« USC Kicker Found Dead at the Bottom of a Cliff | Main | Breaking: All Cargo Operations Suspended at the Port of Miami »

Democrats Threaten to Deny Funds for Iraq

Vietnam redux. And it didn't take very long, just a few days after the Democrats took control.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.


"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Her comments on CBS' "Face the Nation" came as Bush worked to finish his new war plan that could send as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and provide more money for jobs and reconstruction programs.

Bush is expected to announce his plan as early as Wednesday.

When asked about the possibility of cutting off funds, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say whether Democrats might do so, saying only that the current strategy clearly is "not working."

"I don't want to anticipate that," said Hoyer, D-Md., on "Fox News Sunday."

Did you see the statement Pelosi made about not abandoning the troops? She and the rest of the Democrats have already abandoned our troops. They abandoned our troops the moment they said this war wasn't winnable. They pulled their moral and political support for our troops a while ago, and now they're about to pull financial support as well.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Threaten to Deny Funds for Iraq:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush fleshes out Iraq strategy details

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 01/08/2007

Comments (54)

"Publicans Threaten To Send... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"Publicans Threaten To Send More Troops to their Deaths"

Unfortunately, most of the ... (Below threshold)
tom:

Unfortunately, most of the American people agree with Nancy. I'm in Salt Lake, the reddest of the reds, and only 13% support a surge and only 41% support the war itself. Bush's approval is rock bottom. Not Good. If it's this way in Utah it's got to be worse everywhere else. Final question was do you support cutting off funds? answer was 53% yes. The dems are in the driver's seat and only they can stop Bush taking this country off a cliff.

Now, isn't that just specia... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Now, isn't that just special!!!

Those awful Democratic congresspeople like Pelosi are failing to show their support for the troops by possibly resisting the Chimp's attempt to throw more troops into his meat-grinder.

All AmeriKans should show their support of our troops by supporting increased casualties so the Chimp-inchief can save his face after his disasterous and maniacal war.

"Unfortunately, most of the... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

"Unfortunately, most of the American people agree with Nancy."

Umm... No. During the run up to the election, the Democrats decried for 'change of course'. This was deliberate vagueness in an attempt to scoop up those who were upset we aren't winning as well as those that want to leave. Both of which mistakenly get lumped into the same group with a similar vagueness applied to polls which ask 'are you dissatisfied with the war.'

In fact, this will be seen as a double cross by some of the people who elected specific Democrats who didn't appear to embrace this tact for the war.

jpm100 your post election ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

jpm100 your post election analysis of voters' intent is just a tad off.

Those voters who really wanted something done to "win," as you claim, likely don't erxceed the century mark on your user.

Most of the rest of Americans are sick of Bush's bloodletting in Iraq and are beginning to undersdtand that Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11.

repuke, I seriously doubt y... (Below threshold)

repuke, I seriously doubt you and your ilk care anything about the troops. Take your BS sympathy and cram it.

" The dems are in the drive... (Below threshold)
Pagar:

" The dems are in the driver's seat and only they can stop Bush taking this country off a cliff."

The Dems are in the driver's seat and only they and the Americans who support total victory for the terrorists, can insure that the terrorists defeat America.

A brief lesson on the anato... (Below threshold)
Lee:

A brief lesson on the anatomy of a rightwing blogger's lie:

Step 1 -The Fact:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.


Step 2 - The Lie:

Did you see the statement Pelosi made about not abandoning the troops? She and the rest of the Democrats have already abandoned our troops. They abandoned our troops the moment they said this war wasn't winnable. They pulled their moral and political support for our troops a while ago, and now they're about to pull financial support as well.

Now go back and read the fact that Kim used to spin her lie. "..hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops."

No Democrat are abandoning our troops in Iraq. That is just a flat out lie by Kim. Democrats are discussing withholding funding to prevent President Bush from sending more troops, but no troops are being abandoned.

The Democrats made it clear prior to the election that they might fight funding for an expansion of the war in Iraq, and they also stated prior to the election that they absolutely would not cut funding and support for troops already in Iraq. On that platform, American voters swept the Democrats into power in both the House and the Senate.

Now Kim lies to try to convince Americans that the Democrats are abandoning troops in Iraq.

Kim is lying. Kim knows she's lying. Lying right-wing bloggers rarely correct their errors or lies, they just keep producing the lies because they think their readers are too dumb to notice or know the truth.

