You guys are really hopeless. You're not blind, but you just won't see. Its almost cult like in here. Hey, whatever Bush says, no need to do any thinking on your own. Whats Bush been saying about the WMDs? Wasn't that the reason {LOL!} he gave to invade in the first place? Stop reading the headlines, and do some digging. Hopeless....

Darn, now the Pubs will own this sh*t sandwich lock, stock and smoking barrel.

Good luck in '08 elections.

Democratic majority? snicker snicker (raining-can't mow the yard :))

This mean the dems will stop whining now?.. yeah, right!..LOL

It's good to see that it was all a staged drama.

Our troops deserve to be supported 100%, which means funding for everything they need to do their jobs.

One of the biggest lies of this whole mess is the invention that the bill would have resulted in the troops being "abandoned" and not being funded to do their jobs. In reality, the bill could have cut funding to zero and the troops would still have full funding until July, when supposedly we'd know whether the surge was working. But as it was, the proposed bill still provided full and total funding for every troop until they were withdrawn. You make it sound like there would be soldiers on the battlefield running out of food and ammo because there wasn't funding for it. That was your fiction.

Now, with the two-sided game of chicken out of the way, let's see what the compromise bill is. After all, that's how a democracy is supposed to work.

"Now it is time for us to try to work together"

Everytime this Pelosi opens her mouth I feel like vomiting. Well actually anytime one of these frauds open their yap and spew this lie. Honestly anytime they speak makes me want to vomit.

"But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

We already know you want our troops to be defeated so you can blame it all on Bush. It's the Democrat Disgrace.

Now, with the two-sided game of chicken out of the way, let's see what the compromise bill is. After all, that's how a democracy is supposed to work.

The Dems knew that there was no way to get this bill past the President, and only did it to appease the rabid leftroids, both those in Congress and those among the populace (see BarneyG above, f'rinstance). Now, back to business.

Barmey Google will never be satisfied until he spend his upcoming 5 years + in a mental hospital or meets the wrong guy or gal on a dark street that know him as a traitor. He won't be satisfied then but he won't know it. Drugs do wonders on the truly crazy.
BDS and Rovian nightmares have ate his brain, if he ever had one.

Scrapie, what are so mad about? You guys will get your funding, and now Bush will win the war. Good luck to you and the troops.

To bad no rational person believes the surge will work. Bush has already started hedging on the definition of winning acceptable level of violence). I seem to recall some Congressman who said the murder rate in Iraq was less than the murder rate in Detroit and D.C. If that is the case, then we should start withdrawing troops.

I argued earlier that the Democrats can't lose either way on Iraq.

If, by some miracle, the situation in Iraq is under control by the time the 2008 elections roll around, then the election will be about jobs, healthcare, the environment and education (issues on which the Dems run strong).

If, as is much more likely, nothing much has changed in Iraq by November of 2008, then that election will a replay of the 2006 vote.

The only ones really upset here will be the rabid anti-war left that wants the funds cut off now. They'll be upset but where will they go in 2008? With the strategy of opposing the war but still funding it the Democrats are playing for the middle which swung for them in a big way in 2006.

I am curious about what it feels like to be so devoid of morality, honesty, character, decency and reason that you war cheerleaders would cheer on a failed lie that causes little children to lose their fathers in Iraq.

Our brave young guys wasting their lives in Iraq and destroying the lives of their wives, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers so you won't have to admit that you were stupid enough to buy into a fantasy peddled to you by a moron.

I remember you sick, twisted freaks from 1968. The funny thing is a lot of you war supporters call yourselves christian....your delusional.

Great. Just Great. The democrat party believes it is time to end this war. The republican party believes it is time to end this war, and have been working on it. Now all we have to do is convince Al Quaeda and the various insurgent groups. Hopefully somebody has a viable plan.

BaneyRUBBLE:

Darn, now the Pubs will own this sh*t sandwich lock, stock and smoking barrel. Good luck in '08 elections.

Tell that to the FAR left moonbats at Moveon, the Sheehags and the local "civil behaviourists" that are the ones that forced the Dems into the position they got themselves into.

