McCain Skips Petraeus Briefing To Campaign In New Hampshire
McCain Skips Petraeus Briefing To Campaign In New Hampshire
Major media outlets and conservatives are pounding Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for not attending a House briefing today with Gen. David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. (Never mind that Pelosi spoke personally to Petraeus about Iraq yesterday.)
What hasn’t been mentioned is that another major figure in the Iraq debate is also skipping out of a briefing with Petraeus today: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the most high-profile congressional supporter of President Bush’s escalation policy.
McCain is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Traditionally, the Armed Services chairman and ranking member have held separate meetings with senior military officials like Petraeus. But McCain’s office has confirmed that the senator isn’t attending today’s Senate briefing with Petreaus, choosing instead to campaign in New Hampshire.
The Pelosi attacks today fit a recurring pattern. Like the contrived controversies over the Syria delegation and her military jet, journalists are again exploiting Pelosi to stir up a partisan-motivated “scandal” and ignoring conservatives who have done the very same thing.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Pelosi did it!
Clinton did it!
Al Gore is fat!
(end transmission)
April 25th, 2007 at 3:33 pmHypocrisy, thy name is neo-con
April 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWatch out, kids. Pelosi had a ‘full scheudule’ as well. Or at least that’s what Dennis miller is saying on his show. Someone should look into that… Maybe TP?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pmHypocrisy, it’s what’s for NeoCon breakfast.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pmHe should be at the briefing.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pmCan I redact my previous comment, TP? Somehow I missed paragraph numero uno…. Everyone has my apologies.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pmYou also forgot to mention the chief critic of the war is also taking another route:
To wit: Reid (D):
Reid voted for this war, when that was popular. Now that it is unpopular, he seeks to shrug it as if it were last year’s hot new dance craze. There’s something fascinating yet repellent about Reid’s candor in acknowledging that all he cares about is politics, as in this report from CQ Today earlier this month:
“We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” the Nevada Democrat predicted at a news conference.
Sitting next to him was the man charged with making that happen: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer of New York. Shows you where Reid’s priorities are, and they aren’t yours, they’re his-nation be damned.
“The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic initiatives as the 2008 elections approach.
“We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye,” Schumer declared, making no attempt to hide his glee.
No amount of personal attacks or emotional responses will change these facts.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pmHe already got the same talking points Petraeus did.
conservatism = birth defect
April 25th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#3 dennis miller has a show?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pmHold on while I channel Jake…
<Jake>
Of course McCain won’t be attending…he’s not the one who’s questioning the conduct of this war.
Anyone (not on the ignore list) care to discuss with me why it’s OK for supporters to ditch the briefing, but not detractors?
</Jake>
Ewwww…*shudder*….excuse me whilst I go apply scalding water to every square inch of my epidermis in a futile attempt to rid myself of the Jake-stench.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pmdid you see mcCAVE on the daily show
April 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pmlast night? …what an ass…
Why is somebody using the screen name DemocraticSycamore listening to Dennis Miller or attacking Pelosi?
No Democrats need to attend this cluster fu*k. Why would they need to hear the same old tired talking points again. There is real work to be done.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pmWhat was Pelosi’s excuse?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pmconservatism = birth defect
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I know you can come up with a better one than that.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBattle tested – A hypnotic suggestion for the right wing to support him
expect that photo in the newspapers
April 25th, 2007 at 3:46 pmEwwww…*shudder*….excuse me whilst I go apply scalding water to every square inch of my epidermis in a futile attempt to rid myself of the Jake-stench.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Don’t forget to scrub between the ears as well =D
April 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pmdoes anyone have the substance of what the good General spoke about today? Attendence is secondary to the content. McCain just formally announced his quixotic run for the White House so that’s where he is focused. Pelosi saw the General yesterday and doesn’t need the generic rerun.
What is the content. Did the idiot Savant Miller talk about the content?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pmPatrick1,
Read the post. She met with Petraeus yesterday!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI love it!
Speaker Pelosi had already spoken to Gen. Petraeus the day before hs briefing so her attendance was not required.
Sen. McCain never spoke to Gen. Petraeus and still skips out on the briefing.
I guess when Sen. McCain is hearing voices about how he’s got a (consistently shrinking) chance at the Presidency that he need listen to nobody about anything at all, just like Pres. Bush.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI know you are but what am I.
conservatism = birth defect
April 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pmNobody voted for the war. Not Reid, not even the Republicans. They voted to authorize the President to use force if he felt it was in the best interest of the country. He was also susposed to ask Congress before he did…. He didn’t….. There never was a vote for declaration of war.
But nobody voted for the war. Stop spreading these lies.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm“The first casualty of war is the truth”
She has more important sh!t to do than listen to right wing lunatic fringe talking points.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:51 pmPelosi, knowing that she had a full schedule and would miss the briefing, asked for and got a private briefing with Gen. Patraeus.
As Speaker of the House, her schedule would tend to be a bit fuller than someone who sits in his mother’s basement, so I would understand how it would be hard to fathom for some people….
April 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pmthinkprogress.org can’t be run by such idiots, it just can’t!!!
retards of thinkprogress.org, why is it big news that Pelosi would miss a meeting with General Petraus, why? because she is making anti-troop decisions without consulting the Generals, since there will be two four star generals briefing all members of the House who attend. Nice that you forgot to mention this little detail, you liars.
McCain is NOT the leader of the House of the Senate. I truly dislike McCain, but this comparision is idiotic, stupid and pathetic.
If McCain was the Senate minority or majority leader I would understand, but McCain is just another Senator, not the leader of his party.
Furthermore, Mccain is not trying to pass anti-American, anti-troop legislation like Pelosi is pushing her party to do so. You would think that before she does such a thing she would try to find time to speak to two four star generals that know a heck of a lot more about Iraq and the situation there than she does.
thinkprogress.org, you are only fooling the liberal ill-informed sheeps.
Pelosi as well as Reid are an embarrasment to themselves, to their party and to the United States. FDR ,JFK, Harry Truman would beat the living daily lights out of these two imbeciles and force them out of power. FDR, JFK, Harry Truman are probaly crying in their tombs seeing what a f….cking mess these two imbeciles havce turned their party into.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pmThey keep attacking Pelosi because of her gender, not her party or her views or her actions. Thats why the republicans are being so over-the-top hypocritical with her.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pmphone briefing…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! is this what thinkprogress.org calls a personal meeting with the General? hahahahahaha!!!
thinkprogress.org, why do you spew such ridiculous nonsens, why? and once again, she spoke with one four star general, there are going to be TWO. did she also have a phone briefing with the second four start general?
try to tell the truth thinkprogress.org, try, I know that it is hard for you twisted liberals to be honest, by you will come a long way if you at least try.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pmMcCain’s daughter sure looks pretty in that photo.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWhat? That’s not McCain’s daughter, it’s his wife?
It’s the extremely wealthy young lady McCain had an affair with behind his first wifes back?
Tsk, Tsk.
Family Values.
Valiantthehater still thinks the world is flat, anyone care to give her the memo?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:57 pmfrom the CNN link that thinkprogress.org linked us to.
“Pelolsi’s aide said she “showed her respect” for Petraeus by making sure she talked to him, but also said the Speaker “wouldn’t be pushing for this bill if she didn’t think there needs to be a change in Iraq strategy.” ”
So, regardless of what the General in charge of Iraq is telling her, Pelosi is gonig to push for a white flag legislation in Iraq. I thought it was Bush that was ignoring the generals running the Iraq War. Hmmmmmm……unless of course I have missed something and Pelosi has military experience that she has forgotten to tell us all.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pmValiantthehater,
Did you read the post? She met with the General yesterday!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pmPelosi and Reid are trying to pass pro-American and pro-troop legislation. Killing troops is not pro-troop. Saving them from being target practice is.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pmBob,
are you this stupid? no one attacks Pelosi for her gender. If that was the case conservatives would also attack Rice. You guys attack Rice, is this becausee she is black and a woman? get a clue and an education while you are it.
Pelosi is being attacked because she is an embarrasment to Congress, to the USA, to women and to the United States. She is a joke, a sad, sad, sad joke.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pmValiantthehater sounds like a shrill spinster. Maybe it’s Menopause but it sure shows in her “Coulter” like rants and raves. Please, take some medication, bitch!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pmValiantthehater,
You said “unless of course I have missed something and Pelosi has military experience that she has forgotten to tell us all.”
Are you arguing that only Congresspeople with military experience should be heard on this issue?
