Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN TAKE IT TO BUSH (Iraq war - RINOs join the Dem coup attempt)
Drudge Report.com ^ | May 09 2007 | staff

Posted on 05/09/2007 5:55:32 PM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-464 next last
To: Agent Smith
Only you and Michael Moore are dumb enough to want to make enemies of our allies.
421 posted on 05/10/2007 1:45:55 PM PDT by Blue State Insurgent (I didn't leave the Democrat party. The Defeatocrat party left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud
Yep. He’s a donk alright.
422 posted on 05/10/2007 1:48:01 PM PDT by Blue State Insurgent (I didn't leave the Democrat party. The Defeatocrat party left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: tomnbeverly

But the average insurgency war usually lasts 10 years.


423 posted on 05/10/2007 2:42:37 PM PDT by doctorfurby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

” It is not unpatriotic—nor are we “DU plants on FR” “

This is a good point. I find that the Bush-bashing posts on the DU are better though out than the Bush-bashing posts on the Free Republic.

“and say this is one big massive four-year FUBAR both in planning and execution as well as overal general assumptions “

But as you can see from the exceprt above, the talking points are the same.

“(total victory trajectory vs. “nation building” for example)”

In order to achive the objectives of the Congressional Authorization of Use of Force, ‘total victory’ requires nation building, not cutting and running. This is preferred over handing Iraq over to Al Qaeda once Saddam was removed.


424 posted on 05/10/2007 2:47:21 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
We could do a lot worse than Ron Paul for most elected positions. However, we're trying to win a war that (for once) was actually declared in the proper, constitutional fashion. Congress approved the conflict BEFORE it started. Now that we're in, we need to win, because winning beats the heck out of losing. And one thing you won't find ANY D@mocrats or rinos discussing is WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER WE WITHDRAW!

Talk about the double-lobotomized-fringe-element-of-the-brain-dead-constituency...

425 posted on 05/10/2007 3:15:46 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ( "He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike." - John Locke, 1690)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

“One congressman had it right BEFORE we sent troops into Iraq. He called for a Formal Congressional Declaration of War.”

I can understand why you wouldn’t want to mention the kook-isolationist Ron Paul by name. A declaration of war is a 19’th century european relic.

“But who didn’t want one? Bush and many of the GOP and DEMs.”

And everyone else except Ron Paul and Murtha.

“Bush knows about as much about running a war as The Three Stooges knew about Rocket Science. “

More wit-free Bush Bashing.

“He went in with the full intent of nation building and not to eliminate the threat he spoke of in Iraq.”

And how’s Saddam doing these days?

“If he wanted Saddam gone a Letter of Marque or Reprisal could have done it just as well.”

He gave Saddam an oppertunity to leave, and Saddam refused.

“He and congress ignored the wisdom of George Washington and used U.N. propaganda as the reason.”

The cease fire of the first conflict was under the condition that Iraq accept and comply with the provisions of the security council resolutions (like ending his support for terror). Some consider these provisions essential for peace and stability. Others side with Saddam and dismiss these provisions as ‘U.N. propaganda’.

” LBJ got one about like it for Nam called Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.”

To add to your senseless Bush-bashing, make sure you compare Iraq to Vietnam and don’t forget to mention the Gulf of Tokin. Rosie recommends that people ‘google’ it. Oh wait, you mentioned both. My mistake.

“Is Bush smarter than LBJ? No! As one poster put it he’s running even with Carter another POTUS with no military knowledge and planning skills. “

More senseless Bush bashing.

“I hope a true conservative gets in the White House in 2009 and the Bush/Cheney era for this nation is finally at last over.”

Oh, yes. I’m sure you do. Wink Wink, nudge nudge....

“Those three Bush Sr and Junior along with Clinton have nearly destroyed our military with their bad judgments on military polices. “

And to add to senseless Bush-bashing, make sure you refer to our Commander In Chief with disrespectful and incorrect names like ‘Junior’.

“Iraq will never be stable. “

More doom and gloom.

” He’s already building an improved Iraq for the next dictator the radical clerics install.”

Assuming the U.S. abandons Iraq. You attempt to paint this as Bush’s goal is in vain.

“How many will die for that mistake? “

Isn’t that a quote from Harry Reid? At least come up with something original.

” You don’t go to war to build nations but rather destroy them.”

In reality, the U.S. goes to war to remove a dictatorship and replace it with a democratic government. Note that we didn’t ‘destroy’ nations like Japan and Germany. We removed their governments rebuilt their countries for democracy. Something the senseless Bush-bashers can’t comprehend.


