1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Democrats two-faced

Discussion in 'Elections & Political Parties' started by Fitch, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. Fitch

    Fitch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

    ""If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."
    After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
    "The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition.""

    How typical of the Democrats of how they have politicized the war for their own political gain. As I have noted over and over, no matter what we do they will oppose it.

    "Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."
    In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
    "They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.
    By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
    "The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters."

    And again, just oppose anything do not support anything even retreat and go for failure if they believe they can get political points. Just as Hillary's total 180 on Iraq because she now has to look like she opposed it to get political support. What these fools don't understand, to this day, is that without the total support on the homefront victory and success are not likely. They empower our enemies and bring down the morale of our troops to fight for a cause the Dems declare immoral and unwinnable.

    Will the MSM point out these clear dichotomies in what they say? Don't count on it.
     
  2. Searchlight

    Searchlight New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Surge!!!!!

    There is absolutely no reason to trust Bush.

    Everything he has said, promised or agreed to so far has been proven to be a lie.

    Trust is something that is not given to you. It has to be earned.

    So far he has given absolutely no reason to trust him.

    Th price our country has paid so far for his incompetence is the loss of 3140+ of our brave soldiers, 21,500+ maimed, disfigured and permanently disabled, almost 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians killed.

    Sending more soldiers there is bound to end up in even more severe losses.

    So far, $500 Billion of our nation's treasury has been wiped out in this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional war, with no end in sight.

    What exactly are our soldiers doing there? Patrolling streets, knocking down doors, and standing in the middle of the crossfire of a civil war?

    No more!
     
  3. Nammy

    Nammy Guest

    Although I'm not a democrat, I don't think I can disagree with you there.

    Bush is causing too much trouble for us.
     
Loading...

Share This Page