Congress people like Patrick Murphy or Jack Murtha? They have military experience, and they seem to be fine with voting for the supplemental appropriations as written.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pmValiummadhatter:
The only troop haters are those who want them to die half way around the world so they don’t have to admit they were suckered by phoney religous conartist president. You are such an ignorant stooge. Mccain is not just another senator, he is one of the leading cheerleaders for this disaster. He is a lying weasel who thinks nothing of selling out our brave soldiers so he can have a chance at power. you are a mindless sheep, among a dwindling herd of “sheeps” who thinks that truth belongs to a polical party. If there is justice in this world you will go to Iraq and get your legs blown off.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe trolls are out in full force today. They’re running scared. The noose must be getting pretty tight.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pmWe REALLY need to get somenew terms going:
…instead of “pro-Life”…
…”don’t abort ‘em but don’t support ‘em”…
…instead of “mainstream media” or msm…
…ffp or fascist fringe propagandists…
…the hypocrisy of the right wing deadenders is perpetuated by…
…their control of the people’s airwaves…
…then making fake arguments that the media leans to the left…
…you and I both know this is Bushit…
…we see and hear it daily…
…yet WE Liberal Progressives must FRAME the debate…
…DON”T let them call themselves pro-Lifers…
…when they support so much DEATH and destruction of innocents…
…or the “mainstream” media…
…for obvious reasons…
April 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pmthe newly wingnuttified all things considered is interviewing william kristol about nccain right now. reminds me of why i will never give another dime to npr.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pmWhat was Pelosi’s excuse?
Comment by Patrick1
I understand you have a reading comprehension problem, so I will point out that the article already has the info you seek.
Read the article again, S..L..O..W..L..Y this time.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pmVTH, WTF is wrong with you today? Skip your meds?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pmI know you can come up with a better one than that.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — April 25, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
I know you are but what am I.
conservatism = birth defect
Comment by
I guess you can’t.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pmhmmmm…women who have been an embarrassment to the USA:
Jeanne Kirkpatrick
Phyllis Shlafley
Harriet Myers
Condi Rice
Barbara Bush
Laura Bush
Nancy Reagan
Katherine Harris
Yep, all democrats
April 25th, 2007 at 4:09 pmDayum!!! Now he can’t try his new single on Patreus???
No matter, I think Patreus was part of the chorus anyway!!!
Dayum Patrick1…YOU figure you woould be tired of being an IGNORANT jack*ss ALL the time!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:10 pmHey L=MD,
How about:
conservatism = heart disorder
As in, not having one.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pmHow about
April 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pmconservatism=lobotomy?
conservatism=cowardice?
conservatism= having your head so far up your a$$ you can see out your mouth?
#18, #30 Actually, she did not meet with him. They spoke on the phone.
“[S]he had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday, so her office tried to set up a special, face-to-face meeting with the General. Petraeus was unable to meet in person, so the two talked by phone for about 30 minutes on Tuesday.”
April 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pm#46…For crissakes, today’s meetings can take place by phone, satellite transmission, etc. Just because their meeting didn’t take place with 18th century standards doesn’t mean it didn’t take place.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pmExley,
Point made. But the real point is that she did discuss the issues with him. She did get a briefing. She didn’t duck the General at all.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pmCrump,
Of course not, the point is that the left always claims that Bush is not listening to the generals when it comes to Iraq. When it is obvious by Pelosi’s actions that it is her and the left who are not listening to the generals in charge of Iraq.
so, I am wondering, since she doesn’t listen to the generals in charge of Iraq, if she has some military experience that allows her to make military decision.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:18 pmHey L=MD,
How about:
conservatism = heart disorder
As in, not having one.
Comment by mikeandjeffsmom
Not bad
April 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pmHow about
conservatism=lobotomy?
conservatism=cowardice?
conservatism= having your head so far up your a$$ you can see out your mouth?
Comment by bob (not the hacker)
The heart disorder one was a lot better, keep trying.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pmValiantthehater,
How many Generals did the President get rid of? How many generals begged him to fire Rumsfeld? How many troops did General Shinseki say we needed to handle the aftermath of the war? WHat happened to General Shinseki? Why doesn’t the President listen to his Generals?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm“no one attacks Pelosi for her gender. If that was the case conservatives would also attack Rice.”
dumbest statement of the day.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:22 pmI don’t need to come up with anything better. If you can’t figure out that a birth defect trumps a mental disorder, then that makes you the dumb fu*k, not me.
conservatism = birth defect
April 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#48, CB,
Fair enough. And now to defend McCain–The fact is he was in Iraq two weeks ago and was already personally briefed by Petraeus. So, it is likely he would hear anything different today than he heard when McCain was in Iraq a few days ago.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:24 pmBush fired all the generals who disagreed with him so he only “listens” to the ones who agree with him.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#51,
I am proud to have the same “mental disorder” as Albert Einstein. You, however, seem proud to have the same mental disorder as G.Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Rove, et al.
I am completely comfortable, and would be honored, if history judges me in the same “class” as Mr. Einstein. Enjoy your judgment when it comes.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pmNeo-conservatism = spiritual disorder
April 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#
What was Pelosi’s excuse?
Comment by Patrick1 — April 25, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Uhm, because she had a private discussion with him last night, like it says above, with a link and everything, where you could read this:
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized “first thing (Tuesday) morning” she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday, so her office tried to set up a special, face-to-face meeting with the General.
Petraeus was unable to meet in person, so the two talked by phone for about 30 minutes on Tuesday. Elshami insisted it was not meant as a slight, and that it turned out to be even more beneficial for Pelosi to have the chance to hear from Petraeus and ask questions independently.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pmpelosi=leader.
mccain=presidential candidate.
McCain’s pubes have more crediblity on foreign policy than the ‘great blinker’.
If there is anyone who wants to rationally suggest that Nancy is as up to speed as McCain, it’s a free country, go ahead.
honestly, nancy and harry are in freefall, and don’t have the intelligence to realize that the ropes around their necks are only so long…
This isn’t a major problem now, but when she goes to speak based on authority, any critc in their right mind is going to ask…does she care?
Does anybody really believe that democratic led withdrawal from Iraq, and the election of a dem pres, is going to keep us safe?
I want more dems in control, so when we get hit again, the ‘bucking’ of legitimate responsibility will stop the democratic party dead.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pm“Pelosi as well as Reid are an embarrasment to themselves, to their party and to the United States … FDR, JFK, Harry Truman are probaly crying in their tombs seeing what a f….cking mess these two imbeciles havce turned their party into.
Comment by Valiantthehater”
How do you think those individuals would react to the members of this administration after seeing the f…cking mess those imbeciles have turned their country into?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pmOh, well, she only talked to him on the phone? In that case, it makes it okay for McCain not to meet with him at all and for the NeoCons to relentlessly attack Pelosi. Wait, that makes no sense.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pm#54,
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pmBefore you waste too much time and energy on that whacko, keep in mind that to the insane, sanity is a mental disorder.
…When it is obvious by Pelosi’s actions that it is her and the left who are not listening to the generals in charge of Iraq.
The only generals left are those who (at least pretend to) agree w/ W. He can’t stand dissent–from anyone.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pmI don’t need to come up with anything better. If you can’t figure out that a birth defect trumps a mental disorder, then that makes you the dumb fu*k, not me.
conservatism = birth defect
Comment by Spudge_Boy
The problem is that it really doesn’t make sense? Can a baby be a conservative or liberal? Are you saying that conservatives have babies with birth defects? It creates a whole chicken or the egg thing. You see it really don’t make a whole lot of sense. The point is you are trying and you certainly get an “A” for effort.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pmI see that since thinkprogress.org didn’t tell you or any other left wing blog is informing you, you guys don’t know. typical of the ill-informed left wingers.
there are going to be two four star generals, Patreus being one of them. Meeting with Patreus is getting half of the picture which Pelosi doesn’t seem to mind. Make a military decision with only half of the picture.
Wow, can you imagine if FDR made WWII decisions by only talking to General Ike…..the allied supreme commander during WWII.
the left is too stupid to get this.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pmHey Bob (not the hacker) and spudge boy, I guess I am getting all the troll love today… The not having a heart thing must have resounded with L=MD.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pmG.Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Rove, et al.
If they were truly conservatives then you would have a point.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pmso, I am wondering, since she doesn’t listen to the generals in charge of Iraq, if she has some military experience that allows her to make military decision.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
==================================================
YOU should phrase that question for BUSH & CHENEY!!!