Sorry RUBBLE, they "own" a very large part of it as well.

Give Pelosi her props. Through legislative parrys and thrusts, she has a divested herself of the polar positions (controversial!) while sustaining an appearance of "caring" either way. A scheme the younger Machiavelli would applaud.
Larkin's correct: the anti-war lobby is dissappointed, but as a consolation prize, the pro-war lobby is stranded on a desert island politically and their "prospects" terminal (yippee!). Please note the distinct Lack of Joy among the Bushbots.

PS: RE: The Debates: Let's get a bi-partisan Ron Paul wave going!

First, about Bush lying to start this war. Go listen to what B. Clinton had to say before he launched $100 million worht of cruise missles into Iraq. Almost verbatim is it not. Ofcourse the trolls here will say the words were somewhat different and then point in some other direction. Hypocrites and liars all. Same CIA director same intelligence. Second, this was never about WMD it was about deposing Saddam. Mission Accomplished. That is a tough concept for the lefties to grasp. They would much rather hate the man who beat the fuck out of their two best candidates for President. algore, a former vice president with the criminal adminstration of B. Clinton should have won in a walk away. He got beat by the Governor of Texas and you just cannot stand it. You all are poor losers but losers just the same. All the lies told by this bunch before the comming election will be thrown back in their faces. Good fucking luck in 2008. It will be a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND A REPUBLICAN LEAD CONGRESS. Mark my words.

PS: RE: The Debates: Let's get a bi-partisan Ron Paul wave going!
Posted by: bryanD at May 3, 2007 09:31 PM

Holy crap, you are such a dork.

Steve of Norway,

Just peddle your Motion Lotion; leave the Deep Thoughts to me.

All you G-d*mned Liberal Q33r @ssh@ts have got to stop this rabid name calling and etc. You get Scrappy all worked up and he starts emulating you.

[satire off]

This is a tireless and repetitive cycle of verbal violence. Dr. lava demonstrates why. I lived through the sixties too, but it was one a little different than dl describes. Must have been all those late night studying sessions and double-credit quarters I spent in college that warped my mind. I guess I should have been smoking dope and enjoying all the free-love (and free Herpes and warts being passed around). Then I'd see things so much clearer, huh?

Didn't have time to follow the news much. Just learn a little detail about the vetoed: The dems put in $24B of pork (ie bribes) to get the vote passed. Dems were willing to spend $24B for American defeat in Iraq . All the same time the liberals have proclaimed their support for troops. They are fully behind Harry Reid with his words and actions of encouragement to the terrorists to continue their carnage. Some American troops said that Reid's word will get them killed. If this is support of the troops, I hate to think what it is like when liberals don't support the troops.

Another two AlQ leaders bite the dust
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/03wire-qaeda.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This is probably why the Dems need to send the terrorists the message to hang in there.

Ragshaft, what you and the righties forgot is Bush ignored the results of hundreds of inspections of the most sensitive sites and the final report on Nuke WMD capabilities.

What did they find? Nothing, yet Bush invaded anyways. Why? Because he was running out of time. The longer he waited the greater the volume evidence that Saddam did indeed eliminate his weapons programs. Which is exactly what we found out on the back end.

Now the war will go on. Four, five six hundred or more soldiers will be killed. Hundreds or thousands of children will grow up without a father. Bush will declare victory and we will pull out, but the killings will continue.

I am curious about what it feels like to be so devoid of morality, honesty, character, decency and reason that you'd abandon Iraq to the genocide that will follow a premature withdrawal, knowing full well (or you would if you had two functioning synapses to rub together) that once we show weakness in the mideast the next battles will be fought on Amerian soil. How many 9/11s, or worse, will it take for the left to face reality?

Not sure you have seen this link. Some of the things the Dems said were really funny and should be strongly condemned by the liberals today. The Dems will do anything to win power. This is their political calculation when they passed this bill with $24B bribe to get more American defeat.

Barney is right. Bush should have treated the dems as liars since they are in any case as Barney has demonstrated for us here.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002


"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."



Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Now Shrillary is in a panic from the polls and is teaming with KKK Byrd to not only defund the war but to remove the authorization for it to begin. How in the he** can anyone, even the most retarded left winger, trust this stupid broad? What she do if she was commander in chief and we got into a real shooting war instead to the brush fire we're in now. Before you liberals jump, I know people are being killed but military members are not dying in the numbers they did during the Slick regime without a brush fire war.

Evidently Shrillary has figured out we are really winning the war in Iraq and she can't afford to allow that to happen. She see's the dark days ahead for the democrats that comes with a win. She's just another traitor that should be arrested and shot, no trial required. Use battlefield rules.

Barney
Hundreds or thousands of children will grow up without a father.
------------------------------------------------
Dems caused 3M death when they abandoned VN. You are right, this number will be far more significant now.

Barney is also right the liberals seem to want to multiply the death toll this time. Here is what their "expert" said (so they knew fully well what is going to happen if we withdraw). With this bill, Dems openly want this result in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html
Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

By inspections, BG, are you indicating the guided tours Saddam gave the inspectors? Is that why Hans Blix, no friend of the evil Bush adminstration, found and declared Iraq in material breach of UN Resolution 1441. The one passed by the full security counsel? The one that said there would be serious consequences if he failed to comply, like he had with the previous 16 UN Resolutions? Those inspections. You idiots seem to forget both houses of congress passed the authorization to use military force to inforce UN Resolution 1441. No matter what Bush had to say. They met with intelligence people who told them exactly what the rest of the world thought Saddam had and what he would do with it. I know you are not capable of honesty, but you should be capable of digesting the truth even if you cannot speak it.

The Dems knew that there was no way to get this bill past the President, and only did it to appease the...

The correct way to finish that sentence is "majority of the American population".

The correct way to finish that sentence is "majority of the American population".
---------------------------------------------
Where is the poll that shows that the majority of the American population are willing to accept

(1) American defeat in Iraq
(2) 3M or more people will be slaughtered with a possibly large number in the US
(3) with the analysis of the expert here.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html
Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

Where is the poll that shows that the majority of the American population are willing to accept

Right here. Remember it?

Brian,
Where does it say that the Dems won the election by telling people the truth as predicted by their expert here. Liberals have been saying that Bush hid the truth from the American people. I don't see anywhere that the liberals openly present the truth below to the voter. Oh, I see you meant to say the Democrats have been lying. Sorry forgot you have learned that from them and only here to lie to people.

(1) American defeat in Iraq
(2) 3M or more people will be slaughtered with a possibly large number in the US
(3) with the analysis of the expert here.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html
Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

Brian, you seem to forget this is not a democracy, but a Republic. The only poll that counts is the one that take every four years. Seems the American people had their choice Nov 2, 2004. The difference was clear. The winner polled 62 million votes. Seems there is enough of a minority that prevents a slight majority in congress from forcing this President to do anything. You lie when you say the democrats won the majority based upon anti war issues. If that were true, how did Joe Lieberman win over an antiwar coward? I'll bet you anything Brian if we took a poll at wizbang about you remaining here, you would lose. That is a poll I would enjoy. Any statistician knows polls prove nothing. Clinton tried to govern with the use of polls. He failed. Leaders do not follow polls.

Brian,
Unless you can show a poll or a Dem platform that elaborated those points above, I have to consider the dems and you as liars when you claim that you want the whole truth for the American people. Is that fair enough?

The liberals prove once again that any action taken they do not like, all of a sudden they are not part of. GW cannot, cannot, cannot invade Iraq or any other country without the APPROVAL of congress. Without the FUNDING of congress. Dress it up all you want but the dimmer leadership blinked. They again APPROVED the on going war in Iraq. The problem is the liberal commentators cannot stand the fact that they were let down by their own leadership. ww

LIA and Rag, you are so full of ...

JANUARY, 2003 - STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 - UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 - IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 - CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE 'NO DIRECT EVIDENCE' OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no 'direct evidence' that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. 'We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,' said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 - IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush's assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]