Article

2007-03-08 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-03-08 11:06|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 let's see how that vote goes in the house, then Senate, Nancy

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-08 13:57|| 2007-03-08 13:57|| Front Page Top

#2 If I was Bush I would call her and the pansie a*s dums out. I would get on National TV and demand a National Vote ASAP with two options
1) We do WHATEVER it takes to win the WOT HOWEVER LONG it may take VICTORY only.

2) We cut our loses accept we don't have the stomach for WAR anymore as a nation and request from the Islamist the terms they require to halt thier attacks on US.

I would demand that vote and also I would publicly announce my resignation if option two is actually victorious. And if option one is chosen I would demand the end to all talk that doesn't help option ones goal victory.

Let the poeple SPEAK! If we as a people have become so weak and pitifull that we vote willing for defeat so be it the US is just not deserviing of Life as a nation anymore.

Don't anyone try to say the midterms was that vote either, that is utter BS, the Repubs lost becuase they allowed thier ranks to be infiltrated by perverts and thieves, along with widespread buisness as usual graft earmarks a protest vote is not a vote for mass suicide surrender.

Posted by C-Low 2007-03-08 14:56|| 2007-03-08 14:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Alt Headline==>"Democrats Set Date for Start of Islamic Takeover of Iraq"

Posted by eLarson 2007-03-08 14:59|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-03-08 14:59|| Front Page Top

#4 Alt Headline==>"Democrats Set Date for Start of Islamic Takeover of ~~Iraq~~USA"
There. Fixed it for you.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-03-08 15:06|| 2007-03-08 15:06|| Front Page Top

#5 Drudge - Bush sez he would veto it

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-08 16:03|| 2007-03-08 16:03|| Front Page Top

#6 said the proposal would bring an "orderly and responsible close" to American participation in what he called an Iraqi "civil war."

And her objections to continued American participation in the civil war involving the country formerly known as Yugoslavia were made when? And what legislation did she push to end our involvement? [NB that the then President (D) said they'd be home ~~before the leaves fall~~ in a year, which was up about a decade ago.]

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-08 16:11|| 2007-03-08 16:11|| Front Page Top

#7 She hasta speak soon, because the bad guyz are unravelling - first the Iranian Reza whatizface defects, and now Hek is coming in from the cold. If Nancy can't steal the headlines soon, the good news might overwhelm her!

There. I finished my Dreamsicle.

Posted by Bobby 2007-03-08 16:29|| 2007-03-08 16:29|| Front Page Top

#8 This is politics, plain and simple. Someone needs to get up and tell her about the millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese that were murdered because her stinking Congress prohibited funding. That's lives on their self-righteous heads.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-03-08 16:45|| 2007-03-08 16:45|| Front Page Top

#9 Someone needs to get up and tell her about the millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese that were murdered because her stinking Congress prohibited funding. That's lives on their self-righteous heads.

Maybe a showing of The Killing Fields?

Posted by eLarson 2007-03-08 16:50|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-03-08 16:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Put on your ~~red dress~~ black burka ~~baby~~ Nancy And wear your smile
...tra la la la la

Posted by JohnQC 2007-03-08 17:29|| 2007-03-08 17:29|| Front Page Top

#11 In the name of diversity I wish to express my warmest welcome to our new Muslim overlords.

Posted by Nancy Pelosi 2007-03-08 18:29|| 2007-03-08 18:29|| Front Page Top

#12 Nancy, a little history lesson.

We left troops in Germany, and millions didn't die.

We left troops in Japan, and millions didn't die.

We left troops in Korean, and millions didn't die.

Troops were taken out of Vietnam and millions did die.

Do you see the pattern yet?

Posted by Sherry 2007-03-08 18:59|| 2007-03-08 18:59|| Front Page Top

#13 #12 Sherry - Well done!

Howzabout sending it to Nancy - with a copy to the Washington Post (for form's sake) and the New York Post (so it will actually get published)?

You go, girl! :-D

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-03-08 19:17|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2007-03-08 19:17|| Front Page Top

#14 She, and her cronies like ~~Mumra~~ Murtha (and Kerry and Kennedy) want to return to the glory days of the Democratic Party - back when they betrayed a ally and cut funding and support to South Vietnam.

A few million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians (and now Iraqi's) is a small price to pay (particulary since the DNC won't have to pay it!) for the advancement of the DNC!

They makes me sick! That a disgusting bunch of people!

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-03-08 20:33|| 2007-03-08 20:33|| Front Page Top

#15 Ima stealing that Sherry, thanks. Short and sweet and to the point. as opposed to a long one I wrote sometime ago.

Posted by RD 2007-03-08 22:17|| 2007-03-08 22:17|| Front Page Top

#16 RIGHTNATION article > NBC > Iraqis don't want America to leave and Insurgents are COUNTING ON EXTERNAL/OUTSIDE HELP.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-08 22:18|| 2007-03-08 22:18|| Front Page Top

#17 I know in a country where miniscule changes in gasoline prices are considered an issue worthy of public figures strutting their economic illiteracy we are most unlikely to be treated to a debate that is the least serious or educational, but ....

Would someone on the Hill, finally, get up and eviscerate the nonsense about "civil wars" being magically bad or insoluble? Or not being suitable problems for our intervention, if their outcome affects our vital interests?

Civil war, shm-ivil war. If it's in our interest to settle, or influence, a civil war anywhere on Earth, or a war on Mars, or a war between Iceland and Burundi, then we f***ing do it. Or we don't. There's nothing magical or impossible about a "civil war". The threshhold questions are: are our vital interests engaged, and if so is intervention the best (or least worst) way of protecting those interests. Period. Whether something is a civil war or something else is of absolutely no significance.

We should have, long ago, settled this one by crushing the Sunni side. Nothing personal against the Sunnis, but if they want to discuss it they can go talk with Germans in east Prussia - oops, there aren't any - because WARS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Even internal ones.

A staple platitude of our embassy statements was (probably still is) that "all sects in Iraq suffered under Saddam". Undoubtedly true - and obviously irrelevant. Only one sect prevented Iraq from exploiting its liberation to at least take a few big steps toward becoming a modern and relatively open society. They did so by undertaking or abetting a horrific campaign of terrorism without equal in modern history.

Tragically, we'll never see how the American public could get much smarter, real quick, on several topics if only the adults in government would speak up and correct all the nonsense that passes unchallenged.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-08 23:41|| 2007-03-08 23:41|| Front Page Top

14:13 Ðîìàí
23:46 Verlaine
23:41 Verlaine
23:35 Shipman
23:35 anon1
23:31 Shipman
23:28 anon1
23:28 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 Verlaine
23:19 Shipman
23:12 Shipman
23:10 Flolumble Elmuling1667
23:07 USN, ret.
23:05 Shipman
23:02 Old Patriot
22:56 USN, ret.
22:54 DMFD
22:48 USN, ret.
22:44 Shieldwolf
22:37 USN, ret.
22:36 Shieldwolf
22:34 RD
22:32 Shieldwolf
22:21 Frank G