YOU also should never make yourself look like an *ss for asking the obvious question, because had your thought before you wrote, it is Pelosi that HAS listened to the BETTER Generals who has called BUSH & CHENEY idiots and DECLINED their War Czar position because of their incompetence.
Too Bad, YOU worship COWARDS and DRAFT DODGERS! I guess you fit right in!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:30 pmValiantthehater,
Personal attacks aside, perhaps you could address the fact that President has been very selective in his “listening” of the generals as well.
(Calling the left ’stupid’ does nothing but make you sound like many of the idiots that post on here just to insult people. Make your points. sometimes you make good ones. I think your wrong, but that’s ok.)
April 25th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI knew someone intimidated by women in power would flip out. Must be some truth to that to hit such a nerve. Like questioning a homophobe’s sexual orientation.
“Thems fighten werds, boy!”
Ha ha ha!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pmHow about:
conservatism=That weird little fringe Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy right-wing thingy with the child molesters and the cowardly anti-american soldier-haters that used to exist but is getting more and more extinct?
I know, too long
April 25th, 2007 at 4:32 pmHey paul, that’s great wishing for another terrorist attack so that you can show the rest of us you were “right”. How many friends did you lose on 9/11?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:33 pm“G.Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Rove, et al.
If they were truly conservatives then you would have a point.”
i may have to amend my earlier post.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pmPelosi goes to the middle east and engages in talks with both friend and foe so as to improve diplomacy and to aid the effort of acheiving peace in the region.
McCain goes to the middle east and goes shopping.
Now, who is the kunt?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:35 pmI’m new to thinkprogress – I’d never dream there would be a place on the internet where people seriously exclaim that the MSM is NOT left-bent.
It’s not even an arguable topic anymore.
NPR/CNN/Newspaper viewing is DOWN. Fox News and alternative online news blogs UP.
I wonder why that is?
To compare a senior senator to the Speaker of the house in the above post is both devious and purposed. There is no excuse for Pelosi to miss such meetings when she is the one of the main figures assisting the Left in micro-managing the war and politicizing the safety our troops and the Iraqi Military by pushing through a bill that has been condemned to VETO that can’t be over-ridden.
To even come back and say ‘well she had a half-hour phone conversation with the General earlier’ is not being intelligent either. Why would she make such a defiling public statement? How does that server her best interest?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pmCrump,
I apologize, you and I can actually have very informative and well thought out debates. I apologize if I insulted you.
As for Bush only listening to the generals that agree with him. I don’t know, when a majority of them agree with him and there are a few that don’t, who would you listen to.
you must understand that many generals have political and career goals, they are not infallible to being corrupted, or for that matter wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pmHow about:
conservatism=That weird little fringe Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy right-wing thingy with the child molesters and the cowardly anti-american soldier-haters that used to exist but is getting more and more extinct?
I know, too long
Comment by Chris L
Definitely too long.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm#68,
You chose the leaders of your movement. It is both disingenous and childlike to disown them at this point.
Guess that bed that you’ve made is not so comfortable? What, is it all the blood and dismembered bodies of murdered civilians? Or is the stench from all the bullsh*t too much to bear?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIs Voidofgreymatter getting pissy about Pelosi not listening to the Generals but completely forgetting the whole clusterf%ck was started because the Boyblunder and henchmen didn’t listen to the Generals in the first place.
Talk about missplaced anger. Focus Vastlyoverated, focus. The President went against the recommendations of the military to follow the successful Powell Doctrine. Didn’t happen, they went with the Rumsfeld “Beyond Nation building” fiasco.
Generals want out of the current situation. They weren’t given the number of troops in the beginning and now there is no way to win a conflict without 500,000 troops.
So be mad Vapidselfshater but be mad at the real cause and not the shadow phantoms you think need your admonishment.
such a chooch
April 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pmFed the f…up,
Yes, grandpa Kennedy also went at spoke with Hitler and came back and asked FDR to join Hitler during WWII.
Pelosi meeting with Syria was the biggest mistake of her political life. She gave legitimacy to a monster of a government who was being isolated by everyone. Going to meet with him was a slap on the face of those that Syria has needless murdered. She didn’t go there to try to achieve peace, but to try to stick it to Bush and gain political points and it all back fired on her.
There are many politically smart women on both sides of the eisle, Pelosi is not one of them.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmVTH
“since she doesn’t listen to the generals in charge of Iraq”
She talked to Petraeus. She talks with John Murtha, who is widely reported to be, on the basis of his two-decade military career, chummy with many high career officers in the current military. Has she spoken with other high military officials? Maybe so, maybe not. I haven’t done the research, and you don’t really seem to know. Maybe you shouldn’t talk about what you don’t know. Just a thought.
What we DO know is the the Speaker of the House speaks for the House majority, which speaks for the American people. Generals or no generals, the American people want out of Iraq (the Iraqis want us out too, but I don’t suppose you care). Speaker Pelosi andf Majority Leader Reid will get us there, even if the President has to keep firing generals to find one who does not think we should leave.
But VTH, my friend, in America, the generals listen to the civilian government, NOT the other way around.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIt’s spelled Petraeus, Valiantthehater. But the right is too stupid to get this. Course, the right is also too stupid to understand that the focus of the hearing was on Petraeus’ assessment, as the leading man on the ground in Iraq. No one was there to hear Pace. It was Petraeus’ presentation.
But thanks for equating Speaker Pelosi’s position to President Roosevelt’s. President Pelosi sounds good, doesn’t it?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pmMaybe Pelosi should have gotten Bush to give her a ride in AirForce1 and they could do a fly over the Pentagon as a “meeting” with Petraeus. Worked for Bush and New Orleans.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmThomas, exactly!
How can a leader, like Pelosi is, have a 30 minute phone conversation with the general in charge of Iraq and make a decision on this 30 minute conversation. I can assure you that FDR and General Ike had a lot more than 30 minute conversations when it came to gettind D-Day ready.
You can’t make a military decision that will affect the world, for either good or bad, depending how you think, after a 30 minute conversation. That is being a simpleton.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI love this: “To compare a senior senator to the Speaker of the house in the above post is both devious and purposed”
Um, the “senior senator” is asking us to elect him President. I think his conduct matters, oh, just a little.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmComment by Thomas & His Ilk — April 25, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Welcome to TP! While I completely disagree with most of your statements, it is always nice to see new people here. I am an OIF veteran, and I usually hang out on the posts that address the current occupation in Iraq, as a lurker mostly but posting occasionally. On this issue, I can see both sides. I personally think Pelosi shoould be there. Hopefully, she will at least schedule a meeting with both Four Stars afterwards, to make up for her absense. However, McCain, especially if he wants to be president, should also be there.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmValiantthehater,
General Shinseki told the congress that 400,000 troops would be needed to keep the peace in Iraq. Was there a poll taken amongst the Generals before he made that statement? I got the feeling that it was his job to speak for the collective military that day.
I might be able to buy your argument if you can show an article or something that says something to effect of “While Shinseki said ‘x’, the other generals believe ‘y’?”
April 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm812 VTH
Peolosi went to Syria to LEAD because President 30% is too chickenshit to do so.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#60
April 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pmYou may want to review McCains performance on the Daily Show last night.
Comment by Valiantthehater —
If you want the opinion of the Generals, check out today’s ThinkFast thread.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm#81,
Please list specifically, and with accumlated numbers, who you talk about when you say “those that Syria has needless murdered”.
After doing so, please list specifically, and with accumulated numbers, the Iraqi children that have been murdered “collaterally” in Iraq by coalition forces.
I believe it was some mentally disordered liberal who said: “Remove the wooden post from your own eye before instructing you neighbor on how to remove the splinter from theirs.”
Fcuking liberals.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pmhellinabucket,
surprise, surprise, but I agree with the 500,000 troops at the begining. Rumsfeld should have heard Powell’s advice and followed the Powell doctrine. go strong, go big and do a lighting strike. Rumsfeld, for a long time now had been wanting to go light, and with a supposedly a lot more sophisticated force. While it worked to defeat Hussein’s army, or at least those that didn’t run and hide, it has proven futile to stabilized Iraq. If we had 5 times the amount of troops in Iraq, I do believe Iraq would be stable now.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pmCrump,
I do believe other generals did say Y, that is less force. But as I just told hellinabucket, I agree, with should have gone with a much stronger force. Now remember though, our military, at the end is ran by civilians, right? The ultimate decision fell in Rumsfeld, the civilian in charge of our military and I agree, he made a wrong decision.
but there were generals that agreed with Rumsfeld. and think about it, at first, the less numbers worked, right? Hussein’s armed forces was defeated very fast. Don’t forget that a week into the conflict the media was already claiming that the Iraq War was a quackmire and that our forces couldn’t defeat Hussein’s armed forces. the media was shown to be 100% wrong.
but I do believe that after the defeat of Hussein’s armed forces, if we would have had and kept a 500,000+ presence in Iraq, Iraq would be stable now.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pmI wonder how many Generals did President Lincoln get rid of?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pmFed….
please, why don’t you list specifically the millions of Iraqi children that died under the Hussein regime thanks to the fact that the UN, France, Russia, Germany and many other countries helped Iraq become filthy rich and stay in power.
Just so you know, according to UN numbers, 60,000 Iraqis have died in this conflict. 60,000 too many, but it is not the ridiculous number you claim.
Now look into Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, look at the Christian leaders in Lebanon they have killed, look at the Isralis they have killed.
Please, get an education and a clue while you are it.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm812 VTH
Peolosi went to Syria to LEAD because President 30% is too chickenshit to do so.
Comment by Daddy Love — April 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
do you know the approval rating of Congress? of course not, it isn’t too much higher than 30%!
thus according to your logic, Pelosi, the leader of a Congress with a 38% approval rating isn’t leading anythign either, right? wow!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:57 pmPelosi and McCain are wrong and worthless. How Pelosi could first say no to our troops and agree with Reid that our troops have failed and then not even have the time to get informed from the people that actually know about the conidtions, plans, and progress in Iraq proves once again that Pelosi, McCain, and most congressmen don’t actually care about Iraq or the outcome. All our congressmen care about these days is power (kinda like TP since they 2 only care about the possible power Hillary may get). It is so sad that while we normal folks aruge, discuss, and get very passionate about this issue all because we truly care about what is best for the Iraqi people, our leaders are only calculating what will net them the most politically. McCain, Pelosi and every other congressmen that votes one way or another because of power should be thrown out of office as their votes are meaningless.
Pelosi’s own party should be ashamed of her at this point. I know the true conservatives are ashamed of McCain. She first says she will produce no pork this year. Seconds later, she decides to buy most every yes vote against our troops in Iraq breaking her promise to the American people. Later, she decides that we should raise the minimum wage but decides that her corporate owners in San Fransisco don’t feel like paying the folks in America Somoa a fair wage. Of couse she is just a pawn 100% owned by corporate America so she caves in and dooms over 80% of the island to poverty. This lady is pure filth and she puts her scum on display almost weekly. her and McCain are probably buddies.
McCain is no different. He first sign a bill that allows canidates to use public money which ads transparency. Of course now that he is running for president he decides to not take the public money. He does this, like Hilary Clinton, because without it, they are free to be bought by special interest groups (just like Pelosi did with her boss’ that own the packing plants in America Somoa).
Both are scum and everyone should be ashamed they are in congress.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pmJudy,
Actually, Lincoln did get rid of a few generals that didn’t listen to him. Please read some history.
Lincoln also imprisoned press members and he did away with habeas corpus during the civil war.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pmOh, Valiant -Lenin said his comrades were useful idiots-the Hater is here. How are those preparation for Rapture going? (And, just BTW, I was born in a Spanish talking country like you were, so it is unforgivable for you to not speak correctly the language of Cervantes…keep up, Deliverance Banjo boy)
April 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pmDoes anybody really believe that democratic led withdrawal from Iraq, and the election of a dem pres, is going to keep us safe?
Paul,
April 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pmNobody can keep us safe. This country is too big and too diverse and, yes, too free (at least, for the moment) to be “safe” from terrorists, homegrown or otherwise. It’s barely possible that our troops are keeping Al Qaeda busy in Afghanistan and/or depleting their resources so that they don’t currently have the wherewithal to mount even a small attack as far away from their home area as the U.S. But it is much more likely either that they blew their entire reserves of men and money on September 11 or that they are biding their time until an attack brings them the political result they want in the U.S. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the next attack came close on the heels of the election of a Democratic president–not because that Democrat is any “weaker” than any Republican who may be elected, but because it is to the advantage of any enemy of the U.S. if we damage ourselves with a draconian response to their provocation. I think they’re counting on the Monsters Are Due On Maple Street effect, and, if the current assault on our civil liberties is any example, they are correct to do so. It’s certainly cheaper for them to let us destroy ourselves.
If we had 5 times the amount of troops in Iraq, I do believe Iraq would be stable now.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
I agree to a point. We also need to determine who the enemy is there. One of the most frustrating actions when I was there was how they kept changing the enemy on us. We would be fighting against one group, and then supporting them the next month, and vice-versa. Now they are rpotecting the ones that were considered the enemy when we first went in, and eradicating the ones that we were trying to support before. We are actually fighting against the elected officials in the Iraqi government, and trying to put into power the same people we removed from power four years ago. So, even if we had 500,000 troops to put on the ground, first we need to define who the enemy is, and what their military objectives are.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pmCrump,
question….
what happens if the Democrats succeed in getting out troops out of Iraq, and they are wrong about the country stabalizing itself after we leave. Then what? what about if what happens in Iraq is the same thing that happened in Vietnam after we left Vietnam, millions of people are murdered.
Will the left call on American troops to go back into Iraq and stop the human right abuses?
What happens if the left is wrong, and after we leave Iraq Al Qaeda comes and fights out in our backyard? then what?
are you willing to take these risks?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pmROGER,
Still waiting for that Reid quote buddy. You can either dig it up, or admit that you were inflating what he said for partisan gain. Then I will respond to the rest of your posts. (Not that I expect you care)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pmJuan C,
the Rapture? I told you you were 100% ignorant about religion. Roman Catholics do not believe in the Rapture. try to get an education before you make a laughable attempt at insulting me.
and the language of Cervantes? oh please, stop with la novela type melodrama. Then you cry about me supposedly watching Venevision. Yes without an accent. What are you going to do about it hijito?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pmThe trolls seem to think it’s important that Pelosi only talked on the phone. Why is that not the same as meeting with the general? At least she talked to him. If the trolls had any brains they might see that a phone call is better than what McMaverick did, which is nothing at all.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pmValiant.
*yawn*
April 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pmWow, Thanks Valiant for the response at #93. That raises more questions on if you agree with that viewpoint of additional troops were needed but weren’t used then why defend the ones that made that terrible decision.
Iraq will stabilize, it just may not stabilize the way the Republicans (or Democrats) want. Vietnam stabilized as a communist nation. Not what we wanted but it was evident we couldn’t change the outcome.
The qty of the forces was inadaquate, the rationale to go in is suspect and the dollar amount to continue is staggering. All for what? some abstract ideal that “Democracy” will be sprouting in the middle east.
It’s not the desire of all americans to see that when it’s not being followed here.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pmconservative = 7th-grade bully
April 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pmValiantthehater,
Very fair questions.
As far as stability goes…. no one knows the answer to this question. And I’m not gonna claim that I do. I will say, that I do believe that us being there, is motivating radical elements in the Middle East. IT’s ok to admit that they don’t want us there. I think if we were able to get a vote from the Iraqi Parliament on the issue, they would ask us to leave. We are holding a wolf by the ears.
I do think the violence will continue. But it’s not for our guys to fight. I believe the majority of the violence is between Islamic factions that don’t like each other, and I think we are getting dangerously close to choosing a side. Which in the end will result in the placement of yet another dictator but I’m not sure that can be avoided at this point.
As far as them coming over here, I hate this argument. It assumes that Al Qaeda, will only fight us where are troops are. This to me is simply dumb. I firmly believe that they will attempt another hit on us when they are ready and the opportunity warrants it. Us fighting them there didn’t stop the Spain Train bombings or the London Subway bombings. We just have to be ready when it comes. And hope our intel beats them to the punch.
You used the phrase, in our backyards. The one good thing about the 2nd amendment, (And the purpose of its intent actually) is that no military, or terror organization, would actually attempt war (REAL WAR) on our soil. We are too heavily armed a populace. I think that saying “in our backyards” is a scare tactic. They want big targets. Not Joe Sixpack’s back yard.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm#96,
I did not claim a number. Now once again you state: “look at the Christian leaders in Lebanon they have killed, look at the Isralis they have killed”.
