Peace in Najaf!

[43st]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
News at CNN.

Aside from the fact that any sort of good news out of Iraq is bad for Kerry, does anyone think the CIA had something to do with this? al-Sistani just got back from having "surgery" in the UK, and something tells me one of his "doctors" got to him. It's as if he got off of the operating table, flew to Iraq, drove to Najaf, walked into the mosque, and bham, everyone throws down their arms!

CIA or not...you know what they say about "All that ends well".

Wow, amazing how well diplomacy worked, maybe they're actually learning something about foreign policy. It's a serious flip flop for Bush Inc. but maybe they've turned over a new leaf. Good job current administration!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Todd33

"Voted against funding for the war" Kerry.

Or what about "threatened to veto funding for the troops" Bush? Kerry wanted to pay for the war with tax cut roll backs, and reconstruction with loans, not handouts. He also wanted the $20B for reconstruction in a seperate bill, he was afraid of a blank check, for good reason. But, like this thread shows, you only know the RNC talking points and nothing about the truth. The troops were always going to be funded, the debate was how.

You know what they say about good intentions. FACT is that when the funding bill came up for a vote, Kerry voted against it. Shows he wasn't THAT concerned about the end result!

No, it shows he was concerned about America, in general. Kerry knew his vote wouldn't defeat the measure.

BTW, how much of that has been spent so far? I believe it's much less than $10 billion. That money sure was needed in a hurry, eh? :roll:

 

[Todd33]

You know what they say about good intentions. FACT is that when the funding bill came up for a vote, Kerry voted against it. Shows he wasn't THAT concerned about the end result!

So Kerry's version of the bill, which did not just stick the $87B into the debt, get voted down and a threat of veto if it reached Bush, that's ok. Kerry votes no on the Republican version, knowing full well it was going to get 90+ votes. He votes on principle and protest. The Republicans vote to push the cost to future generations and they are heros. You are a piece of work.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
News at CNN.

Aside from the fact that any sort of good news out of Iraq is bad for Kerry, does anyone think the CIA had something to do with this? al-Sistani just got back from having "surgery" in the UK, and something tells me one of his "doctors" got to him. It's as if he got off of the operating table, flew to Iraq, drove to Najaf, walked into the mosque, and bham, everyone throws down their arms!

CIA or not...you know what they say about "All that ends well".

Wow, amazing how well diplomacy worked, maybe they're actually learning something about foreign policy. It's a serious flip flop for Bush Inc. but maybe they've turned over a new leaf. Good job current administration!

Not a bad point...unless you consider my theory of CIA involvement...and if that's the case, it's just the status quo...and nothing has been learned!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Todd33

You know what they say about good intentions. FACT is that when the funding bill came up for a vote, Kerry voted against it. Shows he wasn't THAT concerned about the end result!

So Kerry's version of the bill, which did not just stick the $87B into the debt, get voted down and a threat of veto if it reached Bush, that's ok. Kerry votes no on the Republican version, knowing full well it was going to get 90+ votes. He votes on principle and protest. The Republicans vote to push the cost to future generations and they are heros. You are a piece of work.

I love how political debate gets so personal and hostile so fast. Believe me, it's okay to call me a "a sack of partisan sh...". But if anyone asks, you, the tolerant and peace-loving liberal, resorted to name-calling first!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: kage69
Next time you start a thread, might want to avoid the usual neocon bullsh!t smears, otherwise you come across as a real ass.

You mean like these liberal bullsh1t smears...

Off-Topic Bush-Bashing Thread #1

Off-Topic Bush-Bashing Thread #2

Oddly, both of these were started by conjur. But we all know he's not partisan..

They are not smears and it doesn't mean I'm a partisan liberal. Again, someone with myopic thinking who can't separate being anti-Bush from being a liberal. :roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Todd33

You know what they say about good intentions. FACT is that when the funding bill came up for a vote, Kerry voted against it. Shows he wasn't THAT concerned about the end result!

So Kerry's version of the bill, which did not just stick the $87B into the debt, get voted down and a threat of veto if it reached Bush, that's ok. Kerry votes no on the Republican version, knowing full well it was going to get 90+ votes. He votes on principle and protest. The Republicans vote to push the cost to future generations and they are heros. You are a piece of work.

I love how political debate gets so personal and hostile so fast. Believe me, it's okay to call me a "a sack of partisan sh...". But if anyone asks, you, the tolerant and peace-loving liberal, resorted to name-calling first!

Where's the insult?

 

[Todd33]

I edited right after, it was uncalled for, sorry. The facts remain you are being purely partisan, attacking one side for the same stuff the other does.

I'm not peace loving, I hate people. I just hate them all equally, unlike the bigot Republicans.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I edited right after, it was uncalled for, sorry. The facts remain you are being purely partisan, attacking one side for the same stuff the other does.

I'm not peace loving, I hate people. I just hate them all equally, unlike the bigot Republicans.

Did I ever give the impression that I was not a partisan Republican? That's what I am, and I have no problem with that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course. The people that create a problem are not likely to fix it. We need to worry about what goes on inside our borders, not police the world.

Bush has no credibility in the world. We need to start fresh, with someone who can think through problems and not just act like a cowboy with no curiosity.

Well, everything you said in your previous post that we just can't do is exactly what Kerry has stated should be done.

Bush may not have any credibility outside the US (or inside it), but neither does Kerry. Neither of them can even convince members of their own party of what they were up to in the 60's and 70's. Credibility isn't something that you should choose an elected official on, in my opinion, since it's fleeting at best. All of the reasons you give for Bush not having credibility will also be issues that Kerry voted in support of, so you're screwed either way.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kage69

Aside from the fact that any sort of good news out of Iraq is bad for Kerry,

Kerry seems to care more about our soldiers than the chimp! Next time you start a thread, might want to avoid the usual neocon bullsh!t smears, otherwise you come across as a real ass.

He was stating a well-formed opinion: good news in Iraq is bad for Kerry in that it's good for Bush. Ask the people in the military who cares more for the troops -- 95% will say Republicans in general, since they're the ones that typically give the troops what they need to get the job done. THIS is what our troops care about.

 

[kage69]

You want to argue on that point? Okay, so if tomorrow's headlines read, "1000 Tons of Chemical and Biological WMDs un-earthed in Iraq!" you would think that's good news for Kerry?

Oooo! Hypothetical conjecture! Then again as you cons so love to point out, Kerry did go along with the pack and vote for the war, right? If Bush really cared about the guys on the ground, he would have done a hell of a lot more planning, listened to a lot more opinions from those in the know, and he certainly wouldn't be giving the families of the dead the cold shoulder. And the enlisted republicans like him why exactly? Soldiers buying their own body armor or food at the hospital, no worries, as long as those tax cuts come through everything's just great.

I find it ironic how many enlisted men and women can approve of Bush, yet he is exactly the type they like to bitch about, a daddy's boy who was kept away from harm, yet still was able to go AWOL. Kerry volunteers, saves lives, and gets wounded all to be labled a priveleged sissy by the GOP. Maybe if Kerry had a oil company or baseball team given to him by daddy, the cons would look the other way, seems to work for Bush.

Until Bush acknowledges how many families he's destroyed with Cheney's Little Adventure, I will continue to view him as an uncaring ass towards the enlisted. Better yet, he could attend a few funerals, at least attempt to comfort some families, visit the wounded, etc...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: kage69

Aside from the fact that any sort of good news out of Iraq is bad for Kerry,

Kerry seems to care more about our soldiers than the chimp! Next time you start a thread, might want to avoid the usual neocon bullsh!t smears, otherwise you come across as a real ass.

He was stating a well-formed opinion: good news in Iraq is bad for Kerry in that it's good for Bush. Ask the people in the military who cares more for the troops -- 95% will say Republicans in general, since they're the ones that typically give the troops what they need to get the job done. THIS is what our troops care about.

Then why has that supplemental funding not delivered on the body armor for the troops? That funding was authorized a year ago...you know the bill. The one Bush was going to VETO if it wasn't all paid for with grants so the deficit could grow larger?