Politics - 14 September 2007

what do you think of him?

2007-09-14 11:02:22 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm mainly looking for repsonses from anyone bust mostly middle of the road Democrats.

I'm not against them saying their peace but if it's not constructive and they are being hypocrites or if it passes the line from free speech to treason I'm not going to listen.

Do you in the middle not like those people, and same to Republicans what do you think of the people further to the right do you think it hurts Republicans?

It seems both people when debating bring up the far extremes on both sides so does it make you mad that those extremes are giving the other party ammo against your beliefs based on the extreme people?

2007-09-14 10:55:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

When ever I post questions asking why we give a pat on the back to people who walk all over our laws by coming here illegally people call me Hitler.

2007-09-14 10:51:51 · 35 answers · asked by Ethan M 5

Will any Self Respecting Democratic Leaders jump on board and get behind this American victory?

2007-09-14 10:47:29 · 20 answers · asked by mbush40 6

2007-09-14 10:42:18 · 20 answers · asked by SQD 2

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296712,00.html

Bush and the GOP are back, according to the latest polls, which show the surge is working, and we are winning the War!

2007-09-14 10:36:49 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous

Communist China recalls.

I know that this is already old news.

It's just for the sake of your teeth and reading pleasure though.

http://www.usrecallnews.com/2007/08/list-of-chinese-toothpaste-recalls.html

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

2007-09-14 10:32:35 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

How do you talk to a stupid ignorant democrat?

2007-09-14 10:32:33 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

I can't wait till the day there are parades for Bush in the streets of Iraq, how long will it take till then?

2007-09-14 10:25:27 · 13 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6

The anti-Iraq-war crowd is always quick to say they “support the troops.” But it’s not an expression of support when you accuse the top “troop” of lying, cherry-picking facts, and serving as a uniformed mouthpiece for the president, especially when all evidence is to the contrary.

That’s exactly what MoveOn.org has done with its full-page ad in the New York Times, accusing the top “troop” — four-star Gen. David Petraeus — of “betraying” the nation he has sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Many top Democrats — accepting backing from MoveOn and refusing to take a public stance against the organization’s very public condemnation of the general — are also guilty by association.

Worse, during this week’s Iraq-report hearings, many of those same Democrats lied on the record by expressing “respect” for the “distinguished” and “honorable” service of both Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the one hand, then accusing both men of presenting a report that required — in the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton — “the willing suspension of disbelief.”

They can’t have it both ways. Petraeus cannot be an honorable man (honorable men only tell the truth), and at the same time a liar who would betray his country. He’s one or the other.

The problem for the Dems is that they — and most of the country — know he’s the former. The Dems also know that he is the ranking American soldier in Iraq, and whether or not they support the war, they’ve all been proclaiming support for the troops despite how hollow that support may ring.

Petraeus’s truth is a serious problem for the Dems, and one that was foretold by one of their own, Congressman Jim Clyburn, a few months ago.

When asked what the Democrats would do if Petraeus returned in September with good news about real progress in Iraq, Clyburn — who I’m ashamed to admit hails from my own state of South Carolina — said, “Well, that would be a real grave problem for us, no question about it.” Why? Because politics and power are far more important to the Dems than an American victory in Iraq.

They know it. They dare not for political reasons admit it: just like they dare not admit their contempt for Petraeus because he is the starched, polished, and bemedaled symbol of what they all along have claimed to support: which is “the troops” in Iraq.

As Congressman Roy Blunt said:

It’s not every day that sees a four-star general, a Princeton Ph.D., a recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and the chief author of the Army’s definitive counterinsurgency manual testify before Congress. But in Gen. Petraeus, my colleagues were presented with every bit of that assembled expertise in the form of a single man.

Again, this is part of the problem for the Democrats, because as they well-know, Petraeus is simply too distinguished, too educated, too decorated, too experienced, and too believable to the American people to suit the Dems.