Are you going to provide factual information? Or do you expect me to just take your word for it even though you have been proven to just make stuff up? Heck, your comment alone of “the millions of Iraqi children that died under the Hussein regime thanks to the fact that the UN, France, Russia, Germany” is completed fabricated and has no basis in fact whatsoever. But it sure sounds good now don’t it hayseed.
And how is it coming with that big freakin’ post in your eye?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pmJuan C,
yes, yawn, two year old children yawn when they are proven wrong.
do yourself a favor and get an education. You will start to sound like an educated individual.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pmComment by Valiantthehater
April 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pm‘I think therefore i’m right’
What a pretentous asshalf
#105,
Juan, the V monster is correct. The roman catholic church had to abandon support for the rapture once they started openly condoning murder. Something about the deal they made with satan or something.
Nice cult ain’t it.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pmMaybe Pelosi should shake hands with another Hussein so Republicans stop harassing her.
Maybe the problem was that Pelosi was actually trying to discuss diplomatically with Syria, instead of giving this country a whole new deal on chemical and bio US made weaponry.
Back to Iraq:
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmIt is evident that the only way to stop abuses and daily bombings of terrorists is with US cluster bombs, white phosphorous and I would like to add Orange Agent…just to be more colorful. Remember, I went so well back in Vietnam.
“your comment alone of “the millions of Iraqi children that died under the Hussein regime thanks to the fact that the UN, France, Russia, Germany†is completed fabricated”
Agreed, FTFU! But that was a big rallying cry (read: canard) for many leftists (like Chomsky, for example) in the 1990s.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmMy god the trolls are thick – what is so hard about this? A bloodbath? What do you think is happening now that would be worse? Is it worse for the civil war to happen as an all-out war, or a slow-bleed (to turn the tables on the wingnut smear) where they fight it under our suppression and interference? What is the neocon plan to stop the fighting? Wear them out? Heckuva plan, trolls. SOOO much better than redeployment or withdrawal. Please explain to me how, though, it’s not clear to anyone except the koolaid drinkers!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pmWhat if’s shouldn’t be the guiding force for our foreign policy. What if Al Qiada does ___________, What if the Iraqis ________.
The current proposal (bill) isn’t a complete withdrawl of troops. There are forces remaining and there will be quick strike forces nearby. How long do we keep our soldiers in the role of traffice cop? How long do we tell the american public to foot the bill on something we were told wouldn’t cost over $60 billion. Why hasn’t there been a draft if the scurge of terrorism is such a massive threat.
The republicans have been pushing fear without proof for far too long. My past service keeps my heart firmly with the soldiers and I believe too many have been asked to give the ultimate sacrifice for a less than honorable cause.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pmValiant:
Who the f*ck knew you werent those Rapture freaks? Did you tell you me were a Catholic? Better yet, who the f*ck cares? You are still a freak that thinks God is on your side while you support bombing children, dipsh*t. Why dont you take the highway to heaven and shot yourself. Isnt that what all Christians want? To be in heaven? Well, hurry up, bozo.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm*yawn*
“As far as stability goes…. no one knows the answer to this question. And I’m not gonna claim that I do. I will say, that I do believe that us being there, is motivating radical elements in the Middle East. IT’s ok to admit that they don’t want us there. I think if we were able to get a vote from the Iraqi Parliament on the issue, they would ask us to leave. We are holding a wolf by the ears.”
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
First, good well thought out answer. I wish most liberal, if you consider yourself one, were like you on this blog.
I believe that radical elements in the Middle East will hate us regardless of whether we were there or not. Sunnis were killing Shiites long before we got rid of Hussein. Sunnis were spewing hatred towards the USA and firing at our jet fighters long before we went into Iraq. As for the Iraqi Parliment vote. I disagree with you. I think they would vote for us to stay there. Although I have never been to Iraq, I have quite a few friends and family members that have gone there. They all say one thing, the majority of Iraqis don’t want us to leave because they know it would be complete bloodshed and everyone for themselves if we leave. Yes, much worst than what it is now.
“I do think the violence will continue. But it’s not for our guys to fight. I believe the majority of the violence is between Islamic factions that don’t like each other, and I think we are getting dangerously close to choosing a side. Which in the end will result in the placement of yet another dictator but I’m not sure that can be avoided at this point.”
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
But that is it, if violence does continue are our troops going to have to go back to stop the human right abuses that we all know will happen? and yes, Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for centuries, not argument there.
“As far as them coming over here, I hate this argument. It assumes that Al Qaeda, will only fight us where are troops are. This to me is simply dumb. I firmly believe that they will attempt another hit on us when they are ready and the opportunity warrants it. Us fighting them there didn’t stop the Spain Train bombings or the London Subway bombings. We just have to be ready when it comes. And hope our intel beats them to the punch.”
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
yes, they will try to hit us when they are ready. You have to give credit to Bush, whether eyou like him or not and if you are honest, Al Qaeda hasn’t hit our homeland and you can bet your behind that they have tried. But as much as you may hate the argument, it is very possible. There are radical elements of Islam here in the USA and they are trying hard to hit us where it hurts. What will the left do when this happen? will they keep on buring their faces in the sand and claim radical Islam doesn’t exist, that terrorism is a lie? not saying that this is your argument, but many do say this. and while yes, the 2nd amendment is great and many will have the power to defend themselves, most americans are not trained in military ways. We could fight our enemies here in our backyards and then what?
Last, but not least, I don’t want my 3 year old son to have to go back 15 years later into Iraq because Democrats got us out of there too soon. Let us get the job done now.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pmHellinabucket,
Let us say that you are right, that Republicans have been pushing fear on Americans to get Iraq War support. Is this not the same thing that Democrats and liberals are doing with Global Warming? Is this what politicians on both sides do to get you to vote for them? don’t they tell you, “If you vote for this other candidate this horrific things are going to happen!”
Aren’t Liberals telling us how horrific Republcians are, and how we should fear Republicans since they want to destroy our Constitution?
so, as I said, if we agree with you about the fear monguering from the Republican party, why do you not condemn the fear monguering that comes from the left?
if it is wrong for Republicans to do it, it is wrong for Democrats to do it.
Lastly, a lot of our legislation is based on what ifs, hellinabucket. whether it is legislation pushed by the right or left.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pmand if you are honest, Al Qaeda hasn’t hit our homeland and you can bet your behind that they have tried.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Moron. They did try… and succeeded. 9/11. Remember?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pmJuan C….
you keep on spewing your hatred and complete ignorance. Sorry child, you can’t get to Heaven if you commit suicide.
son, please for your own good, get an education. you truly sound like who you are, a perfect idiot. :)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#122,
Juan, I thought you didn’t believe Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:34 pmLast, but not least, I don’t want my 3 year old son to have to go back 15 years later into Iraq because Democrats got us out of there too soon. Let us get the job done now.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Oh, so…you support this because you fear your son is going to be there? Hhahahahahaha. Typical fanatic. IImagine this…if he dies he is going to heaven…thats good, right? Tell your fearing crap to all the parents that have lost their sons, Iraqi and Americans. Lenin quote maker…
April 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pmJuan, I thought you didn’t believe Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11?
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I dont, Ex. Thats right.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pmyou keep on spewing your hatred and complete ignorance. Sorry child, you can’t get to Heaven if you commit suicide.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Are you sure? So, pedophile priests just bought high class pass or what? ;)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAh….Thought maybe for a moment there, you had come to your senses, Juan! :)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pmCrump,
one last thing….the attacks on Spain and how Spain reacted to the bombings embolden Al Qaeda and terrorist. How the left wing government reacted to the bombing in Spain showed Al Qaeda that by killing citizens of another nation they could affect positively for al aqeda that nation’s foreign policy.
and since 9/11 our intel has beaten Al Qaeda. I don’t think it is just mere luck that we have not been hit since 9/11.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pmI want more dems in control, so when we get hit again, the ‘bucking’ of legitimate responsibility will stop the democratic party dead.