426 posted on 05/10/2007 3:28:01 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

Let’s see:

1. Ron Paul supports Dennis Kucinich’s desire for a fresh, Truther-friendly investigation into the “cover up” of 9/11.

2. He goes on Truther radio shows.

3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it’s actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran’s taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/225943.php


427 posted on 05/10/2007 3:28:44 PM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Blue State Insurgent

Only you and Dubya are clever enough to imagine that our enemies are allies.


428 posted on 05/10/2007 3:31:55 PM PDT by Agent Smith (Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
I said "[w]e could do a lot worse than Ron Paul for most elected positions." For example, I would take him over any Kennedy or Clinton, or Feinstein, or Boxer, or Pelosi, or Reid, or [insert D@mocrat name other than Zell Miller here] any day.

I didn't say we couldn't do better...

;>)

429 posted on 05/10/2007 3:38:01 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ( "He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike." - John Locke, 1690)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

Agreed. I find good conservative commentary here and there, but most of what makes up the Free Republic these days are just inane Bush-bashing posts riddled with regurgitated DNC talking points.


430 posted on 05/10/2007 3:45:59 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

Ron Paul is a Truther. He is dangerous.


431 posted on 05/10/2007 3:46:39 PM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
>> We know Kirk’s an almost completely useless RINO <<

Wrong. You and I know Kirk is a completely useless RINO. A large number of freepers, however, were "shocked" when Kirk voted against the troop surge (going on about how they can't believe Kirk the wonderful veteran would do such a thing), even though Kirk's record over the past six years shows he's the Illinois version of Lincoln Chafee. As long as conservative freepers are "shocked" that ultra-liberal Kirk would vote with the Dems, we are not getting the word out about his record.

>> but have you seen the latest on this guy ? <<

Oh yeah, that guy. The one everyone was ranting and raving last week about missing a vote on the war that was already a foregone conclusion. To make matters worse, there was a simular vote this week on overriding the President's veto of the Iraq pullout and our 90% conservative voting record congressman were AWOL on the vote. As you guys explained last week, it DOESN'T matter the vote was a foregone conclusion, they're all treasonous bastards for not doing our bidding 100% of the time (not to mention failing to vote on bills 100% of the time). We must find primary opponents for these obviously homosexual RINO scumbags.

Oh wait. The ones who missed THAT vote were named Jo Ann Davis, McMorris, Rodgers, and Westmoreland. They weren't named Lindsey Graham. Silly me, it's only bad when Graham does it. If anyone else combiles the same record in Congress, we say nothing about it. (or promote them for POTUS).

They're allowed to miss "key votes on the Iraq war", Graham isn't. (Ditto if they ever vote with "McCain"). End of story. Nothing to see here, move along. ;-)

432 posted on 05/10/2007 4:04:04 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Don't blame Illinois for Pelosi, we elected ROSKAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
That’s easy to say *after* he’s already President. However, it’s not easy to get to be President by throwing people out of your office

Last time I checked he was President. So what's your point?

433 posted on 05/10/2007 4:35:09 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

You said — “Last time I checked he was President. So what’s your point?”

Very simply that he didn’t get to be President (which he is now) by doing that...

So, he isn’t going to change the way he got to be President, just because something is “easy to say” — but not “do” in getting to be President, which he is and he did do...

That’s not how Presidential candidates who become Presidents work in real life.


434 posted on 05/10/2007 4:42:00 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: death2tyrants

Thank you. It is your perogative to believe that.


435 posted on 05/10/2007 4:42:26 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

If you would prefer a Stalinist D@mocrat (like Feinstein) to an eccentric Libertarian (like Paul) - which is exactly what I posited - feel free to ‘enjoy yourself.’ Just don’t come knockin’ on my door for donations to your ‘cause,’ whatever the heck it is...


436 posted on 05/10/2007 4:47:43 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ( "He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike." - John Locke, 1690)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I fail to understand the relevance of your point. He is not running for President. He is President. And he should exercise the power of the office to push his agenda forward.


437 posted on 05/10/2007 4:49:32 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

The point is, in the very simplest terms is that a candidate who becomes President doesn’t change who he is — that got him in there in the first place...

You, on the other hand, may have certain ideas about how one *should* be, but you’re not the one who got him there — he is, in how he learned to handle himself in political situations. He’s not simply going to abandon an entire lifetime of political training (and lessons that he’s learned from all those political experiences) at the “last moment” in the White House...


438 posted on 05/10/2007 4:53:12 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Dude, you gotta let it go. Pointing at everyone else for the purpose of rationalization still doesn’t change what Graham did and does. Let’s hope they all end up in the unemployment line come January 3, 2009.


439 posted on 05/10/2007 4:54:20 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Would you vote for President a guy who married his cousin? Me, neither. Accept no RINOs. Fred in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks. I had missed that post.


440 posted on 05/10/2007 5:03:52 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (America has lost its mind and is on its last days as a free country & Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-464 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson