House OKs Iraq pullout deadline

lnvanry · 03-26-2007, 05:01 PM

It doesn't matter what Congress or the Dems do....we will ALWAYS be in Iraq.

You are mistaken or a fool if you think otherwise. Our military will not give up its new bases in Iraq. They are there to stay.

The pull out will state that we will be leaving a small number of supportive personnel for administrative purposes.

A small number of about 20K.

Our logistical capabilities increased at a price....we (the fed gov't) will not give that up.

When you listen to campaign promises, plz note that NO ONE states how many people they want to remove....they just say a troop withdrawl.

BoneCrusher · 03-26-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Lol

DG bro ... you know I hate to go against you but a sitting President that outs a covert spy actively tracking lose nukes should be tried for treason. To declassify Plame so he can protect the disinformation strategy designed to hide his fallacious reasons for going to war is a greater grounds for impeachment than anything Nixon did.

We all need to really stop the partisan politics and look at the bigger picture. We have a "Republican" hopefull (ranked 2nd at the moment) that wears womens clothes and is pro-choice. We have Political hopefuls stumping with a religion based campaign strategy. We have a person with ties to racism and Islam running against a woman with a long history of deceit in the Dem's primaries. So far Broom Hilda is LEADING the entire Presidential race.

Unless we all stop the partisan bullshit and pick a leader based on merit instead of party we are screwed. The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited to a flag with Hitlery's mug on the wall next to it

...

True story.

BigDyl · 03-26-2007, 06:02 PM

When everyone narrows the playing field down to bullshit choices, you end up with a bullshit president.

Which happens everytime.

KelJu · 03-26-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

DG bro ... you know I hate to go against you but a sitting President that outs a covert spy actively tracking lose nukes should be tried for treason. To declassify Plame so he can protect the disinformation strategy designed to hide his fallacious reasons for going to war is a greater grounds for impeachment than anything Nixon did.

We all need to really stop the partisan politics and look at the bigger picture. We have a "Republican" hopefull (ranked 2nd at the moment) that wears womens clothes and is pro-choice. We have Political hopefuls stumping with a religion based campaign strategy. We have a person with ties to racism and Islam running against a woman with a long history of deceit in the Dem's primaries. So far Broom Hilda is LEADING the entire Presidential race.

Unless we all stop the partisan bullshit and pick a leader based on merit instead of party we are screwed. The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited to a flag with Hitlery's mug on the wall next to it

...

True story.

Boom! Fantastic speech, but will be fallen on deaf ears. Reps and dems care more about how their party looks than they do about the well fair of the country.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

DG bro ... you know I hate to go against you but a sitting President that outs a covert spy actively tracking lose nukes should be tried for treason. To declassify Plame so he can protect the disinformation strategy designed to hide his fallacious reasons for going to war is a greater grounds for impeachment than anything Nixon did.

We all need to really stop the partisan politics and look at the bigger picture. We have a "Republican" hopefull (ranked 2nd at the moment) that wears womens clothes and is pro-choice. We have Political hopefuls stumping with a religion based campaign strategy. We have a person with ties to racism and Islam running against a woman with a long history of deceit in the Dem's primaries. So far Broom Hilda is LEADING the entire Presidential race.

Unless we all stop the partisan bullshit and pick a leader based on merit instead of party we are screwed. The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited to a flag with Hitlery's mug on the wall next to it

...

True story.

I agree with you, but that can all change if a true conservative gets in the race & rallys the troops... I still believe that the "silent majority" of people are conservative. The current list of Republican candidates is demoralizing, and will force conservatives to stay home. I myself will not vote if it's Guliani.

It's a shame too.. great opportunity to finish stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade: the next president will likely get two or three more judges nominated.

Fred Thompson said he may run... seems like an interesting candidate, though I don't know much about him other than his stance on major issues.

Regardless, Hillary Clinton cannot & will not win a Presidential Election... which is exactly why I hope she wins the party's nomination.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Reps and dems care more about how their party looks than they do about the well fair of the country.

Politicians, yes... But for the people I don't believe that: I think people just have drastically different opinions on what's best for the country.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double D

I cant believe someone hasnt assasinated him yet!

disappointed?

BoneCrusher · 03-26-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I agree with you, but that can all change if a true conservative gets in the race & rallys the troops... I still believe that the "silent majority" of people are conservative. The current list of Republican candidates is demoralizing, and will force conservatives to stay home. I myself will not vote if it's Guliani.

It's a shame too.. great opportunity to finish stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade: the next president will likely get two or three more judges nominated.