Wow... so the Democrats are... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Wow... so the Democrats are effectively holding the troops hostage (via funds to support) them unless they get their way.

The Dems are going to become political suicide bombers? So, either the Dems get their way or they withhold funds from the troops. Withholding funds from the troops will certain cause a increase in troop deaths, as well as, being political suicide for the Dems.

Bush and Rumsfeld abandoned... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Bush and Rumsfeld abandoned the troops when they refused to expand the size of the Army and USMC from 2002-2005.

That's why many of the troops are serving their third and fourth tours in Iraq or Afghanistan now.

LeeYou did it the ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lee

You did it the other day w/ your anlysis of Conservatives on the Somali "passport" thread, and today you've done it again w/ your post above.

Today's analysis of the "Conservative lie" is spot on...it reads like the Rush Limbaugh playbook I hear so often as I sit at the computer reading & posting to Wizbang.

You have described it perfectly...clever observer, you.

Kim wrote:They ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Kim wrote:

They abandoned our troops the moment they said this war wasn't winnable.

I would be interested in hearing you explain how you think that the current war in Iraq is, as you put it, "winnable." What does "winning" mean to you?

Looking forward to your reply.

underscore MIke drank the W... (Below threshold)
Lee:

underscore MIke drank the Wingnut kool-aid. Perhaps he's hoping if the lie is repeated often enough the 72 year-old geriatrics who comprise the core of the remaining Republican base will rally behind George's war.

Wow... so the Democrats are effectively holding the troops hostage (via funds to support) them unless they get their way.

Mike isn't smart enough to see through Kim's lie. Let's try again, Mike. Here's a quote form the article quoted above:

"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

This way his budget request will reflect the amount that he wants to use to escalate the war in Iraq.

"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.

We won't cut funding and support for the troops currently in Iraq.

But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it..."

If the President wants the fund to expand the war in Iraq, he's going to have to convince Congress to release the funds for that expansion.

Please, underscore Mike, tell me you aren't old enough to vote? The thought of slow thinkers like you having that privilege is outright scary.

We dont need more troops in... (Below threshold)
914:

We dont need more troops in Iraq...Dropping in on the border in a small town in eastern Iran would do wonders for the homicide rate in Iraq..As the focus would then be back on the jihadists own turf.

Budgets?? We don't need no ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Budgets?? We don't need no steenking BUDGETS!

A suggestion to the dwindling faithful-if you're talking about the Iraq surge issue try substituting "the vast majority of Americans" or "nearly everyone" where you'd normally insert "Pelosi", "Dems", "terrorist-supporting lefties", etc, etc. Now read the sentence back. Does it still pack the same wallop?

Vicious military haters lik... (Below threshold)

Vicious military haters like Lee abandon our troops on the way to Baghdad. The fact that democrats are going to cut off funding is a surprise to who????

Balkans... (Below threshold)
Gringo:

Balkans

Lee, Tell me, do y... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Lee,

Tell me, do you honestly think that any justification no matter how valid would get a "green light" from Democrats to release funds? I seriously doubt it. Obstruction is what the democrats have been about and I don't see any change in the near future.

And aRepukelican some of are smart enough to figure out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was about preventing Saddam from doing something far worse than 9/11.

Democrats support the troops? Please someone tell me how Democrats like Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, et al... have shown support for the troops, with this addendum, you can't use a conjunction like the words, but or however.

Kim, very disappointed in t... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Kim, very disappointed in the way you wrote this article. I listened to the House Speaker, and what she said is not what you said. But one question I have: Why are the Repugs so scared of the upcoming hearings? Even the chimp is changing lawyers, as old Harriet is leaving.

I think everyone would be better off telling the truth instead of all the BS on the comments a person reads. And if memory serves me right, didn't Bush try to get a Muslim country to take care of the ports? About a year or so ago, I think it was. Why would Bush do that? Anyone have a clue about it, besides the money part that is.

And for all you people you support a troop "surge", may I suggest you run, not walk, down to the recruiters office and sign up. There is enough of us old vets around to make sure the fighting Keyboard company will stay up to strength. And take all the fighting chickenhawks with that you can find. Us old vets can then be the hometown "Jodie's".

Cut the funding and see the... (Below threshold)
914:

Cut the funding and see the effects as our stabbed in the back military return to the senate floor to reak some revenge on the real enemies of this country..

