Don't you feel energized!!!!
Here is how Republicans look:
"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option, for the American people and our kids."
The Republicans want to win for America and for the world, while Democrats say this:
Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."
So, if it was up to the Dem's Saddam would still be in power?
Killing thousands of terrorist and stopping all terrorism at home is a bad thing?
Getting rid of Saddam is a grotesque mistake?
WAKE UP AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!
You need to vote with winners in November....
Friday, June 16, 2006
House Rejects Timetable for Iraq Pullout
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
You are doing it again, Game. You are making accusations that have no basis in fact or logic.
Saddam is a bad, bad man. Really bad. There is not a Democrat or liberal on earth who would debate that. However, it is reasonable to debate whether Iraq, the middle east or the world is better off today than it was when he was in power.
"Stopping all terrorism at home is a bad thing?" This is a silly statement and not attributable to any Democrat or liberal. Even so, there isn't one shred of logic that would connect the war in Iraq with stopping terrorism at home. One has nothing to do with the other. In fact report after report shows that our ports, chemical plants, and biology labs are vulnerable and not well protected and that our major cities and states are not prepared to handle new attacks or other emergencies. A big reason for that is that the money to be able to do that is going to finance a war that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and has NOTHING to do with protecting the US from terrorists.
No Democrat or liberal has said that getting rid of Saddam was a grotesque mistake. Invading Iraq could be described as a grotesque mistake. It could turn out to be the worst strategic blunder in US history. Could prove to a magnificent strategic success.
But at what cost? There is no way that the American people would have supported this war from the very beginning had they been told that the object was to remove a horrible dictator and bring Democracy to Iraq at such a cost in lives and up to a trillion dollars in national treasure. Now way.
Jim--
Over 500,000 Iraqis died under the sanctions. Now Iraq no longer is under sanctions, and it is no longer a police state either. The only people who have a problem with the new Iraq are Islamists and open socialists like Pelosi who have contempt for capitalism, liberal democracy, and Western institutions in general.
Sure, the aftermath could have been planned better. A LOT better. But now that we're there, we have a moral obligation to make certain terrorist groups do not overthrow the democracy. That includes fringe elements like al queda and Baathist retreads. Without al queda blowing up everyone's shit, we have an opportunity to solidify the Iraqi government as we gradually get their security forces up to speed.
man jim, are you not able to debate anymore..
jason makes good points...
and he is right...you did nothing to prove him wrong
Game, I can debate just fine. I'm tired of debating unsupported hyperbole such as Jason's:
"The only people who have a problem with the new Iraq are Islamists and open socialists like Pelosi who have contempt for capitalism, liberal democracy, and Western institutions in general." - This is simply an inane, fallacious, stupid, untrue, unsupportable, garbage statement. I should "debate" this?
I have quite successfully refuted Jason's points here many times. Why should I continue to refute over and over the same old repeated fallacies that Jason posts?
Post a Comment