Comment by paul — April 25, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Gee Paul — did u think up that one all by yourself? … “hit again?” Please oh please name the dems that were in control of the country on September 11, 2001. [chirp chirp] — that’s what I thought — braindead zipperhead.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pmAh….Thought maybe for a moment there, you had come to your senses, Juan! :)
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
No, of course, they are the material authors…who were the ones that allow this? Too many loopholes…dont you think? BTW, I wrote something in the Kevin Tillman thread. That is real patriotism. To go all over in order to find the truth and seek justice, no matter how painful can be. Thats a patriot, Ex. In comparison, you believe what the government told you…and you feel fine with it.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pmJuan C,
more ignorance from you. Stop child. Pedophile priests, who by the way were all mostly homosexuals, will probably fry in Hell. AT the end only God knows, but you can bet your behind that God isn’t too happy with their hypocrisy.
but I do see that you swallow, pun intended, like an idiot everything and anything the anti-Catholic media throws at you.
i am sure you are aware that less than 2% of priests have committed pedophile, while in the secular world it is about 15%. Not to mention that many of our community leaders, police, judges, politicians, etc are pedophiles.
I am sure that you are aware that the president of the ACLU I think in Nebraska was caught in a pedophile scandal.
but nice try with you anti-Catholic rants. not only are you ill-informed, poorly educated, you also hate anyone that is a Roman Catholic. Much like Nero did. Is Nero your hero?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pmHow the left wing government reacted to the bombing in Spain showed Al Qaeda that by killing citizens of another nation they could affect positively for al aqeda that nation’s foreign policy.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Stupid. Aznar was president when that happened. Spanish people threw out that right wing new Franco government because it tried to incriminate ETA. People is not that stupid in Spain like 30% in the US.
Now, Sweden and Canada. Their foreign policy of attacking arab countries have really protected them from terrorists attack… wait…
April 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pmJuan C,
why are you such a pathetic human being, why? you put latinos to shame son, you truly do. Please, do yourself a favor and our race a favor. Shut up. I pity you son, i truly do.
on the other hand, you could keep on posting and amusing me with your laughable attempts at insulting me. You are so ignorant, so, so, so incredibly ingorant that you don’t even know it.
so take your pick, shut up and stop embarrasing yourself, or post and keep on amusing me.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pmValiantthehater,
You said – “They all say one thing, the majority of Iraqis don’t want us to leave because they know it would be complete bloodshed and everyone for themselves if we leave.â€
“A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less.†“Support for a U.S. withdrawal appears to be derived from a widespread perception that the presence of U.S.-led forces is having a net negative effect on the situation in Iraq. Large numbers say that the United States’ military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.†This view is held by 78 percent overall, and by 82 percent of Shias and a near-unanimous 97 percent of Sunnis. The Kurds diverge, with 56 percent taking the opposing view that the United States’ military presence is “a stabilizing force.†http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
Not sure your friend’s anecdote is reflective of the reality about the troops being their country.
You said – “But that is it, if violence does continue are our troops going to have to go back to stop the human right abuses that we all know will happen? and yes, Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for centuries, not argument there.â€
We should be concerned with the region as a whole. Our own civil war would have gotten way worse if other countries (as almost happened) would have put troops on the ground in the middle of it. We should continue to have a dialogue with all the countries in the region. It is in our long term self-interest. As far as troops going back, it may happen, but I find that to be a much more palatable (and controllable scenario) then what we currently find ourselves in.
You said – “You have to give credit to Bush, whether eyou like him or not and if you are honest, Al Qaeda hasn’t hit our homeland and you can bet your behind that they have tried. But as much as you may hate the argument, it is very possible.â€
I don’t have to give credit to Bush for this. He may or may not have thwarted an attack or two, but we will never know. It is as equally possible to say that Al Qaeda has been waiting and planning this whole time. They got the reaction they wanted out of us from the 9-11 attack.
And when I said I hate the argument, I was trying to say that it is a bit of a non-sequitor. The reason why I said that was because I’m sure another terror attack will come. But this President has done little to keep us safer. Ports still only inspect less than 5% of cargo containers coming in to our country. Hurricane Katrina showed us that the Department of Homeland Security is far from prepared to respond adequately. Our nuclear facilities don’t have proper protection nor does our food supply. Those would be real measures that the President should get after to help us feel safer.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pmAm I reading this right? 2 wrongs make a right? The carnage in Iraq is somehow equal to the possibility of Global Warming? The death our most valued resource is not on the same level as the chance humans are adding to the emissions on this planet.
The constitution is under attack. The whole reason the Gonzo thing is blowing up is because some underling supplanted into the Patriot Act verbage that bypassed current processes in the constitution. Rove himself has been calling for a Permanent Republican majority and that is not the voice of all the people in this country so Yes, there is concern.
I will condemn all fear mongering period. I served for this country because I believe in it and will not silently sit by when anyone tries to scare me one way or another.
Lastly, most of the legislation is built on true need whether it be funds, conservation, protections and the like. They are not based on what ifs. The bridge to nowhere is not a what if. The supplementals that Bush keeps asking for instead of creating an actual budget on a conflict that has lasted longer than liberating all of Europe from the Nazis isn’t a what if. It’s a paycheck to over 100,000 hired guns and over 100 private contracting companies that don’t hold to the same standard as our american fighting forces do.
thanks for answering Valiant. I don’t agree with most of what you say but I will defend your right to say it. I don’t believe the people you support would hold the same view. Prove me wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pmJuan C…
bwahahahahahaha!!! you funny guy, you sick f….ck, you are quite amusing.
Juan C a patriot….hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
you don’t only spew what the left side of the government in the USA tells you, you also spew all the far fetched, uneducated, black helicopter conspiracy theories that can be readily found all over the internet. So you may not believe part of gthe government, you believe the nutjobs that put up crap on the net. hahahahaha!!!
hey Juanito, better put on that cone shaped tin foil hat…….the government is now reading your thoughts….hurry guy, hurry, put the tin foil hat on!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pmI am sure that you are aware that the president of the ACLU I think in Nebraska was caught in a pedophile scandal.
Comment by Valiantthehater —
I’m sure you’re aware the San Diego Catholic Church had to file for bankruptcy, to shield them from all the suits brought against San Diego priests.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pmwow crazy people all over this is just an echo chamber
April 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pmeverything thing is clear with blinders on
only as strong as the weakest link so you all doomed
americans think theyre so smart and yet theyre action are so stupid
much like the romans the american empire is crumbling due to vainity
i see it here good example of american stupidity
barfly,
yes, when 99% of the suits are lies, what do you expect. Remember, anyone can file a law suit against you…duh!
I can file a law suit against you for pedophile kid. get a clue!
Once again, where is the left horror to ACLU lawyers an dmembers being caught passing out child ponography and involved in pedophile?
don’t be such a hypocrite. Most people that attack the Church for the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of homosexual priests that have done this could careless when a hero of theirs, like the ACLU does it.
so take your fake self-rightousness some where else.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pmhey Juanito, better put on that cone shaped tin foil hat…….the government is now reading your thoughts….hurry guy, hurry, put the tin foil hat on!!!
Comment by Valiantthehater —
Have a slice of yellowcake, and go sit in the corner, sucker.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pm#129,
Let’s see, since 9/11/01 the following has happened:
- The US abandoned the UN (Illegal invasion of Iraq)
- The US abandoned the Geneva treaties (Torture, rendition)
- The US abandoned its Constitution (Patriot Act, abandonment of Habeas Corpus, warrantless searches, etc…)
“Al Qaeda” has been striking all over the place. It’s just that because it hasn’t been broadcast all over TV like the sensational demolition of some office buildings that the moron class believe that all is hunky dory.
Ask the folks down in New Orleans how well the fight against “Al Qaeda” has served them. Oh, that’s right, they are a bunch of brown people. Just like Jesus was. And who really gives a flyin’ fcuk about them, except when they can be exploited of course.
How’s that post in the eye thing coming?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pmValiant,
Juan C is actually a decent guy….He is something of kooky conspiracy theorist, is a very naive about how the world works, occasionally plays fast and loose with the facts, and — worst of all — is a soccer fan….
But he is an amicable, humorous, and pleasant guy overall
April 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pmValiantthehater,
You said – “one last thing….the attacks on Spain and how Spain reacted to the bombings embolden Al Qaeda and terrorist. How the left wing government reacted to the bombing in Spain showed Al Qaeda that by killing citizens of another nation they could affect positively for al aqeda that nation’s foreign policy.â€
Why? That’s a sad way to look at that. Perhaps the people of Spain used their vote to select the leaders of their choosing. I know I certainly don’t think of Bin Laden when I’m in the voting booth. His rants don’t affect me when I pull the lever. Come on….. Al Qaeda works best when it gets press. They need the attention to recruit new whackos that are willing to blow themselves up in the name of God.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pmmmm, lets see Valiant what your God will think about me or about you:
1) you defend a religious institution that put Europe under ignorance and terror for 10 centuries, an institution that killed Jesus, an institution that neglects rights for women, an institution that has always being against the poorest people (with the exception of some groups), an institution that defends pedophiles, an institution whose leader was in the Nazi youth, an institution, that has always being against scientific development (just ask Hawkins what John Paul II asked him NOT to study…)
2) You defend an occupation that has taken thousands of innocent lives based on LIES. You know, God doesnt want you to LIE, did you? You defend torture, bombings over civilians, less rights for US citizens, you defend the actions of the leading terrorist state in the world.
