Is it any wonder why Congresses Approval is at 11%?

[The Coach]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html

[Decker]

I agree with you Coach.

The Cowards.

That MoveOn ad was way more truthful than Petraeus and his little performance.

Once again, the truth is north and Congress heads south.

[The Coach]

I agree with you Coach.

The Cowards.

That MoveOn ad was way more truthful than Petraeus and his little performance.

Once again, the truth is north and Congress heads south.

Here come the excuses..........did you seem to forget that almost 90% of congress approved him? Lets face it, any little bit of improvment in Iraq is a loss for Liberals, you guys have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you want us to not only lose the war but make a total mockery of America.

Hillary Clinton and the people she answers too, MoveOn.org, have tried their best to discredit Pertraeus, a four star general who serves in Iraq for his country, that has taken bullets (literally) for his country and has pretty much an inpeccable military record and TRIED to slam his reputation. Who in the fuck are they to question the integrity of this man??

Again, it's not an wonder that congresses numbers are in the shitter and seem to keep getting lower by the day. I said this along time ago when these idiots BARELY won that i was just going to sit by and watch them make asses of themselves, and sure as shit as I sit here typing this, it's happening. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

Here come the excuses..........did you seem to forget that almost 90% of congress approved him? Lets face it, any little bit of improvment in Iraq is a loss for Liberals, you guys have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you want us to not only lose the war but make a total mockery of America.

Hillary Clinton and the people she answers too, MoveOn.org, have tried their best to discredit Pertraeus, a four star general who serves in Iraq for his country, that has taken bullets (literally) for his country and has pretty much an inpeccable military record and TRIED to slam his reputation. Who in the fuck are they to question the integrity of this man??

Again, it's not an wonder that congresses numbers are in the shitter and seem to keep getting lower by the day. I said this along time ago when these idiots BARELY won that i was just going to sit by and watch them make asses of themselves, and sure as shit as I sit here typing this, it's happening. 

You realize of course that his own boss called him a "simpering little ass kisser" don't you?

Bash Congress all you want (they deserve it) but to hold that sham of a report up as anything other than a PR fluff piece is not being truthful.

[The Coach]

You realize of course that his own boss called him a "simpering little ass kisser" don't you?

Bash Congress all you want (they deserve it) but to hold that sham of a report up as anything other than a PR fluff piece is not being truthful.

Dude, it's only "sham" because congress called it a sham, if the report was a negetive report, they would just say "told ya so" and agree with the negetive report. But since the report is a positive report, they refuse to believe it no matter how he presented it. Before Protraeus even made his presentation someone said something to the effect of "no matter what you present or the charts you have we won't believe it" (paraphrased of course). What does that tell you?

As far as what his boss called him, who cares......his record speaks for itself!

[ieffinhatecardio]

Dude, it's only "sham" because congress called it a sham, if the report was a negetive report, they would just say "told ya so" and agree with the negetive report. But since the report is a positive report, they refuse to believe it no matter how he presented it. Before Protraeus even made his presentation someone said something to the effect of "no matter what you present or the charts you have we won't believe it" (paraphrased of course). What does that tell you?

As far as what his boss called him, who cares......his record speaks for itself!

Nope, it's a sham because it was written and edited by the White House. It was a PR piece, you can jump up and down and blame Congress all you want but that's a fact.

BTW, here's a brief bio of the man that thinks Patreaus is a simpering ass kisser.

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/CENTCOM%20Leadership/fallon.aspx

Admiral William J. Fallon
Commander
U.S. Central Command

Admiral William J. Fallon assumed duties as the commander, U.S. Central Command on March 16, 2007.

He was raised in Merchantville, N.J. A 1967 graduate of Villanova University, he received his commission through the Navy ROTC Program and was designated a naval flight officer upon completion of flight training in December 1967.

Admiral Fallon began his Naval Aviation service flying in the RA-5C Vigilante with a combat deployment to Vietnam, transitioning to the A-6 Intruder in 1974. He served in flying assignments with Attack Squadrons and Carrier Air Wings for twenty-four years, deploying to the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans embarked in USS Saratoga, USS Ranger, USS Nimitz, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Theodore Roosevelt. He has logged more than 1,300 carrier arrested landings and 4,800 flight hours in tactical jet aircraft.

Admiral Fallon commanded Attack Squadron Sixty Five embarked in USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, Medium Attack Wing One at NAS Oceana, Va., and Carrier Air Wing Eight in USS Theodore Roosevelt during a combat deployment to the Arabian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Assigned as Commander, Carrier Group Eight in 1995, he deployed to the Mediterranean as Commander, Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group and commanded Battle Force Sixth Fleet (CTF 60) during NATO’s combat Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. Adm. Fallon served as Commander, Second Fleet and Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic from November 1997 to September 2000.

