but make up their minds what he said before they heard the speech?
What kind of congressmen have we got?
2007-09-13 15:42:31 · 22 answers · asked by LoneStar 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Goldenrae9--they voted and it was unanimous, he was the dems pick.
2007-09-13 15:50:44 · update #1
Knight In A savage L…--I don't know how you could be so naive, honey!
2007-09-13 15:52:32 · update #2
The kind that only believe what they want to hear as the truth..........
2007-09-13 15:45:22 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Two self-avowed liberal Democrats from the Brookings Institute, O'Hanlon and Pollack, presented a report on Iraq that was nearly identical to General Petraeus'.
This information was given to Congress weeks before Lantos, Wexler, Clinton , Levin and the other Soros owned Dems branded Petraeus as a puppet for Bush.
The DNC owns the kind of Congressmen who belong under FBI investigation.
Perhaps 'identical' should have been 'similar'.
In either case, the left deserves to drown in the sewage of their treachery.
2007-09-13 21:56:36 · answer #2 · answered by illiberal Illuminati 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Goldenrae9.... perhaps a little education BEFORE you call others stupid....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16825601/
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday voted unanimously to confirm the nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command U.S. troops in Iraq at a time when President Bush is building up American forces there.
Petraeus’ 81-0 approval was in contrast to the widespread public and congressional opposition to Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Get off the "kool aid" and into school.
They are simply desperate measures from the dems. A "stop gap" if you will. Something to take the heat off and when it looked like it was going to back fire... They did what they do best... THROW THEM THE HECK UNDER THE BUS!
They are done with Sheehan....
They are done with Lieberman...
Ride is getting a little bumpy huh... well you get the point.
2007-09-13 17:31:23 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think attacking General Petraeus was a serious blunder on the Democrats part. The man has impeccable character and an exemplary record. No one in the world can point to anything to suggest that he is anything other than a man of honor. Yet the Democrats are on record as accusing him of simply delivering a politically motivated, White House controlled, report. The General stated that it was not. He claims the report is his and his alone based on the facts and his own interpretation of events. He sat and took questions for hours with no White House representative looking over his shoulder.
Who are you going to believe? The General who has nothing to gain and his honor to loose by lying or the Democrats who would say and do anything to win the argument?
Attacking the President is fair game, I suppose. But to attack a the General who leads our troops in harms way is a serious miscalculation. It may play really big to the far, far left but it does not to most Americans who happen to love the military and fear terrorism.
.
2007-09-13 15:58:57 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Here allow me to draw you a picture....
A good and talented man, get a position of high responsibility.
This position is of such high responsibility, that they are the ones that critique their own achievment.
A very important situation comes up, where their boss is putting pressure ont hem, that there is no room for failure.
The situation starts looking less than successful.
Do you think that person is going to stick their own head on the chopping block, for these failures?
maybe 1 in 100 billion would, the rest would just consider it stupdity.
2007-09-13 16:33:57 · answer #5 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i presumed the Bush White domicile grew to become into writing the document for wide-unfold Petraeus. So if this is like quite a few different white domicile comments it truly is going to be a comedian tale. i desire this is crammed with sturdy information through fact this is finding like troops ought to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan through fact it form of feels element are not any going so nicely there.
2016-11-10 09:39:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny, I was bringing up the same question to Dems on here too.
And they all made up these excuses like he's still a Bush stooge.
But the Dems in Congress voted for him!
2007-09-14 09:17:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
okay, so this should totally be the same from either side... why in the world would it be okay to call someone a liar before they have even spoken? who is proud to call that their party? I don't understand that. At least give the man a chance before calling him a liar (which we all knew would come anyway), but doesn't doing it BEFOREHAND show what kind of people certain dems are? what is the defense to that?
2007-09-13 15:48:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, sugarpie, honeybun, Yellow Rose of Texas,
The Defea-o-crats are all a bunch of Commie/Socialists/Libs who don't give a D*** about anything but getting re-elected and bashing the Honorable Mr. Bush!
2007-09-13 21:20:12 · answer #9 · answered by trebor namyl hcaeb 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I cannot understand the minds of Liberals. Why did they vote for the war, before they voted against it?-John Kerry
2007-09-13 23:06:12 · answer #10 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its because they are the same congress men who allow this war to go on... all they have to do is stop all other legislation untill this war issue has been settled. They talk all this smack about how they want to bring the troops home but when it gets down to action they turn the other way.
2007-09-13 15:48:59 · answer #11 · answered by Knight In A savage Land 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