Fred Thompson said he may run... seems like an interesting candidate, though I don't know much about him other than his stance on major issues.

Regardless, Hillary Clinton cannot & will not win a Presidential Election... which is exactly why I hope she wins the party's nomination.

Don't get pissed at me ... but you always tended to let your ideologies and political preferences cloud your vision. Right now most women and most ethnics not only support her, but will for the first time in ages come out en-masse to vote if she is on the ballot. Put 'Bama on the ticket as VP? BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH game over.

Hate to say it but if I'm forced to choose between a pro-gun control drag-queen and the socialized medicine queen that actually included legal restrictions preventing us from seeking our own health care practitioners in her Hitlery health care package back in '93 ... yes it would have been a violation of the law to get your own doctor and pay for it out of your own pocket ... then Imma have to vote for the drag queen. How fucked up is that?

KelJu · 03-26-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Politicians, yes... But for the people I don't believe that: I think people just have drastically different opinions on what's best for the country.

I can't disagree with you there. I think for the most part, the people of the country do care, but they are constantly played by the people they elected. Hell, I think you and I both want good things for our country, but we can't agree on what needs to be done, so nothing ever gets done.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Hell, I think you and I both want good things for our country, but we can't agree on what needs to be done, so nothing ever gets done.

Yep, I agree.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Don't get pissed at me ...

KelJu · 03-26-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Don't get pissed at me ... but you always tended to let your ideologies and political preferences cloud your vision. Right now most women and most ethnics not only support her, but will for the first time in ages come out en-masse to vote if she is on the ballot. Put 'Bama on the ticket as VP? BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH game over.

Hate to say it but if I'm forced to choose between a pro-gun control drag-queen and the socialized medicine queen that actually included legal restrictions preventing us from seeking our own health care practitioners in her Hitlery health care package back in '93 ... yes it would have been a violation of the law to get your own doctor and pay for it out of your own pocket ... then Imma have to vote for the drag queen. How fucked up is that?

What is the fucking deal with conservatives up Guliani's ass about a dress. It was a joke! A joke, thats it. I fucking joke. I will never vote with people who have no sense of humor. Its too bad, because conservatives have some good policies. But, I will never vote with the conservatives until they stop hating on women and gays, stop with the war mongering, and stop taking things so seriously.

busyLivin · 03-26-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

What is the fucking deal with conservatives up Guliani's ass about a dress. It was a joke! A joke, thats it. I fucking joke. I will never vote with people who have no sense of humor. Its too bad, because conservatives have some good policies. But, I will never vote with the conservatives until they stop hating on women and gays, stop with the war mongering, and stop taking things so seriously.

I hadn't even heard about that. My distaste for him rests solely with his staunch support of abortion.

BoneCrusher · 03-26-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

What is the fucking deal with conservatives up Guliani's ass about a dress. It was a joke! A joke, thats it. I fucking joke. I will never vote with people who have no sense of humor. Its too bad, because conservatives have some good policies. But, I will never vote with the conservatives until they stop hating on women and gays, stop with the war mongering, and stop taking things so seriously.

We can find you you know ...

... a lil weaponized fairy-dust in your peppermint-cappuccino will straighten you out nicely.

P.S.
That was a joke he told repeatedly ...

don't ass don't tell ... and you left out the whole pro-choice plank in his rickety platform.

P.S.S.
The biggest issue I really have with the guy is he is soooooo anti marijuana.

Quote:

Rudolph Giuliani has criticised the "relaxed" attitude police in London have shown to cannabis saying the drug causes violence.source

He locked up enough people to populate Rhode Island over lower case drug laws when he was mayor. Now that we are really starting to make some headway again in marijuana reform accros the country at the state level we need someone at the federal level that's 420 friendly. If he reverses his stance and comes out as a pot head as well as a drag queen THEN I will vote for him. If not ... then back to the Copa Cabana with him.

**dg806** · 03-26-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

DG bro ... you know I hate to go against you but a sitting President that outs a covert spy actively tracking lose nukes should be tried for treason. To declassify Plame so he can protect the disinformation strategy designed to hide his fallacious reasons for going to war is a greater grounds for impeachment than anything Nixon did.

I think ALbob perfectly covered this in another thread.
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/op...-fall-guy.html (Libby is Guilty - Fall Guy)
This isn't about Bush's screw ups.
This is about the dems lack of support for the troops and the USA.

BoneCrusher · 03-26-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

I think ALbob perfectly covered this in another thread.
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/op...-fall-guy.html (Libby is Guilty - Fall Guy)
This isn't about Bush's screw ups.
This is about the dems lack of support for the troops and the USA.

No brother he conceded his point from informational overload. He got sandwiched between me and Decker ... but since you did bring that thread up I'll re-re-post the final straw to pushed that overload.

It's your homework assignment DG. Seriously ... I know you didn't read all the links last time. READ the links, or at least skim them enough to see that these links are not some liberal whacked out fantasy ... they are links to the real documents of public record as they pertained to the chain of evidence. There is a solid undeniable line from Wilson and the fraudulent Niger yellowcake report straight to BushCo's fallacious WMD's. No twisted Democrat hocus pocus (I AM a conservative), not MY version sweetened up to look how i want it too. Dates, order of occurrences ... and the documents of record.

Pick it apart and prove me wrong or debate it and show where something may be untrue.

Quote:

Okay Albob you are married to this Plame desk jockey concept that's so popular right now. I'll let you off the hook with that at the moment because that concept is obfuscating the real issue here. What is more important is that Libby lied to protect the people above him and has been convicted for that. Period. He's G*U*I*L*T*Y.

The real issue underlying this entire story is why did he lie? The Wilsons were the original source for the evidence that Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq. No Republican wants to accept that the entire WMD premise was a complete fabrication, so any single item or person that can prove Bush lied has to be publicly decimated. Libby's lies are another attempt to insulate BushCo from that truth.

BushCo has taken many steps to remove the breads crumbs leading to their door in this case but it can't be done. Slam Plame, toss Libby to the wolves, and muck it all up with talks of pardons and NOC status. It all really comes down to that underlying question of did the American public get the truth as it was then known about Sodomy's WMD potential from BushCo. The bread crumbs have still been followed ... and the answer is no.

Here is a time line on the intel BushCo wants so desperately to remain hidden. I've tried to cut and paste, compile, and edit this in a way that's free of my own political opinions.

March, 2002

A CIA report describing the findings of Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger*findings discrediting the claim that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake uranium from that country*is circulated widely throughout the intelligence community. It is not flagged for high-level White House officials, and they do not see it.

March 1, 2002

The State Department's intelligence bureau, INR, publishes an assessment entitled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." According to the 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, the INR analyst who drafted the document said it was produced at the behest of the Vice President's office.

October 5, 2002

George Tenet reads a draft of a speech George Bush is set to deliver in Cincinnati on October 7. It includes the claim that Saddam has "been caught attempting to purchase" uranium in Niger. The CIA tells Stephen Hadley and others at the White House that the statement is incorrect. Specifically, they say: "[R]emove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

December 19, 2002

The US discounts the Iraqi weapons declaration because it fails to account for various weapons that a UN inspection team said it "could have produced," and because it does not mention the tubes purchased for a uranium centrifuge or the attempts to procure uranium from Niger.

Secretary of State Colin Powell declares, "The Iraqi regime is required by Resolution 1441 to report those attempts. Iraq, however, has failed to provide adequate information about the procurement and use of these tubes. Most brazenly of all, the Iraqi declaration denies the existence of any prohibited weapons programs at all." The State Department issues a fact sheet saying that "The [Iraqi] Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

January, 2003

Two reports from the National Intelligence Council warn Bush that an Iraq invasion could spark sectarian violence and an anti-US insurgency. One says an occupation could "increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives." They also express skepticism about the Niger uranium story.

March 7, 2003

Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."

Mid June, 2003

An unnamed administration official, later revealed to be Colin Powell's deputy Richard Armitage, tells Bob Woodward that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, works for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction, making him, in all likelihood, the first leakee.

June 17, 2003

CIA analysts write to George Tenet and retract their Niger uranium reporting. "Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

BoneCrusher · 03-26-2007, 09:08 PM

Sorry I am outside of the scope of this thread with that last one ...

Decker · 03-27-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

...Hate to say it but if I'm forced to choose between a pro-gun control drag-queen and the socialized medicine queen that actually included legal restrictions preventing us from seeking our own health care practitioners in her Hitlery health care package back in '93 ... yes it would have been a violation of the law to get your own doctor and pay for it out of your own pocket ... then Imma have to vote for the drag queen. How fucked up is that?

Do you have a link for this? I am really interested. I have looked into other universal statesponsored healtcare systems and have not found them to restrict access to doctors outside the plan.