Lee,We wo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

We won't cut funding and support for the troops currently in Iraq.

I see the Democrats are falling for an old trick. Congress controls the purse strings, but the President controls the military. If Bush sends more troops to Iraq and the Democrats won't provide the increased funding, then the amount spent per soldier goes down. When troops start running out of critical supplies the administration just points out that Congress won't provide the funds needed to properly support the troops. Presidents have used similar tactics before and the Democrats will either cave or watch their 08 dreams fad as Republicans relentlessly charge Democrats with not supporting US troops.

Chip....oh, so preventing S... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Chip....oh, so preventing Saddam frrom doing something "worse" jusrifies Bush/Cheney murdering 3000+ Americans and grinding up another 24K as they lied this nation into a no-win war and thoroughly destabilized the Mid-East for the next century is ok? Why didn't the banana-eating Chimp-in-chief at least go after Korea?

Oh, I forgot...Korea has no oil for Cheney's money-grubbing friends.

We won't cut fund... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
We won't cut funding and support for the troops currently in Iraq.

Yes, and the Democrats were for the war before they were against the war. They'll promise not to cut the funding before they cut the funding.

And they support the troops.. you know the baby killers, that are the 'new management at Abu Gharib', the people that they spit on when returning from Vietnam. I get it.. the left hates the military, but don't try to piss down my neck and tell me it's just rain... just be honest and up front and cut the bullshit.

And if memory s... (Below threshold)
marc:

And if memory serves me right, didn't Bush try to get a Muslim country to take care of the ports? About a year or so ago, I think it was. Why would Bush do that? Anyone have a clue about it, besides the money part that is.

And for all you people you support a troop "surge", may I suggest you run, not walk, down to the recruiters office and sign up. There is enough of us old vets around to make sure the fighting Keyboard company will stay up to strength. And take all the fighting chickenhawks with that you can find. Us old vets can then be the hometown "Jodie's".
:: by Allen on January 7, 2007 6:24 PM ::

Nice revision of history, Bush had zero to do with the Dubai ports deal. In fact many from the left and right were critical that the deal was approved without anyone in the White House knowing about it.

Nice try Allen but in the end you're misinformed or a liar.

Not to mention stooping to the 2nd grade level in raising the chickenhawk tripe. In fact you may have a unique distinction on your hands.

You may be the only "Vet" that I have seen or read that has used "chickenhawk" in any form except pointing out the idiocy of it's use.

Congratulations!

aRepukelican"Wh... (Below threshold)
914:

aRepukelican

"Why didnt the banana eating Chimp at least go after Korea "

The quality of bananas is much higher in Iraq!

"Oh I forgot, Korea has no oil for Cheneys money grubbing fists."

And no buckshot for His shotgun either!

And BTW... isn't it odd.</p... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW... isn't it odd.

For months all we've heard is Bush has failed. Iraq is unwinnable. Iraq is a quagmire. Bush won't listen to his Generals. And the best one of all... Bush won't fire those that are responsible for all of the above

OK let's assume that's all true.

Now he is being excoriated for "firing" some in the chain of command in Iraq.

Even crazier, some are saying people are being fired for offering opinions on the war that differ from what Bush wants.

You can't have it both ways. You got what you wanted so STFU

Better check your facts, th... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Better check your facts, the White house was involved with the Dubai ports deal. Last I heard the VP still works there, or is he in a undisclosed location?

Must have hit a nerve on the chickenhawk things, huh?And what did I lie about? TSK, TSK, UDAH.

Cut the funding and see ... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

Cut the funding and see the effects as our stabbed in the back military return to the senate floor to reak some revenge on the real enemies of this country.

Actually, 914, the real enemy of the country - in addition to al qaeda - are those scared little imbeciles like you who keep shouting for more soldiers to enter this slaughter. Take a look, sometime, at a few of the bios of our brave soldiers who have given their lives for this. These people were young, they had loving families and could have had a future. They will never see their children grow up, never see their 30's or 40's. Never experience the joy that would lie ahead of them. And, you know, none of this is their fault - or the democrats, who've been out of power of any sort for 6 years.

The responsibility for their lives lies in the human trash that holds the most powerful position in our country and lied to them, us and the world so he could avenge his dad and make a name for himself that would trump the massive failures he's overseen in his private life.

Now he wants to throw more of them into the fire, when nearly every source that's been asked of him has told him this thing is unwinnable and our military should be slowly pulling out.

And fools like you echo his words like stupid, mimmicking monkeys. And you will continue to bend the truth so that it fits your narrow perspective of this world as being black and white, political negotiations as being only successful through bullying, and conflict as being predictable and without nuance.

Want to see an enemy to this country, look at your ignorant self in the mirror.

Fordrill,We lost 5... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fordrill,

We lost 5,000 on just D-Day in WW2 and if you look at their bios you will see they were young (some only 16) "They will never see their children grow up, never see their 30's or 40's. Never experience the joy that would lie ahead of them."

So your point is what, that we shouldn't have a military or use it to defend our way of life? Haven't you figured it out, that the U.N. had been corrupted by Saddam so deeply that no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq. The majority of Democrats in the house and Senate believed Saddam had WMD and they had access to the same exact intelligence as Bush. Even Bill Clinton is on record as saying he believed Saddam had WMD. The only lie told to the American public was that the U.N. was an honest broker.

Because Saddam was able to corrupt the U.N. he would have soon been out from under the sanctions and free to team up with terrorists groups to get his revenge on the U.S. for his humiliating defeat in the first Gulf war. Bush knew that and had the courage to take action to stop that mad man. The terrorists know winning in Iraq has great strategic importance, but all the left can do is whine about 3,000 dead soldiers, most of whom agreed with Bush's plan. Saddam sponsored terrorists would have likely cost far more than 3,000 U.S. civilian lives by now if Bush hadn't taken out that butcher when he did.

You don't have the stomach to fight, fine, just get out of the way and let those who do make peace in the middle east. That's really what the left is afraid of isn't it, that Bush will succeed and put the left in this country to open shame. How petty can the left get?

The Democrats are NOT cutti... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

The Democrats are NOT cutting off funds for the Iraq war; they are "threatening" to NOT fund an escalation of the war. The American people do not support escalation, and the President is supposed to be serving them.

Actually, the Dems SHOULD vote to cut off funds, not leaving the troops in danger, but forcing the President to bring them home. But, both the Dems and Repubs (and the media) are ignoring the majority who now oppose this war.

But the Dems (so far) show no signs of doing this.

So, for those of you who favor increasing the carnage, have no fear! You are getting your way!

"We lost 5,000 on just D-Da... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"We lost 5,000 on just D-Day in WW2"

Iraq isn't WWII.

"So your point is what, that we shouldn't have a military or use it to defend our way of life? "

Who said that? Iraq never posed a problem to our way of life.

"That's really what the left is afraid of isn't it, that Bush will succeed and put the left in this country to open shame."

The left is afraid of many things that Bush does or may do, but I assure you that THAT is not one of them.

Publicus:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Publicus:


Actually, the Dems SHOULD vote to cut off funds..

Thanks for at least being honest about your position unlike the rest of the leftist here.

The conversation has degrad... (Below threshold)
epador:

The conversation has degraded to a tacky flashback to the late sixties and early seventies.

Does anyone remember what happened when we let politicians micromanage a war?

We're hamstringing ourselves for the sake of political bonus points. THAT kills US soldiers and the folks we're trying to help. And gives comfort to the enemy.

Mike --Yes, cuttin... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mike --

Yes, cutting funding to force bringing our troops home is MY position, but not that of the Dems.

I understand the right's position----that Iraq is the key to the war on terror and that we can and should stay and win. I respect the sincerity of those who believe that, but I disagree with those assumptions.

I got your 6 Mac.R... (Below threshold)
epador:

I got your 6 Mac.

Reload and keep firing.

Why send more troops over t... (Below threshold)
Black Elk:

Why send more troops over there to play cop?
If you send more troops then W will have to
change the "REO" and let the troops do what they
were trained to do, KILL THE G/D terrorist not
get their a$$ killed playing beat cop...W and gang
has screwed the pooch big time...You have to
monkey stomp the bastards into dust then the
rest of the Iraqis will get the big picture and
we can get the hell out of that crap hole...

AllenBetter che... (Below threshold)
marc:

Allen

Better check your facts, the White house was involved with the Dubai ports deal. Last I heard the VP still works there, or is he in a undisclosed location?
The only nerve hit was the one that gets tweaked by people such as yourself who first question their own memory on the ports deal ("And if memory serves me right, didn't Bush try to get a Muslim country to take care of the ports?") then attempt to claim what I posted wasn't fact with no supporting evidence.

The White House said President Bush did not know about the agreement until recently. The AP first reported U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

Many deals such as this are approved at the bureaucratic level within the Treasury Dept. In this case not even Treasury Secretary John Snow knew about it.

And BTW, as one who has visited Dubai on numerous occasions I'm well aware it's not a "country" something your clueless about apparently.

You'll see no surprise in these eyes.

The Dhimmi's in a dillema. ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The Dhimmi's in a dillema. They had a majority in the Senate for a day. Now with Johnson in critical care for God knows how long and Lieberman (IND) fully supporting freedom for the Iraq people the dimmi's have a problem. Anyone want to guess how the VP will vote? Losers always lose even when they win.

Publicus, <blockquote... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

Who said that? Iraq never posed a problem to our way of life.

That demonstrates a total miscalculation of who Saddam was and how angry he was at the U.S. for his humiliating defeat in the first Gulf war. We are all just lucky Bush understood the danger and had the courage to act.

The left is afraid of many things that Bush does or may do, but I assure you that THAT is not one of them.

I wouldn't expect you to admit it, but it's the only logical conclusion given the actions of the left.

So your point is what, t... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

So your point is what, that we shouldn't have a military or use it to defend our way of life?

Huh? Never said that, but that's just the beginning of this story you've created for yourself about what I, and others, say.

Haven't you figured it out, that the U.N. had been corrupted by Saddam so deeply that no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Where did you read this? In a science-fiction novel? This is the problem with you people that drives me crazy. Your beloved leader and his minions create these tales that are pure fiction curried from small bits of fact and you believe them completely without one ounce of hesitation.

I know this is the tale you've created for yourself to believe that going into Iraq BASED ON LIES was the right thing. And I know you're scared and want a security blanket. But condemning the entire U.N. as being corrupt (and following your logic) is pure fantasy.

Because Saddam was able to corrupt the U.N. he would have soon been out from under the sanctions and free to team up with terrorists groups to get his revenge on the U.S. for his humiliating defeat in the first Gulf war.

The only one spinning this tale is the person who benefits most from it - asshole-in-chief. Are you really this gullible? Most of the country isn't anymore. And how do YOU know exactly what Saddam is thinking? Have you entered his brain with a tiny spaceship like Fantastic Voyage.

The left deals in realism combined with history. Not fantasy and fear.

Saddam sponsored terrorists would have likely cost far more than 3,000 U.S. civilian lives by now if Bush hadn't taken out that butcher when he did.

Maybe, but once again - FANTASY. What if I said North Korea was planning to send a militia of aquamen with microscopic bombs to the California coast to attack Hollywood. If I were the President and said this, would you believe it.

We can only conduct our foreign policy based on real threats, facts, logical assumptions and history. Policy based on wild assumptions, no matter how logical they seem to fearful people like you, will only weaken this country, our military and our power.

Lets see. You'll probably just call me a communist or weak or something like that since I don't adhere to your limited world view. To that I say, go at it scardy cat.

We are all just lucky Bu... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

We are all just lucky Bush understood the danger and had the courage to act.

10 years from now, you'll be too embarrassed to say that to anyone. Bush is a corrupt, lying, callous criminal - who's as far from a hero as any President since Nixon (however, at least Nixon opened up China - Bush couldn't even negotiate dick on your trade deficit with them, and, oh, he got mangos from India in exchange for giving them Nuclear energy. Great negotiator).

Your head is so far in the sand here with your own fantasy world that you can probably see some of the fighting going on over there as it peaks up in their sand.

Nice revision of history... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

Nice revision of history, Bush had zero to do with the Dubai ports deal.

Maybe he wasn't the one formulating it, but he was sure determined to sign off on it. Once he did know about it, he readily tried to make the case that it was fine.

What it showed us all was that his plan for homeland security was a complete lie, combined with the underfunding of our borders and unbalanced funds favoring republican leaning states. It was all politics, and most of the public saw the hypocracy in this. All you obviously grasped was your wiener.

After complaining that Bush... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

After complaining that Bush was okay with allowing a Muslim country to take over operational management of our ports, will Fordrill later complain that profiling is wrong ? I'm just curious which of the hypocritical, conflicting beliefs of the left you subscribe.

After complaining that B... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

After complaining that Bush was okay with allowing a Muslim country to take over operational management of our ports, will Fordrill later complain that profiling is wrong ?

Another one. When did I every make any mention of my stance on profiling? Didn't. Just another example of a neocon believing that everyone who doesn't subscribe to their pov fits a certain stereotype - and assuming they know what people are thinking even though they never say anything close to what their accused of.

By the way, I have no problem with racial profiling. If young men of middle eastern descent are the primary suspects as terrorists, it's unfortunate for the millions of innocent ones, but it is still a valid approach, despite political correctness.

What else would you like to subscribe to me, idiot?

Another one. When... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Another one. When did I every make any mention of my stance on profiling? Didn't.

If you're capable of reading, you'll note that I never stated that I believed that to be your stance. The '?' at the end means that the sentence was a question.

Just another example of a neocon believing that everyone who doesn't subscribe to their pov fits a certain stereotype - and assuming they know what people are thinking even though they never say anything close to what their accused of.

ROFL! That's sentence is great. You (wrongly) accuse me of doing something that you yourself actually do in the same sentence! (i.e. stating 'necon's paint groups with a broad brush' itself paints a group with a broad brush). I love the moronic irony that you're incapable of even realizing what you're saying! Idiot.

Fordrill,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fordrill,

Huh? Never said that, but that's just the beginning of this story you've created for yourself about what I, and others, say.

I asked you a question about what you meant, but apparently you can't answer it.

Where did you read this? In a science-fiction novel? This is the problem with you people that drives me crazy. Your beloved leader and his minions create these tales that are pure fiction curried from small bits of fact and you believe them completely without one ounce of hesitation.

Are you the last person on the planet who hasn't heard about UN corruption? Here's just a small example. "Volcker's report, which runs more than 840 pages, concludes that the oil program "undoubtedly" saved lives but says Hussein's regime "found ways and means of turning it to his own advantage, primarily through demands for surcharges and kickbacks from companies doing business with the program." He said that Iraq earned $1.8 billion in illicit proceeds from corruption in the U.N. program and nearly $11 billion from smuggling profits outside the program."

The left deals in realism combined with history. Not fantasy and fear.

That's laughable given your ignorance of UN corruption. Do you think the first Gulf war and Saddam's humiliating defeat at the hands of Bush Sr. is just fantasy too?

What if I said North Korea was planning to send a militia of aquamen with microscopic bombs to the California coast to attack Hollywood. If I were the President and said this, would you believe it.

No because I know something about the history of North Korea and what kind of technology they have. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, but North Korea has lived within its borders for over 50 years. Iraq has billons of oil dollars that they could have spent to get revenge against the U.S., but North Korea can barely feed it's own people and is already isolated in the world. Iraq and North Korea require two different solutions. People who try to tie the two together just show their ignorance.

We can only conduct our foreign policy based on real threats, facts, logical assumptions and history.

I agree, but you can't tell me UN corruption is just a fantasy and then expect to debate on the facts.

Policy based on wild assumptions, no matter how logical they seem to fearful people like you, will only weaken this country, our military and our power.

Weather on not something is "wild assumption" is debatable, but you have to know the facts to engage in such a debate. Fact 1: Saddam corrupted the UN as well as government officials in France and Russia. Fact 2: UN sanctions were ineffective and because of the corruption were soon to be lifted had Bush not acted. Fact 3: Saddam suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the U.S. in the first Gulf war. Fact 4: Saddam was a vengeful person who used mass murder and WMDs to extract his revenge on his enemies. Given those facts it's not a "wild assumption" to expect Saddam would sponsor terrorism that targeted the U.S. had he been left in power. We also discovered after the invasion that Saddam had retained his ability to produce WMDs. It would have be foolish to leave Saddam in power given what we now know.

Lets see. You'll probably just call me a communist or weak or something like that since I don't adhere to your limited world view. To that I say, go at it scardy cat.

Unlike you, I don't need to resort to name calling as I'm well able to debate the subject should you pose a real argument.

You (wrongly) accuse me ... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

You (wrongly) accuse me of doing something that you yourself actually do in the same sentence!

Thats right, Mike. I did do exactly what you claim. I won't deny it and realized it just before I posted.

Given that, you must admit you're doing the same exact thing.

