Its been long obvious that their political success depends on the failure of our missions. They have been acting like this all along.

When even the likes of Keith Ellison are getting a sense of the shifting fotunes of war, maybe its time for some of our dead end trolls to get back on the bandwagon. C'mon guys it's ok to want your contry to win.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-ellison-iraq_N.htm

It's heartening to know that I'm with the 70% of the country which disagrees with the whizzers view on the war. There's comfort in those numbers. When will one of the whizzers declare, while pounding his/her chest, that 70% of us are traitors? And 70% of us are "dead end trolls" too - marvelous.

JFO
I wouldn't be so trusting of those polls. Many of them are designed and used to generate news stories.

And while I'm not pounding on my chest (I only do that watching Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies), it is American habit, so to speak, to invoke patriotism in such arguments. You are among good company, literally....Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy were similarly accused in the run-up to WWII. Say what you will about Kennedy, but Lindbergh was an icon in this country.

I read the quoted bit as more than just admitting that good news is a problem.

It also admitted that Democratic support for withdrawing from Iraq isn't iron clad, that a significant group of moderate to conservative Democrats exist that aren't going to toe the party line if Petraeus has a good report and there is progress in Iraq by September.

Some of the Democrat big-wigs have come out and said that they will refuse to listen to Petraeus and that their world view does not allow the surge to have success or conditions in Iraq to improve... but it isn't all of them, and pushing in the face of a September report that may show that we've got our methods figured out in Iraq with the expectation that this is going to work, will potentially split the Democrat majority.

What this means for JFO is that his 70% is a fantasy.

JFO,

I doubt that you're a traitor, or that a vast majority of that interesting 70% number you've presented are traitors, at all.

You're simply a product of the Democratic leadership so desperate for executive power that they're willing to throw their country under the bus in hopes of being the ones to save it.

Münchhausen Syndrome, by proxy, is an ugly thing. Especially ugly when the perpetrators are holding elected positions; and in a position to cause great suffering within the ranks of our military.

Face it, man, the Democratic Party, as a viable and lucent political entity, died on a sunny day in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Ever since it's been a boondoggle and collection of non-erudite, immature, diaper tinklers that fade into the wallpaper whenever faced with an opportunity to make a stand.

Like children with bad parents, your 70% is not to blame for their own behavior. They are simply the products of a bad environment.

Trust me. I was a registered Democrat (and I guess, still am since I haven't switched party affiliation) until I looked behind the green curtain of the Democratic party and found nothing more than a bunch of old phone books and voo-doo dolls.

Just look at their political stands of the last 30 years:

- we're not Nixon
- we're not Ford
- we're not Bush (I and II)

Other than that, what has the Democratic party done for America? A failed health care initiative? A complete and utter debacle when our citizens were held hostage for 444 days? Blackhawk Down? Jokes about dry cleaning? Mockery of our drafted servicemen?

Oh, yeah ... and that defunding of the VietNam war which lead to the basis for a wonderful movie: The Killing Fields.

What else ...? Oh yeah: National disgrace and malaise.

The fact that Kim was given enough reason to make this post should be inescapable proof that the Dems have no love, nor tolerance, for the needs and wants of this nation - only that, after voting to go to war for political gain, they want to go in the opposite direction for same - and, should that mean more of our service men and women are injured or killed - so be it. That way, they can point to the mounting body counts and blame Bush for everything.

And they can do all of that without blushing. It is impressive.

No man, your 70% aren't traitors. The people you keep voting into office ... not so sure.

They do so make it difficult to argue FOR their patriotism, I'll tell you that.

yo yo yo now dat's a post

Hugh:

Interesting that it's only those in the 30% who disagree with the polls. You certainly might have a point were we only talking about one but we're not. I live in one of the middle America states, Iowa. We have a history of patriotism, our National Guard has been stretched to its limits but they keep on going back. The sentiment is overwhelming here to get the hell out of Iraq. This is not exactly a hot bed of liberalism, pretty much a middle of the road group of folks. So I believe the 70% number. I have Republican friends with whom I passionately disagree about many things - we debate all the time. Almost all of them have come to the place that we need to get out.

yo:

You're diatribe is why I'm happy that I'm on a different side than you are.

Yo, that was freakin' awesome.

yo

You left out "We're not Reagan"!

Que the music....Where's your head at?....

JFO, when you have adopted a position of being against the nations' efforts, just because your political opponents are in charge, you've got a problem that someone with a conscience would be embarrassed by.

Synova:

It also admitted that Democratic support for withdrawing from Iraq isn't iron clad, that a significant group of moderate to conservative Democrats exist that aren't going to toe the party line if Petraeus has a good report and there is progress in Iraq by September.

Exactly! Call Pelosi and Reid and the rest what you want, but in the end they are politicians. They KNEW the Blue Dog segment of their party weren't in lock-step with pulling out of Iraq and or giving deadlines.

As a result every bill presented was chocked full of pork for the "Blue Dog States" to buy their agreement.

"You're diatribe is why I'm happy that I'm on a different side than you are"

- JFO

Honestly, and with all due respect and civility, man, I could give two sh**s what the f*** side you're on.

I'm tired of the arguments you and your party present. They're tired, worn out and have yet, after many a decade, to do anything resembling productive for this nation.

I'm not a fan of all republicans, nor do I support them out of hand, but I tell you that it's nice to know that they're around when the s*** hits the fan.

Reagan stopped the Cold War. Clinton couldn't take out Somalia.

The best the Dems have to offer is much catterwalling and folk songs.

How's that been working out for you, so far?

SPQR

You do what so many whizzers do - make grand assumptions about the motives of folks who don't agree with you. In your mind you can't fathom how others might disagree on principal, that it has nothing at all to do with "politics." You pretend to know the motives of those on the other side, when in fact you have no idea. It's actually more sad than funny to read the kind of comment you and others make about these issues.

That 70% who want us out have to be wrong and you have to be right?

yo

Keep on spewing and spittling (sic) - you might get it all out and then you can go get a latte and relax. But maybe you just like acting like a tough guy.

>That 70% who want us out have to be wrong and you have to be right?

Please, JFO convince the Dems running for office that 70% of the country wants us to lose in Iraq... PLEASE.

JFO:

Keep on spewing and spittling (sic) - you might get it all out and then you can go get a latte and relax. But maybe you just like acting like a tough guy.

Sooo... you have nothing to counter what he posted? I mean if you feel it's all "spewing and spittling" certainly you have a well reasoned response to show your side of what was written.

Right?

JFO

I'll put this another way.

The published polls on the war in Iraq are presented by the MSM, major polling organizations and the leadership of the Democratic Party as representative of how Americans will vote. That is why Democrats have made the GWOT the central issue in their campaigns for the executive office and Congress.

My point is this: if the Iraq war and the broader War on Terror were made a plebiscite, the results would be far different than what you see in media polls today. And that is why the Democrats are so consumed with very recent reports that the surge may succeed. They have invested their future in the failure of the war, or, said another way (which Churchill clearly understood in his time) they have made the war and upcoming elections a plebiscite.

There are terms for those who choose to subsume their own judgment and thoughts to the majority, JFO. "Flock" and "herd" are among the most generous.

Toss in the lost-established unreliability of both the polls and those commissioning the polls, and one wonders why you are so eager to yield your own opinions to those you are told constitute a majority.

But then one realizes that to express such interest in your opinion is placing far more value on what you think than you apparently do.

J.

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

Increase Same Decrease Remove All Unsure
12 15 30 36 7
12 18 29 34 7

For what it's worth JFO (maybe not much given it's a "poll") people seem evenly divided.

JFO and his ilk are irrelevent. They have no core. No sound belief or policy. JFO proves it by siting a poll. If the poll turns around, so will he. They, the lefty trolls, do not understand commitment, honor, integriy, follow through and most importantly, because it is recently proven, leadership. ww

Paul:

See, that's the rub isn't it. The word lose. How about is as losing thousands and thousands of lives policing a civil war? How about as in losing arms and legs and eyes while policing a civil war. How about as in losing hundreds of millions of dollars, stolen and wasted while policing a civil war? How about losing members of the National Guard because we're engaged in policing a civil war?

That's what losing the war means.

An intelligent and reasoned response Jay. But then I would expect nothing more from you.

To clarify:

To increase or remain the same is at 27%, to decrease the number is at 30% to pull out all together, which is decidedly different than the other options, is at 36%.

JFO:

civil war

As long as you fixate on that term, a term that was perpetrated by the "pull out crowd", and completely disregard that AQ IS in Iraq, discount the Iraq Study Groups assessment (along with many others including the U.N.) that any pull out prior to AG being defeated and civil strife being minimized you will never allow yourself a clear picture of what is happening in Iraq.

Did you have time to poll and focus group that response, JFO? Because I just did, and 79.65% of average Americans disagreed with it.

In light of that statistic, and your loudly-proclaimed loyalty to the Will Of The Flock, perhaps you ought to reconsider it?

J.

From the poll you just cited Marc - 70% disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq. So you do agree about that number?

Jay:

I repeat my first comment about your whatever it is you wrote.

JFO your reply shows how naive you are. Those are the cost of war.

They are the same if you win or lose the war.

The difference is your side wants *George Bush* to lose the war so you can gain political power. Everyone knows that. Today's slip just confirms it.

The American people don't want us to lose the JFO, that's your problem.. But please convince as many dems as possible that the American people want us to lose a war. The self destruction will be oh so grand to watch.

I will not even acknowledge that traitorous frauds 70% lie. JFO you are straight up disgrace and democrat. That is all that needs to be said about you.

The are two type of people in this Country Americans and democrats.

BTW Jay when do the wizbang-nazis start deleting JFO for disagreeing with what's posted?

I'm just asking'

Paul

There you go doing what i said earlier - reading my mind. Yes those are the costs of war, of course they are. And what a cost for this war. You're so full of shit to say i want Bush to lose so dems can gain political power. It's be like me saying you want war because you like to see people die. "Everyone" knows what Paul? Are you a diviner, a reader of minds or crazy?

Jesus I don't get you folks who think because folks disagree with you it has to be "political" or "BDS" or traitorous. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

JFO

This is not a policing action. read this:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bread-and-a-circus-part-i-of-ii.htm

JFO got taken in by AQ and their attempt (failed) to convince the world that the Iraqi people were behind the bombings and murders and there's no way to change a closed and dangerous (to the American people) mind. We are fighting the same AQ that were there long before the invasion. One of the first bombing missions was an AQ camp. The AQ residents fled to Iran for good reason, one of our very own democrat congess critters told the enemy we were coming. Can't find the link to the name but it is documented fact. It American law was applied as written, half or more of the democrats in congress and most government offices (FBI,CIA,NSA,DOJ) would be on trial for treason or already shot. The democrat/socialist/communist followers would have been used as backstops. I guess President Bush can build thousand of concentration camps, the dhimmi's have accused him of planning, in a few months. He managed to plan and execute the 9-11 bombings in a few months.(sacr. on)
"The president had five polyps removed from his colon. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Carl Levin and Dick Durbin are all doing fine." quote stolen.

Paul:

You know the routine as well as I do. We have to run it through a series of polls (preferably by Zogby or Gallup) and paid for by either the New York Times or the AP. Then we have to "adjust" the results. Then it has to be reported on at least three major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC). Then -- and only then -- can we say that 70% of the readership wants him gone, and we pull his plug.

Alternately, we get Jamil Hussein and/or Reuters to produce some convincing photos of him driving an SUV or watching Fox News or wearing a Fred Thompson button. Then we denounce him as a fraud and pull the plug.

As a last resort, we get Al Gore to analyze his carbon footprint.

J.

"civil war.?"

Hey stupid democrat , are you sure your handlers didn't tell you to repeat that lie four times?

We need a special prosecutor to investigate that bogus poll and everyone involved.

Jay:

I repeat my last 2 comment to your comment(s). Stick to political writing by the way you have a modicum of talent there.

To increase or remain the same is at 27%, to decrease the number is at 30% to pull out all together, which is decidedly different than the other options, is at 36%.

Wow, nice spin. In other words, 27% want more or the same, 66% want some form of decrease. Yeah, that seems "evenly divided", eh?

"one of our very own democrat congess critters told the enemy we were coming."

That jackass amoung many would be Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Excuse me, JFO, but that last comment was directed towards Paul. Eavesdropping on conversations between editors is grounds for banning.

Or, at least, a mild scolding.

As well as being sent to bed with no milk and cookies.

Do NOT make us bring out the comfy chair.

J.

Milk and cookies then please as I am going to bed. Trying to reason with whizzers is very tiring.

Ahh, this is where that breeze is coming from. JFO is spinning like a top, again, to defend the indefensible from the Dhimmicrats... again.

Spin, JFO, spin!

OK JFO... ya got me... You're right an I'm wrong...

Not ~everyone~ knows that the Dems want us to lose the war so they gain power... I'm sure there is some second grader in the Berkley public school system that doesn't know.

But everyone ELSE knows the Dems are pulling for a loss... Heck, your own whip just admitted it.

But rather than defend his comment you make up statistics.

I really don't like using the kind of ad hominem that attacks an opponents mental state or character, but the problem is that the only way the Democrats' behavior in this has any rationality is if they have no conscience.

I doubt if you asked the question of Americans 'should we lose in Iraq' that 70% would say yes. Especially if you told the truth about the consequences of losing in Iraq. Heck in today's news even the Saudis are saying we should not leave.

Wars are tough, even tougher when your own countrymen enlist on the side of the enemy. Spreading propaganda is all the al Qaeda's have left now, who is going to pick up the slack?

If I read the New York Times, they think the end is near for the Defeato-crats and are suggesting abandon ship. Not going to be able to hide it much longer. The 'Iraq 1920 brigade', a former al Qaeda franchisee just signed on with the coalition and Iraq government ... one of the last big holdouts.

So come on in, it's not too hard to say you want your own country to win the war. Right? Most Democrats voted for the war, didn't they? I will bet the American public shows up for the winning.

"Jesus I don't get you folks who think because folks disagree with you it has to be "political" or "BDS" or traitorous. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about."

Says the man who chastises a commenter for reading his mind, yet feels comfy citing polls (one, I might add, I don't think you'd actually participated in).

The issue is not with whom you disagree, but with whom you agree.

All you've actually done on this thread is harp on the folks tapping out comments. Can you, honestly and effectively, generate any sort of argument that would justify how Clyborn stepped out today and admitted that the Dems would be severely injured, politically, if the news from Iraq started to be positive?

He didn't say anything about how this positive news would benefit the nation, and the world -- not to mention how accepting positive news (unlike Murtha) would give a huge boost to troop morale (you remember the troops that everyone supports, right?) - just how it would be bad for his party.

I'll give you some time to think about that one. Unlike that mythical 70% you cite, I'm patient. I can wait for you to be productive in such an admittedly hostile environment.

I understand the scope of your mission and will give you the time to surge through google, or what have you.

Take your time. Be effective. I certainly wouldn't want you to have to return empty handed and demoralized due to a hasty withdrawal.

For the record, I'm not a fan of lattes. And I only act tough because, quite simply, when properly motivated, I can bring it.

It's not my fault that you either haven't figured out, or lack the capacity, to bring it back.

I guess I'm late to this "party"...and in this case I think it's a good thing. A good thing because I therefore feel justified in returning to the ORIGINAL topic:

That a scumbag DEMOCRAT CongressThing spoke from the heart, before engaging his vote-detector...and "leaked" his TRUE FEELINGS! And also "leaked" the obvious truth:
DEMOCRATS ARE INVESTED IN OUR DEFEAT!

I'm still pissed of about this, since on the Hugh Hewitt show today they played the audio of this moron...several times. It's way more than enough to make you puke!

Yo:

Please feel free to drop me a line through the address listed on my blog. I'd be interested in your thoughts on some things. :)

They don't have any conscience because they are sick and evil. They only want to fullfill their sick twisted fantasy before they turn into rotting corpses. Some already seem to be rotting from the inside out.

I doubt if you asked the question of Americans 'should we lose in Iraq' that 70% would say yes. Especially if you told the truth about the consequences of losing in Iraq.

Wrong.

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

| Keep Forces | Withdraw Forces | Unsure
% % %
7/18-21/07 | 39 | 59 | 3

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I was just off to bed when I saw your comment yo. I don't need to google or research. What I would suggest though is that you learn how to read. Show me where Clyborn said the Dems would be "severely injured politically." What I understood him to say is that the Dems might be impeded in forcing Bush to set a timetable (which by the way I don't believe he would ever do).

Please show me where he says what you say he did. I'll be anxiously waiting for a few more minutes before going to bed.

So you see yo, you assume and misread and of course you make [a} ass of yourself in doing so. I don't need to justify a fictitious argument you made up in your head because you're so damned blind you believe what you want without seeing what's in plain sight - sort of like Bush does.

Now, tough guy take a deep breath. You don't need to google either. just read plain English.

Brian:

Wow, nice spin. In other words, 27% want more or the same, 66% want some form of decrease. Yeah, that seems "evenly divided", eh?

Ah... no. 36% want a full pullout, a decrease is NOT a full pullout, you can call that a "decease" all you care to if it makes you feel all warm and comfy.

You mean going from 150,000 to zero is not a decrease? Archimedes would be surprised.

I'd be surprised if you actually saw the difference Brain.

And I'm not.

"sort of like Bush does."

... says the man who cracks on others for immediately assuming "BDS."

Whatever.

As for the rest of it, meh.

I see "impeded in forcing Bush to set a time table" as being "severely politically injured" since the only issue the Dems can agree on is ending the war.

If that makes me an ass, so be it. You wanna split hairs over nuance - be that so, as well.

Remove that tiny bit and my question to you is still valid.

If you'd rather demonstrate the intellectual snobbery prevalent in the liberal left, and use that to deflect the question, that's your gig, man.

If you wanna mangle an oft used, yet entirely tired cliche' ... knock yourself out.

Like I said before, I don't really give two s***s what you think and I honestly have no interest in debating you, any more.

Your skills are weak, your back up data is flimsy and for all I know you're a 12 year old boy ALT+TABing a sticky keyboard between this forum and whatever site it is that your parents don't want you to be looking at.

In short: you're just like Lee. Lot's of smoke, no fire and a typical moronic liberal who speaks highly of human rights, free speech, civil political discourse and the like, yet do nothing to promote any of it.

You are the kind of person that has eroded the fine concept of Liberalism and have turned it into a joke that simply wasn't funny the first time.

Sleep well.

JFO...next time I hear your side prattling on about going into Darfur, I'll keep asking why you weren't on board for Iraq.

Hey Brian , what business do average uninformed citizens have making decisions for our Military? You know , the same 75% who didn't know who that stupid twit you know call speaker?

That decision was made in 2004 sorry to remind you. Not really.

I would think you don't want to debate after your absolutely ridiculous attempt to rationalize your jackass interpretation. Nuance? Split hairs?What nuance? Even you couldn't believe the bullsh** you're putting out.

Face it yo, you made a mistake. You'd think such a tough guy might just own it and move on. But no, you act like Bush - nuance? Jesus that's a joke. Split hairs? My sides are splitting with this attempted backpedaling, justifying, rationalizing piece of garbage you just wrote.

And for a (tough) guy who claims not to give a sh** what I think you spend a lot of energy trying to refute.

Deep breaths, sip your latte. Want to borrow my sandals and limo?

Hey Brian , what business do average uninformed citizens have making decisions for our Military?

I think the question you mean to ask is, what business do our leaders have implementing the will of the American people? I'll leave you to answer that one yourself.

Steve... I'd be interested in how many troops JFO would support being sent into the Sudan under the new U.N. agreement.

Although the deal was brokered by France and the U.K. you can bet the bulk of the final number of 19,555 military personnel will be supplied by America.

marc

I answered you on the other thread. 0 US troops. You of course were assuming something else weren't you? {a} ass.

JFO

And for a (tough) guy who claims not to give a sh** what I think you spend a lot of energy trying to refute.

Refute what? You've offered nothing in response that comes close to the definition.

JFO:

I answered you on the other thread. 0 US troops. You of course were assuming something else weren't you? {a} ass.

I didn't assume anything.

Now, why zero troops?

Brian,
It all depends on how the poll is worded. What do you think the result would have been if the question was as follows:
"The Democrats have admitted that good news in Iraq hurts their party and want the USA to declare defeat and withdraw all troops. They have acknowledged that a million or more Iraqis could be slaughtered in the aftermath of such a withdrawal. Do you agree or disagree with the Democrats' position?"

For lots of reasons. But principally because the African countries need to be the ones dealing with the issue - the UN needs to step up. as well. Secondarily, we're stretched too damn thin even if I believed we should be there. Happy to discuss this issue with you some other time though. I apologize for assuming you assumed. I [a} ass for so doing.

Oh, now .. JFO .., don't get all like that. Just because you don't have a come back isn't really worth getting your pressure up, is it?

Fine. You win.

You're the most intelligent person I've ever encountered and I simply have no other option than to wilt in the glimmering radiance of all that is you.

I simply can't muster any sort of rational response to the biting issues you've presented to me (I mean, of course, if I knew what those were; but, alas ... my stunted intelligence only gets me so far).

I am humbled by the fact that I can even share the same planet with you, let alone the same country.

Above and beyond all else, you are the master and I hope, some day ... some great glorious day, to be able to bask in your intellectual glory.

I had assumed that your arguments were thin and that you're only recourse was to bait me with silly-assed argumentative blather.

Boy, was I wrong.

You are awesome and I have nothing upon which to stand that could possibly endure the weathering sting of your awesomeness.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond as my comments can only threaten to lower the shared IQ within our sorry, pitiful collective.

/sarcasm off

schmuck

yo

You're a hoot. My offer stands for my sandals and a limo.

Case closed. Nice kicking your tough guy ass with the facts. Thanks for owning it. Remember Jack Webb now; "The facts sir, just the facts." Or to paraphrase him a little: "Next time read what it is you're making a jackass argument about, sir."

/sarcasm on - putz

"with the facts. "

.... oh, f***, that's classic.

At least I didn't have to see Anna Nicole's hugh tits while reading all the dumbass comments on this post.....

Yo, Yo?... If our paths ever cross, I'm buying you a beer.

It all depends on how the poll is worded. What do you think the result would have been if the question was as follows:

Do you really think that the poll questions (they are published for all to read, by the way) are as biased as your proposed question?

Now, assuming your point is that the people represented in the polls have not adequately considered, nor have the polls indicated, the consequences of withdrawing troops, you're wrong.

Yo, Yo?... If our paths ever cross, I'm buying you a beer.

I'll second that. And throw in a steak.

Didn't you guys know that lee lee writes all of JFO material?
Yo's post (7:34) is right on the money. Nice going .

And I'm not.

And I'm not surprised at your spin either. First Reps want to deny science, and now you're denying math. If nothing else, you're consistent.

Besides, it really doesn't matter. The bottom line is 66% want "not what we're doing now". Spin it however you like.

JFO has gotten his ass kicked on this thread. (as usual)

Love it. Keep it up.

Jo:

Yup a real thumping. Old yo flasifies and misquotes the very statement that is actually posted by Kim and gets nailed for it and JFO gets his ass kicked!!! I know the malady that effect the Bushites - inability to read, fabulous ability to dent and ratiionalize, deny the obvious and change the subject!!!

Jo, you related to Jo? You sound like him.

Gawd, I can't type. Nite nite.

Jo, you related to Jo? You sound like him.

"I'm Larry, and this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl."

To all you libs that "aren't traitors", why hasn't your leadership (they run the house and senate by the way) pulled the funding for the war? If 70% of americans REALLY agreed to your position, they'd be shutting down the capital switchboard to get their way, as happened in the immigartion debate. Hmmmmmm, I just don't get it.....

The anti-war liberals justify pulling out of Iraq
because it is the will of the majority.
Using this logic,they should have been for the Iraq
war when the majority of Democrats voted for it and the
majority of the American people were for it.
liberals should just stick with the obvious.

They don't care about Freedom.
They don't care about preventing genocide.
They don't care about defeating terrorism.
They don't care about the sacrifice and honor of our
brave Soldiers.

liberals only care about their own political gain
and bringing down President Bush.

liberals have clearly out done their lying, gutless
narcissistic behavior of the Vietnam war that caused the genocide of millions and the shame of desecrating our Soldiers who so bravely fought in it.

Like butter with your baked potato ? You troll crusher you. LOL

YO, don't worry about JFO. He is so yesterday. Boring and predictable. One thing I did notice is how he manipulates the scoring. Nice trick, but I am not buying. No way anyone on this site would vote high positives for the likes of JFO.

JT, DJ, what's up? ww

Are the retarded leftist trolls trying to bury this thread or what? My normal filter of -5 usually screens out most of their dribble, but in this thread it's all reversed, and almost constant numbers, like a bunch of them just hammered the negatives on the regulars and positives on the trolls.

Some leftist troll figured out how to rig it. That is why I am asking for an explaination from JT or DJ. ww

I've noticed a lot of predictions of a highly positive report from Petraeus. The MSM and Dems seem to be pushing this lately.

I guess we'll be seeing more of this leading up to September. Then, when the actual report comes out and it's only 'moderately positive' or 'not 100% positive' the MSM and Dems will say "Aha! Things are worse than we thought! It's a quagmire!"

The demacrats are beginging to look kind of stupid or al least rediclous

It is funny how those wanting to leave Iraq before the mission is done treat today's polls as if they should determine policy, but when the majority of Americans are for things they don't want they are dismissed. What if, just for the sake of argument, the good news trickling out of Iraq were to make those polls turn around and the majority decided we should give the surge more time to work. Would you abide by those polls then?

As for the numbers in the polls -- of course most everyone (including the President and me and most everyone else) wants to bring our troops home. It is no wonder those listening to the steady drumbeat that all is lost in Iraq and that the surge is a failure (ala Harry Reid) would register the desire to bring troops home now. If they hear about the progress being made, those polls may change.

"Now, assuming your point is that the people represented in the polls have not adequately considered, nor have the polls indicated, the consequences of withdrawing troops, you're wrong."

Brian, sounds like you think 70% of Americans would say, in these words, that we should admit defeat and we just don't care if a million Iraqis are slaughtered in the aftermath of a withdrawal? I believe 70% of Democrats might say that, but not 70% of Americans.

Mike:

Based on your question it would then appear you believe we should intervene in Darur and any other country where million(s) are being slaughtered. Are you a man of principle , believing that it is our responsibility to stop the slaughter of millions anywhere it is happening?

JFO,
Maybe this explanation will help you a little bit. We may not be able to prevent all the genocides in the world. However, in Iraq, a withdrawal will probably cause a genocide. This genocide is a direct result of our action. Are you willing to see another genocide in Iraq just like the one in Indochina after the VN war?

JFO,
Way to change the subject. And LoveAmerica Immigrant has it right. If the Dems surrender and vacate, the genocide will be on us, just like what happened after Vietnam.

Mike

Way to be a pussy and not be honest enough to answer a reasonable question.

JFO,
I take it that what you're saying is that Dems are consistent in not caring about wholesale slaughter, while conservatives only speak up when it's the USA that would be taking action directly leading to the slaughter.

No, what you need to take is that you don't have the balls to stand behind your view that we need to save millions of Iraqi's from potential slaughter, but too bad about anyone else. So, of course you won't answer an easy question. Why? My guess is because you are only interested in defending Bush. Maybe I'm wrong so show me I am. And grow some stones and just answer the original question.

By the way where in Oregon? My kids live in Portland and Sherwood.

JFO,
First you say I'm a pussy, then that I don't have balls, now you want to get chummy about the kids and where everyone lives? Get real, dude.

Notice JFO's hypocrisy trademark again. He asked the question. We gave the answer. Then he wouldn't answer our question. JFO simply cannot avoid being a hypocrite.

BTW, using JFO 's silly arg: if we cannot save everyone in the world, then we shouldn't save our neighbors. That 's another version of JFO 's cheap "perfection arg". He used this cheap arg in this thread here. Basically, no one is perfect, so there is no difference between a liar and an honest person in JFO 's arg.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/07/31/brown-better-get-prepared-to-be-called-a-poodle.php#comments

Mike

Anything not to answer an easy question. Now I know you're a pussy.

Anything not to answer an easy question. Now I know you're a pussy.
-------------------------------------
Is this another example of JFO 's hypocrisy. First ask a question to distract. Got the answer. Others asked JFO a question and JFO tried anything not to answer an easier question. What is the correct English term for this chutpatz(?): doubly pussy, hypocritically pussy ...?