3) You think calling me pendejito gets you points (I pity your son), you think calling everybody else terrorist supporter, leftist, Leninists…blah, blah, blah, makes you look good smart, whereas it makes you look like a really sad person trying to convince yourself about something. In your troubled mind you see Bolsheviks all around, you see Jihadists all around, you see people ready to kill you. You are but a sad person. How can you look at your son´s eyes and tell him: Yeah, we need to bomb people and hang their leaders because we love doing good to this planet, meanwhile avoiding yourself from the opinion of 3,000 scientists saying Climate Change is human made?
You are pathetic. But, yeah, keep on the ranting. That will make you feel good until past the night when you have to hug tight your pillow to escape the ghosts of your fears.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pmhellinabucket,
so what you are saying is that it is ok for left wingers to use fear monguering, but not for the right, right?
all I see on your post is….fear, fear, and more fear. You are terrified of the Republicans, you are terrified of Bush, of conservatives of Global Warming, etc, etc, etc.
you have proven my point. It is the left that loves using fear to get people to agree with them.
and prove you wrong. Guy, where is the government shutting down sites like thinkprogress.org, where is the Bush militia going after you and those that hate his living guts. You have the right to disagree with him, hate him and say it so in public and in private.
Every time that you say something against Bush in public, on the internet, etc and you are not arrested you are being proven wrong. You have the right to say what you feel like, and those on the right that disagree with you, know you have that right. If that was not the case, how come you aren’t in jail, how come dailyKos, thinkprogress.org, etc, have not been shut down by Bush like the Chinese government shuts down blogs that disagree and spew hate against the Chinese government.
I think you have proven yourself wrong.
but it is nice ti exchange posts without insulting each other. Thanks for the peaceful exchange.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pm“i’m not the youngest candidate,
but i am the most experienced.” -mcCAVE, today…
at what? …
April 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pmMost people that attack the Church for the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of homosexual priests that have done this could careless when a hero of theirs, like the ACLU does it.
so take your fake self-rightousness some where else.
Comment by Valiantthehater
Your heros are all chickenhawks –both the sexual, and nonsexual variety. And you think you can lecture me about “fake self-righteousness?”
That’s rich.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pmOk, Have to go now.
Hey, Ex, I appreciate it.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pmLa Vino Tinto (ValianttheHater) has a crush on me, I guess. ;)
“an institution that has always being against the poorest people”
Actually, Juan, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest private charitable organization in the world.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pmCrump,
I hate to say this, but I am 50% Spanish, my father’s family is all from Spain. I have plenty of family and friends in Spain. Believe me, Al Qaeda changed the minds of the citizens of Spain. It happened. I know it is sad to say, but it is true.
the right wing government was winning in Spain, there was no doubt before the bombing that the right wing governmnet was going to win and stay in power and that it was going to win seats. Then the bombings happened, the Spaniards got scared and Al Qaeda changed their mind.
there is a few story of Spanish soldiers huggind and apologizing to the American troops when the Spanish left wing government asked them to leave Iraq. So many Spanish soldiers returned home in shame. They were ashamed they left their fellow American soldiers to fight a war that Spain should be fighting with them.
yes, something the main stream media will not report or tell you, but it is true. These are true events.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pmCrump’s Brother, The Spain bombings were by the Basque (?) Sepratist and the backlash voting occured because the lies the reigning govt. gave the people. They were told it was Al Qiada and were pissed off when it was found out not to be. That has never been fully discussed in this country. We just think Al Qiada was responsible.
Exley, I will say that you come with a different view but don’t come with venom and insults. You may dodge the question or reword it to suit a particular view but you aren’t the arrogant insulter like others that lurk here.
My hat’s off to you and let the debates continue.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pmActually, Juan, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest private charitable organization in the world.
Comment by Exley — April 25, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Yeah? I bet the Pope eats thrice a day. If he could just sell all that gold from the Vatican banks, people in Africa would eat at least some day in the week.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“so what you are saying is that it is ok for left wingers to use fear monguering, but not for the right, right?”
Who’s had more experience at it? Remember Mcarthy?
“all I see on your post is….fear, fear, and more fear. You are terrified of the Republicans, you are terrified of Bush, of conservatives of Global Warming, etc, etc, etc.”
Coming from someone who swallowed yellowcake whole, that’s hilarious! Keep going . . .
“you have proven my point. It is the left that loves using fear to get people to agree with them.” Examples? Not just one person commenting anonymously on a political website.
“Yellow Peril,” “Domino Theory,” “Red Menace,” all are conservative catch-phrases, are they not?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pmActually, Juan, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest private charitable organization in the world.
Comment by Exley
Well, they ought to; they are also the richest organization in the world, are they not? Throwing the poor a few scraps (comparatively speaking) is the least they could do.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pmThe feeling is mutual, HiB…I appreciate good, “clean,” amicable debates here at TP. When it gets nasty and personal, it is just not pleasant nor infomative…Agreed. Let the debates continue!
Okay, it’s after 6:00….Time for Happy Hour. I hear Johnnie Walker calling….Good night, folks.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pm>em>Spain’s hard-line conservative leader, Jose Aznar, ardently backed Bush on ideological grounds, while over 90 percent of Spaniards bitterly opposed their nation’s dispatch of troops to Iraq.
The bombs that killed 200 people in Madrid just before the March elections did not terrorize Spaniards into quitting Iraq, as enraged American neocons falsely claimed. This attack crystallized public anger over the misbegotten Iraq expedition. Spain’s new Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, made good on campaign pledges by immediately joining the Coalition of the Unwilling by withdrawing troops from Iraq, a move that was wildly popular in Spain. Honduras and the Dominican Republic followed suit.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm“the right wing government was winning in Spain, there was no doubt before the bombing that the right wing governmnet was going to win and stay in power and that it was going to win seats. Then the bombings happened, the Spaniards got scared and Al Qaeda changed their mind.”
Nice attempt at rewriting history, but they voted the rightwingers out for having first lied, that the attacks were carried out by Basque separatists. The Spanish became incensed with their “leaders” for lying to them, and turned them out of office. To bad we can’t do the same.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pmbarfly,
here is one example for you……Global Warming….or how about the left wing favorite phrase of the 1970s, Global Icing. Not sure which one to believe now, right?
or how about the left wing phrases…..Overpopulation. Oh no, overpopulation. according to left wingers in the 1960s, by 1990 the USA was not going to exist and it was going to be civil war because of OH NO! overpopulation!
yes, fear monguering from the left.
too easy barfly, way too easy.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pmOnce again vapid, you came close to being human and have points but couldn’t quite turn the corner. Oh well.
Point: over 100,000 hired guns are currently in Iraq and paid by the USA. They are being paid, in some cases, over $30,000 a month. This conflict couldn’t be run without them but this administration doesn’t want to talk about them. That’s not fear it’s a fact. Just because you can’t grasp it doesn’t make it any less true.
Karl Rove has touted his Permanent Republican rule for years now and that isn’t fear it’s another fact. It’s also a fact that you can’t have a democracy with one party rule. Can’t grasp that. Not my problem but still a fact.
Your last rant about talking against Bush in public and not being rounded up. You jumped a vast canyon of stupidity. Never said it was like that but you imposed that on me. Dumb, wrong, ignorant and void of useful purpose in proving a point. It is our patriotic duty to question authority. You don’t want to use it, again, not my problem.
For every daily Kos and TP there is a RedState and a Michael Savage so your off base. Hell your off the field. Your playing chess in a swimming pool and are mad because the other “team” scored a touchdown.
You have been asked to prove things and you haven’t. You were asked to stand behind Mrs. Bush’s statement of suffering but couldn’t/wouldn’t. But that didn’t stop you from throwing insults. That just opened you up to insults and a view that you won’t be taken seriously.
You may believe you have proven me wrong, but you only proved that to yourself. You haven’t shown anything that is counter to what I’ve written.