Simply put, Petraeus entered the halls of Congress this week, a strong man armed with the truth. And it was not the truth they wanted to hear. Nor was it the truth some of their supporters, like MoveOn.org, wanted to hear. The MoveOn crowd knew the honorable and believable general was coming, so they preempted the truth with their $65,000 smear (The Times cut them a very big break on a $181,000 ad), and it backfired on all of them.

Sure, the Dems say they support the troops, but only because they see the rank-and-file troops as being too young, dumb, and inexperienced to know what’s best for them. The Dems will publicly proclaim that the troops have performed magnificently, yet they say their efforts have failed.

Sen. Joe Biden loves to publicly refer to soldiers as “kids.” And they — the big congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill — are best suited to make wartime strategic and tactical decisions for those “kids.”

In other words, the Dems want to keep the troops in their places. The Dems want to appear to the rest of America that they have the troops best interests at heart. The Dems want the troops’ votes, and they are stymied by the fact that in an unpopular war, the military enlistment and reenlistment rates continue to meet or exceed goal, and the troops — by and large — don’t vote for Democrats.

So the Left in this country actually has two problems when it comes to Iraq: First, we’re making solid gains in a very tough counterinsurgency. Petraeus and Crocker have reported the situation as they know it to be, and as Clyburn says, that’s “a real grave problem” for the Dems.

Second, the Left simply doesn’t understand the modern American military. These aren’t “kids.” These are professionals. And serving among these professionals are literally thousands of potential Petraeuses. Of course, they won’t all wear stars, because the competition for such lofty rank is so keen, their peers and competitors so sharp. But what the Left doesn’t understand — and what was so obvious to me in Iraq, and now watching the hearings here this week — is that the troops are reflected in Petraeus, and Petraeus can be seen in them.

2007-09-14 10:12:44 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.

Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth — and challenge them.

In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation’s history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. We are just beginning to learn how to defend ourselves. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.

Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations — as past generations fought for us.

Say frankly that if we don’t have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are — and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.

It is rare for politicians to talk this way. But it is not unprecedented. In 1940, Hitler’s armies were wiping off the map one European nation after another. In Britain, many people believed the wisest course was not to fight the Nazis but to negotiate a diplomatic settlement, to address the legitimate grievances of the German people.

On May 13, 1940 Winston Churchill entered the House of Commons for the first time as British Prime Minister. Next to him was Neville Chamberlain, the outgoing PM. Chamberlain was greeted with cheers. Churchill was not.

Churchill didn’t tell the officials and the public what they wanted to hear. He told them what they needed to hear: that it would be both wrong and unproductive to attempt to appease tyrants.

He famously said: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.”

It is possible the current conflict will be less lethal than World War II. But it will last longer — it already has. What policy would a Churchillian presidential candidate adopt? Churchill said: “You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.”

Any candidate supporting this approach would have only disdain for such groups as MoveOn.org which this week accused General David Petraeus of “betrayal” for refusing to accept defeat in the Battle of Iraq

After Gen. Petraeus’s initial testimony, both the Washington Post and the Washington Times headlined his support for troop reductions next year. But, by definition, a “surge” subsides. Petraeus has always intended to transfer responsibility for security to Iraqis — he just wants to decide when and where, based on conditions on the ground, not legislation passed in Washington.

The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus’ report. Its top story: “Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq.” It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America’s enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America’s friend is more perilous than to be America’s enemy.

The real news in Petraeus’s testimony: Americans troops have been beating al-Qaeda in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn’t want Iraq to be an America ally in the war with Militant Islamism.

On several occasions over the past three decades, Tehran has sent murderers to kill Americans. On none of those occasion has the United States responded forcefully. The mullahs are betting there will be no break with that precedent — not by the current occupant of the Oval Office and not by whoever replaces him in 2009.

I suspect more than a few Americans would vote for a candidate who tells us the mullahs are dead wrong.

2007-09-14 10:08:55 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

The Federal Office of Monetary Control finally admitted there was a gorilla in the room as far as the economy is concerned. In their recent release they concluded the economy was more of a concern than inflation. To combat recession, the FOMC will likely start dropping interest rates.
Economic data released for August indicates a falling economy. This will not bode well for the Republicans during the upcoming elections. With deficit spending still high and the dollars still losing value on the currency market, the last thing we need is a recession.
With a huge federal deficit, an endless war in Iraq, and a possible recession, what exactly can a Republican presidential candidate offer America?

