It's Official, Democrats have No Interest in Ending the War in Iraq...
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 27, 2007 7:38am CST
At the Democrat candidate debate, none of the candidates would say that they would end the war during their terms. Apparently the Democrats aren't any more interested in getting out than the Bush administration. It also shows that any demands for a "timetable" from the Bush administration is nothing but meaningless rhetoric.
Ironically, the only candidates who have said that they would end the war in Iraq... are Republicans. ;~D
2 people like this
6 responses
@visitorinvasion (7709)
• United States
27 Sep 07
I take it you saw Pelosi stammering on the news the other day too...also, if you weren't aware of it, that Gravel idiot is talking about how the world NEEDS a "world government." No the hell we don't either. Rant over, gotta get ready for class. OY!
1 person likes this
@visitorinvasion (7709)
• United States
1 Oct 07
Well, we have Billary, then we have Obama, who was born here but not raised here, and also, like Billary, is a member of the CFR...and so is Gravel for that matter.
They are building permanent bases over in Iraq, so I don't think our ladies and gentlemen will be coming home anytime within the next decade...let me just say I hope I'm very wrong about that.
I'm not into being a slave either, btw.
To sort of quote Nancy Reagan, Just say NO to global government!!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Sep 07
Yup, Pelosi is running scared because she knows that it's no longer just Bush and the Republican's War. She didn't move to end it, so now Congress, under her leadership has taken it as their's too.
That woudln't be a problem, except the Pelosi and the Democrats have worked so hard to discredit the war... now how do they backpeddle out of it?
One world government is nothing more than world slavery.
2 people like this
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
1 Oct 07
I saw the Pelosi thing too. You know me Shannon and Ted, I first did a /facepalm. Then I did a /double facepalm because it was hard to get around.
I needed a drink after that one.
The worst part is, no one pays attention to this stuff! Its insane, some people think the glamour boys and the figurehead glamour girl "candidates" are like the second coming! It's really baffling, even though I've been seeing so much backwards nonsense for years.
2 people like this
@Airforcekid (196)
• United States
27 Sep 07
They will just make it so we lose the war!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Sep 07
Not if they get elected they won't. Losing the war is something they want to hang on Bush... If a Democrat wins the Whitehouse, just watch, all of the sudden most of the Democrats in Congress will start coming up with reasons it's imparative we win in Iraq.
1 person likes this
@missybal (4490)
• United States
7 Oct 07
We can't lose a war we already won. Bush himself said "mission accomplished." Many Democrates and Republicans want this war to end, If I was running for president I wouldn't want to make that promise that I can get it ended so quick because really congress has to put it through too. Anyone promising they can end it real quick is saying that because of how unpopular the war is and are just after the votes. That doesn't mean that they won't go back of their word later. They all do.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Oct 07
"We can't lose a war we already won. Bush himself said "mission accomplished."
You are right THAT part of the mission (the war against the Hussein Regime) was accomplished and already won.
However, letting good enough alone wasn't "good enough" for the terrorists, Syria, Iran and some Iraqis. The war we are now in is against them, for the freedom of Iraq to stand. Iran and Syria are putting a lot of money and assets into overthrowing the new government of Iraq. With that in mind, it is pathetic to think that there are Americans who side with them.
"Many Democrates and Republicans want this war to end, If I was running for president I wouldn't want to make that promise that I can get it ended so quick because really congress has to put it through too. Anyone promising they can end it real quick is saying that because of how unpopular the war is and are just after the votes. That doesn't mean that they won't go back of their word later. They all do."
Actually, you are wrong here. The Commander in Chief merely has to order the Pentagon to start redeployment operations. While it would be a friendly gesture, the president doesn't even have to contact Congress about it at all.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
27 Sep 07
I read that in the news reports last night, something about they didn't think they would be able to get the troops out before 2013 at least.
Then Hillary said something about not knowing what kind of problems that they meaning her, will have "inherited"
when they take the White House.
I have been saynig for some time that the Iraq problem was something that carried over from the Clinton years that Bush had to handle and several individuals have said that only Bush is to blame for Iraq since he is the sitting president and that is where the responsibility lies.
Hillary is saying that they will inherit Iraq from Bush which is the same thing I have been saying about Bush inheriting the problems from the Clinton years.
Not only does her statement validate my beliefs on the situation with Iraq, she is now trying to make excuses for why we won't be leaving Iraq, and she is trying to blame Bush for that failure in advance.
The democrats have been spouting this rhetoric, trying to force Bush to withdraw the troops while knowing full well that if he did then it would only make matters worse. Then they could blame the resulting problems on Bush.
They won't withdraw the troops from Iraq if they get into office because they know Bush has been right along in his assessment and actions concerning Iraq.
In other words, Bush was right all along, and the democrats have been playing political games with the troops lives and America's security.
This proves that the democrats do not have a plan for ending the war in Iraq and they never did have.
The only one does have a what looks like a decent plan is Biden, and no one is paying him much attention.
This also proves that the democrats have no business in the White House.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Sep 07
And to think it was just a few weeks ago that Hillary was saying that we need to bring them home, and bring them home NOW.
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
27 Sep 07
Oh absolutely.
Politics is fluid, as is life...and opinions constantly change...at least among the democrats.
Bush has stayed the course all along, and finally has began to adjust his strategy to one that is working better.
The democrats were elected on the promise that they would bring the troops home, and had unsuccessfully tried many times to force that to happen.
They claimed that Bush was out of touch.
It now appears that the democrats are the ones who have been out of touch with reality all along...not Bush.
They claim that Bush lied to them and to the people about this war and for that reason should be impeached.
It nows seems that the democrats lied to the people about getting the troops out of Iraq in order to win control of Congress.
They should be impeached and they should resign their posts immediately for they have shown themselves to be unfit for office by doing the very things that they have been accusing Bush of doing...namely lying.
They have hung themselves with their own words and actions.
Who woulda thunk it?
1 person likes this
@soccermom (3198)
• United States
27 Sep 07
Even though I am a Democrat myself I was not surprised to hear any of the candidates say they may not have a full withdrawal in their first term. Maybe it is becoming clear to them that pulling out isn't as easy as saying "Come on home troops!" I'm not too sure I agree with you on the Republicans being the ones that will end the war. I don't see any major troop withdrawal from either side any time soon, there's just no way we can responsibly walk away from this mess.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Sep 07
Nope, it's not that they've figured out that it isn't that easy, it's that they won't have anyone to point fingers at. They demand withdrawal and time tables from Prs. Bush... but when it's their turn, they refuse.
That's all anyone should have to know about these candidates to know that there isn't a leader to be found among them.
1 person likes this
@SlapItHigh (172)
• United States
5 Oct 07
The only candidate who will end the war is a Republican - Ron Paul. 70% of the country is against the war. I guess that is why Ron Paul earned over $5 million this quarter for fund raising from everyday citizens.
The top tier democrats are no different than the top tier republicans. They are all members of the CFR which clearly states its desire is a one world government. It is no wonder that Hillary says that "we can't loose sight of our strategic interests in this region". You have to at least hand it to Gravel for calling Hillary and the others out regarding the Iran vote.
@visitorinvasion (7709)
• United States
5 Oct 07
Damn skippy!
www.RonPaul2008.com
http://people4ronpaul.blogspot.com
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
1 Oct 07
Its just a whole bunch of posturing and political power plays for them. Not only that Ted remember some Democrats and their family members are profiting from the war (Blum, Feinstein, et all). But of course none care about this, or the fact that none of the "candidates" really stated they wanted to end the war in the debate. Funny thing is, some of them have said they'd end the war on the campaign trail but at the debates, it didn't even come up.
Wow, I'm floored at the coverage -_-
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
1 Oct 07
Say it isn't so ... I thought that it was Bush and Cheney and friends who were profiting off this war for oil...
Has someone been less than forthcoming?
1 person likes this