Are you the last person ... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

Are you the last person on the planet who hasn't heard about UN corruption?

Never said I wasn't aware of the corruption. But your post assumes that the entire UN is corrupt, for if it can only be the entire lot of them if "no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq."

And you don't post the next line I had in my post which was this: "But condemning the entire U.N. as being corrupt (and following your logic) is pure fantasy."

Entire UN. Not some bad apples.

Saddam was a vengeful person who used mass murder and WMDs to extract his revenge on his enemies.

So was Mommar Kadafi, who was made to be the devil in the 80's. And Idi Amin. So is every tyrant. As far as WMD's, well, it's a big, encompassing word for chemical warfare, which is what he used on the Kurds and has been with us since WWI, despite the new configurations of them. Lets call WMD's nuclear why don't we. Then lets make the argument again.

"Well--it looks like we are... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

"Well--it looks like we are getting close to our wildest dreams. It was a long, hard ride--but we've almost made it. Our hard work has finally paid off and we got what we wanted--an humiliating US loss in Iraq."

Sincerely,
The American Left

nikkolai----... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

nikkolai--

--
"Well--it looks like we are getting close to our wildest dreams. It was a long, hard ride--but we've almost made it. Our hard work has finally paid off and we got what we wanted--an humiliating US loss in Iraq."

Sincerely,
The American Left
--

Quite an accomplishment for the American left, considering the Republicans have controlled our entire war policy. Very impressive!

Don't you just love it when... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Don't you just love it when old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) puts those neat little boxes around some of his "words". Makes him (or her) look soooo upscale. Damn! There goes another key board from droll. But thats ok as I keep a supply on hand from all the money I save on my medicine that p'p' helps pay for. He (or her) will have to pay even more when "Captain Strechface" gets her drug help bill passed. Wished you lived closer p'p' so you could go to the mail box and get my SS and pension and bank interest mail for me. (but you would have to wash your hands first)

Fordrill,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fordrill,

And you don't post the next line I had in my post which was this: "But condemning the entire U.N. as being corrupt (and following your logic) is pure fantasy."

I posted your entire paragraph and what you say was your next line is a lie for anyone to see. It's actually the third and last sentence of your next paragraph.

Never said I wasn't aware of the corruption. But your post assumes that the entire UN is corrupt, for if it can only be the entire lot of them if "no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq."

What I said was "Haven't you figured it out, that the U.N. had been corrupted by Saddam so deeply that no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq." You'll notice I never said the entire U.N. was corrupt, that's your straw man to save face now that your prior ignorance has been proven.

What I said was true that "the U.N. had been corrupted by Saddam so deeply that no argument Bush could have made would have gotten the U.N. to authorize the invasion of Iraq." That's because Saddam bribed both French and Russian officials to the point that neither France or Russia would allow such a resolution to pass in the U.N. In fact, we now know French and Russian officials were assuring Saddam the U.S. would not invade, and thus, Saddam didn't need to comply with inspection demands. Without such corrupt behavior Saddam might have complied and the entire Iraq invasion wouldn't have taken place. Too bad we didn't know the depth of corruption at the time.

So was Mommar Kadafi, who was made to be the devil in the 80's. And Idi Amin. So is every tyrant.

Not all tyrants are in the same league. Dismissing Saddam as just another tyrant is a mistake, one Bush wasn't willing to make.

As far as WMD's, well, it's a big, encompassing word for chemical warfare, which is what he used on the Kurds and has been with us since WWI, despite the new configurations of them.

And your point is what? I see you didn't dispute the four facts I listed. Does your hatred of Bush so blind you that you can't see the danger Saddam would now pose if Bush had not taken him out?

Lets call WMD's nuclear why don't we. Then lets make the argument again.

Nuclear weapons are included in the definition of "WMD". If Saddam had nuclear weapons would we have invaded? I believe we would have. Would the left still be whining about invading a nuclear Iraq? I believe they would. And if Bush didn't invade they would be whining about that too.

Fordrill,Here's a ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fordrill,

Here's a primer on WMD's suitable to your level.

FordrillI did not ... (Below threshold)
914:

Fordrill

I did not call for more soldiers to be sent in You imbecile!

I said We could move some of them already there to the Iranian border or take an Iranian city to lure the scum fighting in Baghdad back to their country of origin..

Get it? good.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy