Welcome to PatsFans.com

The leading Democrats' only response

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Apr 4, 2007.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    "Bush is dead wrong."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    The Politics of Cut and Run: Failed in Korea, failed in Southeast Asia, would fail in the Middle East.

    The Politics of See it Through to the end: Won in WWI, won in WWII, will win again in the Middle East.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Tuesday the Democratically-controlled Congress must force President Bush to change course in Iraq, but the presidential candidate stopped short of offering support for a measure that proposes to cut off most of the funds for fighting the war.

    "What I think is the president is dead wrong," Edwards told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. "He is just dead wrong. If the president vetoes the bill that provides funding for the troops, then President Bush is not providing support and funding for the troops because he is the one who stopped the funding, and I think it's the responsibility of the Congress if he does that to stand firm, stand strong, send him another bill that provides funding for the troops by provides to start bringing the troops home."

    However Edwards, who has long urged Democrats in Congress to use their appropriations power to alter the president's policy, stopped short of supporting a measure backed by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats that calls for nearly a complete cut off of funds after March 31, 2008. The bill, written by war opponent Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, would provide money only for fighting Al-Qaeda, training Iraqis, and protecting American government workers.

    "I can't tell ... from the description I've heard, enough about the specifics," he said "I think that what we ought to be doing is standing firm, standing strong and forcing this president to start drawing down troops," he said.

    ... more:

    http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/



    //
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,829
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    You really believe all of the crap that the White House feeds you don't you?? You should seriously look at both sides of the argument, but am sure that this suggestion will be dismissed as a leftist rant. There is more to this story than what is being said by GWB, Rush, Savage, Coulter and crew.
  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I don't believe this bill is about getting the troops out. I'm convinced that this war in Iraq will not make things better in the ME a month from now, a year from now or even ten or fifty years from now. Eventually that will become clear to everyone. At that point we'll leave; but this pending bill won't have any effect on when that happens. What this bill will help to accomplish, even though it will never become law, is make it crystal clear to those that don't pay much attention to politics that its the Shrub's war and his alone. America will return to being a nation that strikes second not first, and everyone who found their way into Bush's camp, even the likes of Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, will see their careers in politics take a major hit.

    Oh and while all this is going on, Osama will live to ripe old age without having suffered any consequences for his actions.
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Who?............
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    That's sort of silly argument. You look at the issue in black and white. During the World Wars there was no choice but fight until the other side surrendered. If a diplomatic solution could have been reached, the wars would have ended sooner with far less loss of life. In the case of Hitler, there was no way to reach a diplomatic solution. In the case of Japan, we were making progress, but got impatient and instead introduced the world to nuclear warfare.

    In the case of Korea, once the Chinese were involved, we were fought to a standstill. Could we have won? Who knows? Maybe we would have started WWIII with China and the Soviets against us. At any rate, our leaders were far wiser than you, and opted to prevent further death and destruction by negotiating peace. North Korea will find its way, just as Vietnam is slowly finding its way, and as China is finding it's way. War might seem like an easy solution, but (1) it's not and (2) to think that way, you have to think death and destruction are preferable to dictatorship. I myself would rather live under a dictator than be dead, because at least there would be hope of change.
  6. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    If you don't think I've studied both sides of the argument, that's your problem. I've bent over backwards listening to the critics. I don't get Fox, I don't subscribe to Rush, I have heard Michael Savage one time in my life for an hour, and I read Coulter only when she is referenced on Drudge. I DO watch Bush whenever he does a press conference.

    There is Bush's plan and then there are those who oppose it; these critics have NO plan, save cut and run, but they love to pick apart Bush's, Rumsfeld's, and the U.S. military's efforts in fighting the war on terror. To put it bluntly, that suks way too much.

    When you or anybody can come up with a *feasible* way to deal with terrorism that we are facing on the global level, feel free to post it.

    Until then all further attacks on what Bush is doing are just contrary attempts to derail the war against terror, an effort that has borne good fruits and promises to bear even more, much more. Such contrary efforts do, indeed, come as close to being treasonous as I have ever seen.


    //
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,805
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -7

    Remember what Ann Richards said "don't ever underestimate little George Bush"
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Yeah, sure, everybody will "find their way" according to your scenario. And while traveling this "way", how many will die? How many will die miserable deaths, emaciated, shriveled up, living corpses with hollowed empty eyes??? How many will be blown to pieces, have legs, arms, eyes, and faces torn to shreds??

    Yes, that's one way of "finding their way", but it's not what I want, and it's certainly not what most people would want. It is not what Bush or any other truly compassionate American wants, either.

    But, of course, my line of thinking is so "silly" and yours, Patters, is so much more humane. Sure thing.


    //
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    May she rest in peace.



    //
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    Well, more than 30,000 civilians have died in the war on Iraq, and that doesn't include people who have died indirectly, i.e., as a result of lack of electricity or good hospital care. Why spend billions killing people, when that same money could be used, for instance, to help the needy in Africa or to help countries like South Africa get on more solid footing.

    Your point was silly because you're comparing WWI and II with much smaller and very different wars. Not all wars are equal.
  11. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Because the insurgent factions are all settling old scores and trying to get control of the nation of Iraq. And if the U.N. won't do anything, then somebody has to, and that somebody is the U.S. Thank God for Geo Bush and those with backbone in the U.S.A.!

    Billions upon billions upon billions have been dumped onto people in Africa and other places for the past forty years, with very mixed results. So many times it is stolen and misused in other ways.

    Meanwhile, there are stoked up militanized crazies who want to take over Iraq, the Middle East and the entire world. YOU may not care, but I do. If they are willing to use their children as suicide bombers, as they have shown, they need to be stopped. Nothing short of a military victory will do this.



    //
  12. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Oh, really?

    Was 9/11 "silly"??

    Was the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers "silly"??

    Was the attack on the Pentagon "silly"??

    Was the plane targeted on the White House/Congress "silly"??


    I think your definition of "silly" is not the same as mine.





    //
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    Your point was silly, but the wars and attacks obviously are not. It sounds like from your point of view anyone can justify any war using the logic that winning at all costs is the only option.
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0




    I think your argument is silly. Totally vacuous.



    //

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>