either send overwhelming force or don't bother. 20k is chump change and more mission creep. The same mistake we made in Vietnam. Incrementalism at its worst.
For all the sincerity of this effort I think it is too little too late.
Just what is your MALFUNCTION? You actually have to ask that question?
What part of WE MUST WIN THIS THING don't you understand?
Yes
I couldn't care less who people support for '08. Even if they support McCain. But there's 2 YEARS until the election. That's a long time for us to be fighting like we are now. And I think it's a really bad way to start off the campaign season.
Which is why he was THE prime target of the Democrats.
Did you miss the mod's post earlier? He said we could play with this one a bit......Now I think you are one of the best at 'playing'.
I'll be the ref.
Agreed. The #1 goal is to appreciate the reality that we aren't campaigning for anyone, we are all campaigning to keep Shrillary out. She IS their candidate.
It appears that you know little about Wilson, or don't understand him and his policies at all. If the president were Wilsonian, as you claim, he would have pushed to partition Iraq into three nations; one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shia.
And that is why Harry Reid runs the Senate -- alot of so-called "conservatives" would rather spend all their time and energy to remove a fellow conservative from office than consentrate on defeating liberals. We got 49 commie RATS, one admitted socialist, and four RINOs who regularly vote with the Dems, but instead of trying to throw out of any THOSE people, they're obsessed with defeating a 90% conservative Senator.
And vice versa, got a whole bunch of "conservatives" who would rather spend their time and money to help re-elect socialist Democrats than help re-elect fellow conservatives.
Just think, if all the "conservatives" who donated to Joe Lieberman out of state in 2006 had INSTEAD given than money to Senators Allen, Talent, or Burns (each of whom lost by less than 0.5%), WE'D be running the Senate now.
"It is tempting to pull your post . . . "
Hyperbole, right?
" - or who have loved ones serving in Iraq."
I have a son in Iraq and find nothing offensive or out of line with post 252.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Everything Lindsey Graham has done is to position himself for a future run for the presidency (or vice presidency). It's not just the gang of 14 thing although that was certainly a harsh surprise to me. He's repeatedly thwarted the President on trying to fight the WOT. I don't particularly care about anyone's ACU rating. Lindsey is better than a dem. But his past performance as a representative isn't reflective of his career as a senator.
Victimhood isn't very Conservative and since you don't know everyone's life story, you should stop trying to play that card; it's just so damned LIBERAL of you.
Thanks for the kind words. I am not sure I deserve them but I certainly appreciate them.
Exactly. The country can't handle another Clinton presidency. Especially now.
Ah, but this thread shows the exact opposite -- he's standing WITH our President on the WOT when a dozen other Republican Senators are not.
Which is why the Graham haters just ignore any thread where he votes the "Right" way (generally 90% of the time) and constantly harp on the 10% of the when he doesn't.
If Graham's voting record on the WOT makes him a traitor, then roughly 95% of the Senators are "traitors" to the WOT.
Hey Phil!
Give 'em another 1400 years and the Muzzies may moderate a little!
Don't lose your head over this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.