In fact this Heritage Foundation Paper (bullshit org.) states the opposite:

"Theoretically, patients will have choice of doctor. And the Clinton Administration has included a "point of service" option in the proposed system, enabling Americans to pick doctors outside of their health plans."
A Guide to the Clinton Health Plan

If a universal plan prohibits consultation with private doctors that would drive them out of business. I would think that any law barring the private practice of medicine would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional.

Big Smoothy · 03-27-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lnvanry

It doesn't matter what Congress or the Dems do....we will ALWAYS be in Iraq.

You are mistaken or a fool if you think otherwise. Our military will not give up its new bases in Iraq. They are there to stay.

The pull out will state that we will be leaving a small number of supportive personnel for administrative purposes.

A small number of about 20K.

Our logistical capabilities increased at a price....we (the fed gov't) will not give that up.

When you listen to campaign promises, plz note that NO ONE states how many people they want to remove....they just say a troop withdrawl.

Ivanry,

I agree with you. Key points you noted.

But I don't undestand the "we (the fed gov't)" part.

The Feds are not us.

Halliburton and Blackwater are not US.

The PNAC are not us.

Thankfully so.....

**dg806** · 03-27-2007, 11:09 AM

Clinton News Network
CBS News
The Washington Post
The New York Times
MSNBC
Dana Milbank
and Walter Pincus........all sources from the above quote.

No Liberals there huh? Sorry I see nothing credible as far as I'm concerned there. All one sided. Gotta do better than that.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 11:24 AM

The problem is, the democrat party is heavily, heavily invested in Iraq being a failure, if it ends up being a success, then everything they have been saying will be wrong.

They demand Bush "change course." He changes the strategy (through Petraeus's surge plan) and now they want to stop that. It isn't about changing course, it isn't about winning, it is about political power, and it is fucking disgusting.

Most of the assholes complaining about it now we're the ones promoting their support of the war against Iraq years ago as showing they are "strong on nat'l defense."

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

Do you have a link for this? I am really interested. I have looked into other universal statesponsored healtcare systems and have not found them to restrict access to doctors outside the plan.

In fact this Heritage Foundation Paper (bullshit org.) states the opposite:

"Theoretically, patients will have choice of doctor. And the Clinton Administration has included a "point of service" option in the proposed system, enabling Americans to pick doctors outside of their health plans."
A Guide to the Clinton Health Plan

If a universal plan prohibits consultation with private doctors that would drive them out of business. I would think that any law barring the private practice of medicine would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional.

If I want to hire a doctor outside of my required network it's a violation of the law under her plan ...

Quote:

Q. The President emphasizes "choice" as one of the six principles of his reform plan. Do families have the freedom to choose a health care benefits package outside of the regional health alliance?
A. No. The choice available to families is limited by the government, with very few exceptions. As the Manhattan Institute's Elizabeth McCaughey remarks, "Unless you now receive health care through Medicare, military or veterans benefits, or unless your spouse works for a large company, the law will require you to buy basic health coverage from the limited choices offered by your alliance. It will be illegal to buy it elsewhere." Source ... your own link about half way down.

Furthermore ... participation is mandatory with penalties for non-compliance. You say no thanks ... they say too bad and charge you up to three times what you do not want tp pay..

Quote:

Q. What if an individual doesn't enroll in a plan within the regional alliance?
A. Then, under Section 1323(h)(i) of Title I, the officials of the regional alliance can enroll him in a plan of their choice, and the individual will be required to pay twice the premium he would have otherwise paid.
Q. Since the Clinton Administrations description of the employee's "contributions" is not designated a "tax," what if a person chooses not to "contribute"?
A. He or she will be forced to "contribute." Under Section 1345(b)(1)(A) of Title I, the person's employer will deduct from his paycheck what he owes. Section 1344(b) makes it clear that if the amount a person owes is not paid by the applicable deadline, then he will be subject to interest and penalty charges; Section 1345(d)(2) says that for "repeated failure" to pay a person can be assessed civil and monetary penalties up to $5,000 or three times what that person owes, "whichever is greater." Regional alliances, under Section 1345(a) of Title I, are authorized to use credit and collection procedures to collect the money with assistance from state governments. And the states are authorized, under Section 1202(d) of Title 1, to help the regional alliances collect monies owed, and "shall assure that the amounts owed are paid." And for good measure, Section 1345(d)(2) says that the Secretary of Labor can also help the regional alliances with collections.

Decker · 03-27-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

The problem is, the democrat party is heavily, heavily invested in Iraq being a failure, if it ends up being a success, then everything they have been saying will be wrong.

They demand Bush "change course." He changes the strategy (through Petraeus's surge plan) and now they want to stop that. It isn't about changing course, it isn't about winning, it is about political power, and it is fucking disgusting.

Most of the assholes complaining about it now we're the ones promoting their support of the war against Iraq years ago as showing they are "strong on nat'l defense."

No no. What is disgusting is that Bush manufactured a threat where none existed then launched an illegal invasion and is continuing an ongoing war crime.

You're right that this is about political power. Bush misused his presidential office and the republican majority let him get away with murder--quite literally.

The democratic party should withdraw all troops immediately and fuck the new military bases and all the private co.s enriched by this war crime...you know, the war party's war profiteering allies. Yeah, Congress gave Bush the authority to deal with Iraq but Bush misused that authority and attacked before inspectors finished their jobs. His rationale for legal invasion--WMDs in Iraq---was crumbling. That's a fact. That's also in violation of UN resolution 1441 and it's also a war of aggression, i.e., war crime. And it was all Bush's call.

Decker · 03-27-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

If I want to hire a doctor outside of my required network it's a violation of the law under her plan .....

That's not a citation. That's an unsupported conclusion. But then again this is 2007 and not 1993-4....so who cares?

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

That's also in violation of UN resolution 1441 and it's also a war of aggression, i.e., war crime. And it was all Bush's call.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

The problem is, the democrat party is heavily, heavily invested in Iraq being a failure, if it ends up being a success, then everything they have been saying will be wrong.

They demand Bush "change course." He changes the strategy (through Petraeus's surge plan) and now they want to stop that. It isn't about changing course, it isn't about winning, it is about political power, and it is fucking disgusting.

Most of the assholes complaining about it now we're the ones promoting their support of the war against Iraq years ago as showing they are "strong on nat'l defense."

Lawl, you are such a tool. The republicans are just as petty and low.

For instance, they wanted to vilify Clinton for getting a blowjob, but they let a known pedophile keep serving on his committees until the news broke the pages story.

Yeah, but keep fighting the good fight for your party.

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Lawl, you are such a tool. The republicans are just as petty and low.

And what? The Democrats aren't?

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

And what? The Democrats aren't?

No, thats what I'm saying. I'm saying that both parties are low, and to defend one or the other is ridiculous.

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

No, thats what I'm saying. I'm saying that both parties are low, and to defend one or the other is ridiculous.

People simply stick up for the group that they think is more in line with their desires.

Big Smoothy · 03-27-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Clinton News Network
CBS News
The Washington Post
The New York Times
MSNBC
Dana Milbank
and Walter Pincus........all sources from the above quote.

No Liberals there huh? Sorry I see nothing credible as far as I'm concerned there. All one sided. Gotta do better than that.

Most of the journalists hired by the NY Times previously worked at the Wall St. Journal.

All of the above support the establishment of Neo-Liberalism.

It was Judith Miller of the NY Times that was fed false information from Libby about the Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague.

My points is this: All of the U.S. major newspapers and TV media outlets conduct self-censorship.

A media filtering system.

This is done by who they hire.

If you get hired, it depends on what you write.

It's all the same.

03-27-2007, 11:09 AM	#50
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 18,196	Clinton News Network CBS News The Washington Post The New York Times MSNBC Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus........all sources from the above quote. No Liberals there huh? Sorry I see nothing credible as far as I'm concerned there. All one sided. Gotta do better than that. 1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-26-2007, 05:01 PM	#31
lnvanry primeau Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Tucson Posts: 3,436 Photos: 16	It doesn't matter what Congress or the Dems do....we will ALWAYS be in Iraq. You are mistaken or a fool if you think otherwise. Our military will not give up its new bases in Iraq. They are there to stay. The pull out will state that we will be leaving a small number of supportive personnel for administrative purposes. A small number of about 20K. Our logistical capabilities increased at a price....we (the fed gov't) will not give that up. When you listen to campaign promises, plz note that NO ONE states how many people they want to remove....they just say a troop withdrawl.

03-26-2007, 09:08 PM	#47
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,589	Sorry I am outside of the scope of this thread with that last one ...

03-27-2007, 11:24 AM	#51
brogers Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,502	The problem is, the democrat party is heavily, heavily invested in Iraq being a failure, if it ends up being a success, then everything they have been saying will be wrong. They demand Bush "change course." He changes the strategy (through Petraeus's surge plan) and now they want to stop that. It isn't about changing course, it isn't about winning, it is about political power, and it is fucking disgusting. Most of the assholes complaining about it now we're the ones promoting their support of the war against Iraq years ago as showing they are "strong on nat'l defense."