Comments on: FACT CHECK: Ned Lamont Does Not Support ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ From Iraq

By: Hankmeister

Hankmeister — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:25:03 +0000

“Phased withdrawal over the next year” is simply code for cut-and-run. Come on, who are you moonbats kidding here? This is almost as good as Representative Murtha saying we need to “redeploy” to a nearby American stronghold like Okinawa! What’s with that? The man needs a geography lesson or he truly believes the partisan insanity that he’s engaging in. I believe the last poll I saw had 48% of Americans supporting present efforts in Iraq and 56% not wanting to set a scheduled withdrawal that even smacks of cutting-and-running.

BTW, how long did it take for American to cut-and-run from Vietnam? And despite all the crude comparisons to the Vietnam War by anti-war ideologues, if we do cut-and-run the following mayhem will result: Jihadists and whacked out Muslim fundamentalists will enforce re-education camps, their will be a slaughter of those who cooperated with the forces of freedom or engaged in the western practice of free enterprise, Iraqi flight by the hundreds of thousands as Iraq is turned into another killing field and training ground for Muslim terrorists as we run home to hide waiting for the next jihadist attack on our homeland. That’s the one difference, the North Vietnamese commies never said they would follow our troops to America and rain death on innocent civilians, the jihadists have said precisely that.

Has any liberal here ever that of the overwhelming strategic significant of having American troops to the east and west of Iran, particularly during a time in history when a crazy Islamic regime is trying to develop a working nuclear weapon?

By: Think Progress » McCain Distorts Polling Data, Labels Bush’s Iraq Critics â€˜Schizophrenicsâ€™

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:14:32 +0000

[...] As ThinkProgress has previously documented, a majority of Americans reject Bush’s “stay the course” policy and want the U.S. to set a timetable for the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Rather than exhibiting waffling attitudes about the war, polling data has shown an unmistakably clear trend in recent months. Mystery Pollster writes, “Looking at the questions pollsters are now asking about prospective Iraq policy, I see fewer differences and far more consistency, a finding that may reflect a gradual hardening of opinion.” [...]

By: BlogDaveAfternoon » Blog Archive » John McCain

BlogDaveAfternoon » Blog Archive » John McCain — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:51:59 +0000

[...] the Tommy Flanagan of American politics, here [...]

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:36:03 +0000

Impeach the lying bastards, try them for war ccrimes. Execute them if found guilty. This is a nation of laws not of men. Let justice have it’s day. Then Fix this mess that these lying neo-conmen bastards have forced upon the world.

By: bluestatepride

bluestatepride — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:38:51 +0000

Bushit- so, if all of congress’ stipulations have been met, then why would we remain in Iraq any longer? Your rants are full of holes. Perhaps you should go over to NedLamont.com and review his actual positions before you take the role of the ignoramus. Phased withdrawal is the party’s platform, and it is correct; Ned Lamont agrees. Go vote for a 5th party or something, like LIEberman’s Connecticut Narcissist Party (CT for Lieberman party).

By: JimboBaby

JimboBaby — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:50:45 +0000

having been through the ordeal of friends being sent to serve, dying in isreal as peace keepers, dying in combat in iraq, i personally can attest that this war is doing noone any good. lets get the F**K out of there. the trillions of doallrs in oil are not ours, the oil fields are already contracted to russia.

why? why? why?

By: Ned Welker

Ned Welker — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:24:24 +0000

What difference does it make when we leave? We have lost. Prolonging the agony isAll American trait. As much as we wish the Iraqi people were noble lovers of the demcratic process and wish them a wonderful democratic life, the fact is we know they are bottom feeders and Islamists who wish nothing but death to us all who are not like them and their Muslim brothers. Maybe we should be providing weapons to the women of these seventh century Middle Eastern counties.

By: FischFry

FischFry — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:21:15 +0000

No one is actually for immediate withdrawal since forces can’t be withdrawn “immediately” — it takes time to remove over 100,000 troops, especially in a hostile environment. But if you say that someone is for beginning as rapid a withdrawal as possible, it’s really not so distorted to say they are calling for immediate withdrawal. Without offering any judgment on his position, I think it is fair to say Lamont is calling for US troops to get out of Iraq — he wants an end to the mission, and to start drawing down troops posthaste. If he wasn’t pushing for that, you wouldn’t be so outspoken in your support. You want to say that’s not “immediate?” You say tomato…

By: JPark

JPark — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:08:51 +0000

Bushit, original. What is YOUR solution, Nader?

By: Bushit

Bushit — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:56:34 +0000

Republicans—– lie and die

Democrats—— cut and run

Both parties are gutless!!!!!!

By: Bushit

Bushit — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:53:30 +0000

What’s the matter people?? Why are you so willing to give a pass to the 24 Senators who voted for the war?? I guess all you gutless cowards aren’t willing to call a spade a spade.

By: millvan

millvan — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:17:42 +0000

McCain feels, rightly so, that he is being out ” straight talked ” by Chuck Hagel. That is the reason for this little charade we are seeing. It is my guess it will be these 2 fighting it out in 2008.

By: Luckmeister

Luckmeister — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:37:01 +0000

This war is a disaster whether we leave a year from now, two years from now or tomorrow.

By: Steve53

Steve53 — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:05:21 +0000

Evidently the Republicans have successfully framed the debate regarding the possible withdrawal from Iraq.

Immediate withdrawal is now seen as unacceptable,dangerous, by many.The reasons given for this pronouncement are dubious and vague,imo.

We’re being played,yet again.

By: Steve53

Steve53 — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:24:10 +0000

I wish the liberal blogs would stop referring to Lieberman as a Democrat. He has announced his disdain for Democrats and has joined the Republicans. Please start referring to lieberman as a Republican, or at least refer to him as an Independent.

Comment by Johann
———
…or just,”former Democrat”.

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:57:05 +0000

That was interesting, Tobey – and the sort of thing one wants to know but is definitely afraid to ask. I’m glad that info is getting out there and will be interested to hear from the science types as to plausibility. Maybe it’s just NOT plausible and that’s why the DHS never did anything about the “liquid bomb” threats in the past.

So Bushco knew it wouldn’t work but intoned scary nonsense for political reasons. Who would have guessed?

By: Johann

Johann — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:55:59 +0000

By: oldtree

oldtree — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:55:03 +0000

mr mccain is sounding more and more like karl

By: Grey Eagle

Grey Eagle — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:48:47 +0000

WE could do without the anti Israel knaves , the pro islamist cry babies , the murderers who have declare war against the western civ, they are still in the 9th century and sip their coffee and tea criticize and make war rather than educate and work to bring themselves in the 21st. What i ask , this oil and blood bathed society has contributed to mankind ?Where are the great moslems of yesteryears the poet , the philosophers ? i say they were and still are murdered by their imans who wish not to relinquish power .

By: Jason M. Hendler

Jason M. Hendler — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:15:54 +0000

Tsk, tsk, tsk ….

Lamont Sanford had a real chance before he started backtracking. Now he just looks like the same “say anything for a vote” Democrats we’ve gotten since Clinton fell into office in 3 way races against a conservative and an independent.