2007-09-14 09:56:09 · 24 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6

Think about the petty millions she is raising for her campaign and she couldn't find a felon donating peanuts in comparison to the U.S. Gov budget ? How can you trust her to be on the straights with some of her old cronies from Rose Law firm that are convicted felons if she makes it to the W.H.?
Before anyone slams GW and his cronies, please cite donor name and felony convictions.

2007-09-14 09:54:38 · 15 answers · asked by labdoctor 5

I'm a liberal and was just curious. I'm very open minded and would just really like to hear a few things. Thanks

2007-09-14 09:44:45 · 36 answers · asked by ? 3

and then complain when companies start outsourcing or moving entire enterprises overseas?

2007-09-14 09:36:45 · 5 answers · asked by pot roast 1

It is a small party, but it seeks to replace both Democrat and Republican candidates by 2024. Are you fed up with the liberal and conservative bullshit? Then stand up for the middle, the people that want to live their life free of harm, free of hate.

2007-09-14 09:34:03 · 5 answers · asked by russiancommandosniper 1

2007-09-14 09:33:31 · 15 answers · asked by aspiring_paranormal_journalist 4

when we leave? do we have to stay forever then
How many dead and maimed will it take until we loose?
How much money until its not worth it?
is there any limit to the price of this victory?

2007-09-14 09:33:11 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

why dont the Iraq's just use the America Consitution and Bill of right's and go from there???

2007-09-14 09:31:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

Next question in this series will be:
Karl Rover
Donny Rummy
Condi Rice-a-roni
John Asscroft
Paul Wolf (in sheeps clothing) itz
Last but not least:
Dubya
Watch for those questions! Coming soon!

2007-09-14 09:30:07 · 13 answers · asked by ? 3

2007-09-14 09:27:23 · 19 answers · asked by SEXIEST AVATAR™ is HERE. 6

if so ,in what way...also did it sway you in either direction politically?

2007-09-14 09:22:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who said yesterday on CNN that American blood is a small price to pay for for our objectives in the middle east

2007-09-14 09:16:55 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have been ranting about this for months, have any of you read about this?

What are your thoughts?

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

2007-09-14 09:14:26 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

America was founded because a group of people go tired of the Tyrany of their government.
America was founded to protect individual rights, rather than political power.
America was founded to create a government strong enough to protect individual liberties and provide stability without creating a despotic state which would destroy the liberties it was intended to preserve.
America was founded under the ideal that ALL people are created equally.


now under these founding ideals, how is being liberal anti-american, when most liberals are fighting for the exact things that this country was founded on. Wouldnt it be the other way around, that the group trying to prohibit individual rights, and the group who is letting the government destroy that which it was created to protect...would actually be anti-american.

2007-09-14 09:06:06 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

The subprime meltdown has finally spread to the overall economy and the country is falling into recession. Why is no one concerned?

2007-09-14 09:04:20 · 25 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5

One day you wake up and you're worshiped as the absolute ruler of a tribe of people. The only way to get food would be to go out into the jungle and hunt for animals all day. Would you have them divide the meat among everyone; including the slightly effeminate males who sat in the tents braiding each others hair all day instead of hunting, or only let those who hunted for the meat and contributed keep and eat it?

2007-09-14 09:03:06 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

We all knew this, but now it's official:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-tavis_N.htm?csp=34

2007-09-14 08:57:57 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you really believe he wants to continue in this job? Please. The Vacationing King is SO DONE with being President of this country. It's harder than he thought it would be, and he's looking forward to his exodus from the White House. In fact, I bet it's the only thing for which he has EVER had an exit strategy.

So what makes you think he wants to continue to be President?

2007-09-14 08:56:36 · 10 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6

What a cowardly network. Real pansies.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-tavis_N.htm?csp=34

2007-09-14 08:51:12 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous