Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) admits Democrats "stretched the truth" on ending the Iraq War

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Robor
Pffft. I had no delusion the (D)'s would stop the Iraq war. I simply voted against the (R)'s and will do it again in November. You can call me partisan if you want but I don't care if it is a stuffed animal with a (D) next to their name running against a (R) I will vote for stuffed animal. I am sick of GWB&Co and his rubber stamping (R)'s. The 6 years of that were enough. A majority of the country felt the same in 2006 and that's why the (D)'s had a victory.

And because of Mr Bush and his war, the Republicans are going to be given a beating in November too.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Vote to begin withdrawal, or vote to keep them there for 100 more years.

Tough choice :laugh:

With naivety like that, it's not surprising that our government continues to falter.

Your "100 years" spin is comical. You're giving Dave a run for the money.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Vote to begin withdrawal, or vote to keep them there for 100 more years.

Tough choice :laugh:

With naivety like that, it's not surprising that our government continues to falter.

Your "100 years" spin is comical. You're giving Dave a run for the money.

Sorry, where exactly was the spin? I never said 100 years of 'actively fighting' or 'peaceful occupation'; my post actually lacked the spin either side put on the comment.

You seem to forget that I don't care what context is used to keep our troops in Iraq. I don't want them occupying Iraqi soil, even during peacetime, a moment longer than is absolutely necessary for the security of our nation (which technically was back in 2004 the moment we stopped searching for WMDs).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Robor
I don't care if it is a stuffed animal with a (D) next to their name running against a (R) I will vote for stuffed animal.

quoted for posterity

I think this is actually fairly close to how I view the choice too. In general the Democrats are the party of 'no ideas'. They're just pretty much sitting around passively like stuffed animals most of the time. It's not good, but it's inoffensive. The Republicans on the other hand, are the party of 'bad ideas'. Nearly every significant initiative I can think of that the Republicans have spearheaded has actively made this country a worse place. Given the choice of standing in front of someone who just looks stupid and someone who is actively punching you in the face over and over again... the choice is clear.

Maybe we can find the best of both worlds and elect Teddy Ruxpin or something.

 

[bamacre]

Our permanent base in Iraq may seem like a good idea if it is aiding an Iraqi government that works in the favor of the Iraqi people. But is it a good idea if it is there to prop up an extremely corrupt and/or brutal government that serves interests other than the Iraqi people? Will the US presence be there to fight terrorists or "terrorists?"

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Vote to begin withdrawal, or vote to keep them there for 100 more years.

Tough choice :laugh:

With naivety like that, it's not surprising that our government continues to falter.

Your "100 years" spin is comical. You're giving Dave a run for the money.

Sorry, where exactly was the spin? I never said 100 years of 'actively fighting' or 'peaceful occupation'; my post actually lacked the spin either side put on the comment.

You seem to forget that I don't care what context is used to keep our troops in Iraq. I don't want them occupying Iraqi soil, even during peacetime, a moment longer than is absolutely necessary for the security of our nation (which technically was back in 2004 the moment we stopped searching for WMDs).

So by that logic, we need to leave Japan, Germany, Kosova, Korea, Qatar, Israel, Uzbekistan, Spain, Italy, and many others, then, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Vote to begin withdrawal, or vote to keep them there for 100 more years.

Tough choice :laugh:

With naivety like that, it's not surprising that our government continues to falter.

Your "100 years" spin is comical. You're giving Dave a run for the money.

Sorry, where exactly was the spin? I never said 100 years of 'actively fighting' or 'peaceful occupation'; my post actually lacked the spin either side put on the comment.

You seem to forget that I don't care what context is used to keep our troops in Iraq. I don't want them occupying Iraqi soil, even during peacetime, a moment longer than is absolutely necessary for the security of our nation (which technically was back in 2004 the moment we stopped searching for WMDs).

So by that logic, we need to leave Japan, Germany, Kosova, Korea, Qatar, Israel, Uzbekistan, Spain, Italy, and many others, then, right?

I'm pretty sure he's said that repeatedly, yes.