I don’t care if McCain or Pelosi didn’t hear the General. The General wasn’t going to be grilled or praised. He made a showing and I’m pretty sure minutes were taken so all of what was said is available to those who missed it.
Maybe you should read it Valiant and come back with a viewpoint on it.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pmthis is my favorite example barfly………
The left says…..”fear the Republicans because they use fear to get you to believe them.”
do I really need say more.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pmhellinabucket,
c’mon guy, I am trying to be respectful despite of our exchange of insults in the past. Keep it civil.
1)As for the hired guns, not sure if you are right, but more than willing to look into it.
2)Did you not say that the right doesn’t allow freedom of speech? I apologize if I miss read you post. But if you did say this, and I believe you did, freedom speech is cherished by both sides of the eisle. I could speak my mind in the 1990s against clinton without fear of being arrested, just like today you can speak your mind against Bush without being arrested.
3)I am not sure if patriotism only means questioning authority. I think there are many levels of patriotism, but there are elements on both side of the eisle that use this questioning authority thing and reach treason.
4)I think Michael Savage is an idiot that does great harm to the right wing and conservatives, just like Al Franken and other wackos that are on both sides of the eisle.
5)Let me be the first one to apologize if you felt insulted by my last post to you. I sincerely apologize.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm“The left says…..â€fear the Republicans because they use fear to get you to believe them.â€
do I really need say more.”
Comment by Valiantthehater
Well, if you’re trying to prove a case, lawyerette, you’ll have to do better than that. Who is this “the left?” I’d like to meet him.
Global Winter was a scenario out forth when our methods of data generation were much cruder than today. Our computers were little more than glorified calculators – so your point here is what? That better technology yeilds better forecasting models?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pmhellinabucket,
I honestly believe that whether you are ex-President Clinton or current President Bush, you suffer immensely when you sign orders to have troops to go into battle. You do suffer as much as the families, as the mothers, fathers, and other family members when they lose a loved one in the battlefield.
As a President, you don’t only lose one son, or daughter. You lose many. FDR lost 250,000 soldiers in WWII, do you think he did not suffer the loss of each one of these brave soldiers.
Clilnton lost soldiers in Somolia and in Kosovo, do you not think he suffered immensley?
Bush the same thing.
Yes, you are right, with my insults I do more harm to my cause than good, that is why I will have meaningful and peaceful exchanges with those that treat me with respect. I only ask the same.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pmbarfly,
who is the left, are you kidding me? please. you know who the left is, just liek you know who the right is. or ar eyou the only one allowed to use terms like right and left as you did earlier?
and please nice way to excuse the left wingers in the 1970s when they used fear to get everyone to believe in Global Icing. Please, the left uses fear as much if not more than the right. Fact of life, if you don’t want to believe it, that is on you. Keep on burying your head in the sand.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pmAs a President, you don’t only lose one son, or daughter. You lose many. FDR lost 250,000 soldiers in WWII, do you think he did not suffer the loss of each one of these brave soldiers.
Oh, please. Bush isn’t qualfied to oil the wheels of FDR’s chair. And he’s no modern-day Winston Churchill, either. If you want to compare him to another president, try Grant, or Hoover.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pmRepugs are screaming about Pelosi not attending this appearance, ignoring the private phone conversation between them last evening, but they are silent on McCain’s skipping the appearance because of a campaign date.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:35 pmEvery week brings another example of blatant unabashed hypocricy on the part of repugs.
“who is the left, are you kidding me? ”
So, anonymous posters represent a whole political movement? Go over to Red State and see what bestialities you endorse, simply because they do.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pmYes, you are right, with my insults I do more harm to my cause than good, that is why I will have meaningful and peaceful exchanges with those that treat me with respect. I only ask the same.
Comment by Valiantthehater — April 25, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I propose you this:
1) no more insults
2) no more leftists/rightists are this, or that
3) no more written lying laughter (hahahaha, etc.)
4) no more lies
5) no more spell checks (in a bad way)
6) no more words to demean the other: son, sparky, little one, etc…
7) no more country references in order to describe the other
8) quotes with source
9) mo more broad generalizations.
I will apply these above for myself, too. Im trying to raise the debate. Just that. Are you in, Valiant?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pmValiantscumsuckingbottomfeedingwhitetrash….just STFU, you input to anything irrelevant, you have proving yourself to be a totally worthless pile of Repuke talking points. FYalltohell and back.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pmGosh, I hate to be a pest about the past, but I recall that during the 2004 election, Republicans tried to make a big deal out of the fact that Kerry had missed 119 votes in 2003. This was supposed to be further proof of Kerry’s lack of character. To date in the current congress, I believe McCain has missed over 200 votes. Republicans. You must be real pissed about McCain’s character problems.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pmand please nice way to excuse the left wingers in the 1970s when they used fear to get everyone to believe in Global Icing.
Mmmmmm! Butter cream frosting!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:08 pm#24 –
Valiant (gee, what an ironic moniker),
How is it un-American to desire for strategic redeployment away from the quagmire in Iraq (in which our presence is breeding MORE terrorists and FUELING alQaeda) and back into Afghanistan (which has quietly fallen back into the hands on alQaeda in our absense)? How is it un-American to save our soldiers lives from an unwinnable civil struggle (admitted to be thus by many military & political personnel including Vietnam War Hawk Kissinger) and countless billions of treasure?
It is more un-American to denounce your political opponents (who are sinply exercising their First Amendment right to free though and debate as well as practicing their democratic duty to question and criticize that which is clearly flawed) as tatamount to traitors than to propose our greatly-overstretched and over-burdened military focus on our (former?) Number One Most Wanted — Osama bin Laden.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:14 pmre: Valiantthehater’s various comments: The Speaker conversed with Gen. Petraeus by telephone for 30 minutes. Plenty of time for each to be informed about the others views. Secondly: where did he/she/it get the idea that the war is above politics? Politicians have always run wars. When they do very well (win); they are often called statesmen. Then there is that little point in the U.S. Constitution that makes the military forces subordinate to the civilian authority. Should the civilian authorities make a political decision that any general officer feels he/she cannot accept a tastefully written resignation will always be accepted. Otherwise, the officer can shut up and do his/her job.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pmps – I always preferred Bunyan’s original: “Valiant for Truth”.
D.E. Stamate
USN (ret)
Gee, I don’t know, TP? You don’t think John McCain can get ahold of Gen Petraeus when he wantrs or needs to???
TP looks for a mountain settles for another molehill….
April 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pmProudCALiberal – Ahhh…. Another original thinker from CA!!
I am entertained when the New Age semantics crowd defines “withdrawal” and “re-deployment” as anything other than ’surrender”. In the FIRST place, a battle startegy is NEVER deliberately telegraphed to the enemy unless you are running a disinformation campaign. SECOND, this Congress is attempting to hamstring our military leaders and members by running these operations from DC. As I have noted before, the LAST great Democrat with a strong defense posture was JFK – - and I DO NOT mean that lying piece of work, JFKerry.
Tooodles…….
April 25th, 2007 at 8:35 pmValiantthehater -
Is this “global icing” you repeatedly refer to what Carl Sagan called “nuclear winter”? That would be my guess, but it is only a guess.
If so – “nuclear winter” is an entirely different matter from “global warming.” These are different predicted phenomena, with different bases; to try to claim this as a situation where “the left said one thing, and now it’s trying to say another” is to completely gloss over the scientific nature of the respective claims.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:57 pmI’m a bit confused. When Pelosi went to Iran, she was slammed for trying to meddle where she didn’t belong. Now she’s being attacked for “not being enough of a leader in wartime.” Which is it, wingnuts?
April 26th, 2007 at 6:52 amI am entertained when the New Age semantics crowd defines “withdrawal†and “re-deployment†as anything other than ’surrenderâ€.
Well. Who are we surrendering to, exactly? The insurgents that we armed before, or the insurgents that we’re arming now? The people we went over there to liberate, or the people that we’re now an occupying force over?
Then again, assuming it’s not ludicrous to call it “surrender”, so frigging what? We’re going to “surrender” eventually, unless we want to stay indefinitely…oh, wait. That was the plan all along. Never mind.
There’s no shame in surrendering an unholdable position. Unless you’re clinically insane.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:56 amForeign Exchange Tables
You don’t lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case. ~ Ken Kesey
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 amDebt Consolidation Loan
Debt control services debt nationally who offers debt control.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:07 amNelly Fertado
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pminterest new hampshire
April 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm