Let me guess. This is the Democrats fault. If they would just concede the elections, then the "terrorists" wouldn't have to try and influence the election. I'm right, aren't I?

And Lindsey Graham's latest "chaos in Iraq" statement to AP seems to dovetail nicely with the terrorists, MSM and Dems. I keep wondering, whose side is Sen. Graham on? He continually undermines the GOP prospects in Congress and the Pres!

seamus

Of course they believe it's the Democrats fault!
That's why they want the voters to vote Republican because the terrorists don't want you to. Such BS. I am sorry but that tactic is not going to work this time.

The people have said.... fool me once, fool me twice but.... no more.

It is perhaps fair to blame some for being so weak of heart and gut that murderers THINK they can be so easily influenced. But of course they can't be - the left had mainly decided to cut and run long before the latest spike in violence.

Lindsay Graham is a pompous, prating, preening peacock who loves nothing more than the sound of his own voice. I fully expect Strom to return at any moment, just to slap Graham silly.

"Violence in Iraq will continue to get worse until the November elections."

What flavor Kool-Aid is that?

The violence is increasing because the stability of the country is deteriorating.

And hey - whatever happened to your "good news from Iraq" reports? I miss them.

I totally agree with Jim's opinion of Graham. As long as he can get a microphone, he doesn't care what harm he does to his party. About the Ford ad, this response is typical of the Ford family. When a Ford is indicted, standing operating procedure is to scream racism. When they vote dead people and get caught, it's racism. When there's a critical ad, it's racism. When his father didn't do as well as he thought he should in a congressional race, Ford Sr. called people who voted against him "white devils." Been that way for thirty years here in Memphis. Always worked before. Makes sense he thinks screaming racism will work again.

62,537,400 people died in WWII because FDR didn't act soon enough against. GWBush did.

Just a fact.

62,537,400 people died in WWII because FDR didn't act soon enough against Hitler. GWBush did against Saddam.

Just a fact.

steak,
so when does GWB do something about Darfur?

and was Saddam at all capable of invading and conquering any neighboring countries? GHWB stopped him when he tried Kuwait and that didn't work out too well for Saddam.

So I don't see how your comparison is really relevant.

Ford of Tn. is overdone, remove him from the BBQ. The race card is worn out and a new deck has been issued. Truth talks, race BS walks.

Webb in Va has been caught in another whopper of a lie on his web site. He did not lead the charge to get a black soldier on the Vietnam war memorial statue. The artist that made the statue did it because he had brains enough to reconize that the black soldiers did as much as anyone to win the war in Vietnam. Never mind that the dimwit Hanoi John led the charge to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory after the war was over. He (Hanoi John and the dimwits) accomplished a lot if getting 3 to 5 million people murdered is an accomplishment. I understand why he along with half the dimwits are insane today, the blood on their hands would drive anyone crazy.

sean

yeah, and there are no terrorists shooting our troops there either. stop supporting the terrorists. We either stay and win - or leave and lose.

name another war where FEWER troops died. and by the way, if you enjoyed 9/11, just wait - if we lose, there WILL be more to come and the total will be higher than 62 million.

Change your diaper, steak1111. The stench of urine is emanating through my monitor.

Since I obviously support the terrorists, being a liberal and what-not, I'm glad to see that Moqtada Al-Sadr is still receiving his orders and talking points from George Soros and Howard Dean.

You tickle my funny bone, Lorie Byrd.

"They may succeed thanks in part to all the help they get."

Lori ,

This is YOUR guys mess. They wouldn't have been kidnapped if we weren't there in the first place. You support the troops??? No you don't. You support an inept administration of chickenhawks who control people like you with fear and terror tactics of their own and who don't give a damn about the troops except as pawns for their corporate cronies get rich quick schemes and who have sent them to their deaths for in a FALSE campaign against terrorism. The bloods all yours and not the people reporting on it and your wish to suppress free speech to cover up you failings is all the more pathetic.

Sorry for the strong words but I'm sick of Republicans trying to blame all their horrendously massive screw ups on everyone but themselves. I thought you were for the party of personal responsibility??? I think its time to own up and take on some (MOST) of the responsibility for the massive screw ups of this administration of which you supported and continue to make excuses for.

Wingnuts = Blame others for your mistakes.
I predict by this time tomorrow it will be Clinton's fault.

"Violence in Iraq will continue to get worse until the November elections."

What flavor Kool-Aid is that?

The violence is increasing because the stability of the country is deteriorating. - jp2

It's not kool-aid, just the reality the terrorists live in. They're not as dumb as ChimpyMsBush (your words not mine) they fully realize this sort of propaganda works.

jp2, you would do well to review the facts in the last 3 years instead of acting like an uninformed blithering idiot.

Normally I let childish crapola like this go, but not this time it requires a simple question.

You support the troops??? No you don't. You support an inept administration of chickenhawks........
Posted by: muirgeo at October 24, 2006 01:16 AM

Just what war was he in that gained him the moral authority to "lead the troops?"

You leftists-especially you muirgeo-are still too damn stupid to figure out that a war in which ONE soldier being taken prisoner is a big story is a fantastic success.Read a book about the history of the world and you'll notice that prior wars were much bloodier.I'll give you a taste of things you don't know-Japan tooks tens of thousands of American troops prisoner and killed many thousands of them-by starvation and plain murder.Google the Bataan death march. This was during WWII-heard of it? Japanese troops were taught by their surgeons to cook US troops fingers and eat them like chicken wings-heard of that fools? You have no idea where this world has been, no idea where it might be going,and no idea what to do about it in any case.Turn your computers off, go find a good world history book-READ IT-and you won't need to change your underwear so often.My contempt for you silly ignorant fools is boundless.There has been no attack on the US homeland since 9/11 and this you ignore.That outcome is the entire reason which the Republic maintains armed forces-yet you gloss that over and take it as a given and then whine that terrorists may be uncomfortable when caught! Abraham Lincoln closed newspapers,imprisoned thousands without trial or charge,dispersed the Maryland legislature to prevent it from voting to secede-and you whiny b*tches think civil rights are threatened by the actions of this government! Waaah! It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Just what war was he in that gained him the moral authority to "lead the troops?"

Posted by: Marc

From The Republican Tool Playbook page 30;

Whenever, some one brings up a valid point change the subject to Clinton.

Anyway, 1... I do seem to remember a fair bit of protesting over some of Clintons actions from his own side and 2...I don't remember any such quagmire costing half a trillion dollars and 15,000 GI's during that administration while diverting the fight away from the real enemy.

So I see it all very plain now.

The Chickenhawk label you so generously throw around as being a legit description for Bush can't be applied to Clinton because it is a Republican trick taken from their Tool Playbook, i.e. "change the subject."

That IS the subject you fool and it should apply to both sides. Something you would never admit, at least not in public. It's much easier to spew out that crapola rather than debate something with reasonableness and logic. Not to mention honesty!

And BTW, could you send over a copy of page 30? I splugged all over mine as Karl Rove read it to me!

Obviously, the terrorists have won the PR war with the liberals. The question is, "Who loses when the terrorists win?"
If you yokos believe that you can do a better job than our Generals, then WHY are all you terrorist sympathizers blowing your hot air in here??

Steak'--because they ARE all hot air and no BALLS.