Shore duties included assignment as Aide and Flag Lieutenant to the Commander, Fleet Air Jacksonville, and to the staffs of Commander, Reconnaissance Attack Wing One; Commander, Operational Test Force, and Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He has served as Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and as Deputy Director, Aviation Plans and Requirements on the Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, D.C. His first flag officer assignment was with NATO as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy for Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. He was then assigned as Deputy and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Fleet followed by assignment as Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Command. Admiral Fallon served as the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations from October 2000 to August 2003. He was the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Atlantic Fleet from October 2003 to February 2005. He served as Commander, U.S. Pacific Command from February 2005 until March 2007.

Admiral Fallon is a graduate of the Naval War College, Newport, R.I., the National War College in Washington, D.C., and has a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from Old Dominion University. His awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and various unit

[240 is Back]

Joe, I missed you man!

I support both wars, and I support bombing iran into agreeing with our strategic (nuclear) and economic (oil contract) demands.

Do you support invading Iran?
Do you still deny (as you once did) that the US will be managing Iraqi oil? 

Let's have some fun in this place again!!

[youandme]

Joe, I missed you man!

I support both wars, and I support bombing iran into agreeing with our strategic (nuclear) and economic (oil contract) demands.

Do you support invading Iran?
Do you still deny (as you once did) that the US will be managing Iraqi oil? 

Let's have some fun in this place again!!

240 what is your opinion on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "gesture" on wanting to place a wreath and preach "his opinoun" regarding 9/11?

[240 is Back]

240 what is your opinion on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "gesture" on wanting to place a wreath and preach "his opinoun" regarding 9/11?

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called 911 a self-attack to justify aggression in the middle east. 

We're currently facefvcking his neighbors on both sides, and building pipelines to his borders which will eventually connect.

we have his country surrounded with aurcraft carriers.

He is the #3 man in his country - he is nancy pelosi there.  He has no power to initiate warfare.  You all know that right?  He couldn't start a war with israel if he wanted to.

We are sending hordes of refugees into his country by fueling the insurgency in iraq to suystain chaos to get oil.

He has talked about starting a true world investigation into 9/11 on behalf of all in the world who died.  Yes, he has done more to investigate 911 than our own nation did.

His gesture is an odd one.  Iran had nothing to do with 911, but the neotaints here probably won't accept that. 

I say, let him speak, and bomb the shit outta his nation while he's doing it.   ANyone who is against him speaking due to his rhetoris should also be against McCain speaking (remember his Bomb Iran song?  Real level headed approach there)

[The Coach]

Joe, I missed you man!

I support both wars, and I support bombing iran into agreeing with our strategic (nuclear) and economic (oil contract) demands.

Do you support invading Iran?
Do you still deny (as you once did) that the US will be managing Iraqi oil? 

Let's have some fun in this place again!!

Hey Rob, I occationally pop in but for the most part I took a little hiatus from this board........low carbs tends to shorten my temper a little

1. Yes, I do support invading Iran especially when they are supplying the insurgents with arms to kill out troops among a whole laundry list of other things, yes, bomb the shit out of them!

2. I NEVER denied that we would be managing Iraqi oil, of course we need to protect our intrests. What I said is that despite what you say, we NEVER went to war just for the oil or for any oil for that matter.

[240 is Back]

Hey Rob, I occationally pop in but for the most part I took a little hiatus from this board........low carbs tends to shorten my temper a little

1. Yes, I do support invading Iran especially when they are supplying the insurgents with arms to kill out troops among a whole laundry list of other things, yes, bomb the shit out of them!

2. I NEVER denied that we would be managing Iraqi oil, of course we need to protect our intrests. What I said is that despite what you say, we NEVER went to war just for the oil or for any oil for that matter.

LOL.. awesome.  good to spar with you again. 

I'm starting to hear "protect our interests" from people.  It's encouraging.  Honesty is important.  I have one more for you...

With N Korea being a mich higher threat on the WMD scale than Iraq was in 2003, why do you suppose we chose to invade Iraq instead of NK?

[ieffinhatecardio]

LOL.. awesome.  good to spar with you again. 

I'm starting to hear "protect our interests" from people.  It's encouraging.  Honesty is important.  I have one more for you...

With N Korea being a mich higher threat on the WMD scale than Iraq was in 2003, why do you suppose we chose to invade Iraq instead of NK?

Iraq wasn't just about oil, it was also about graft on a scale this country has never witnessed.

The money that is being stolen and or simply thrown away over there is absolutely outrageous. We're talking about BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars that the Bush administration doesn't seem to care about getting back.

Part of the reason for this war was to make certain people rich and to make certain other people richer.

[240 is Back]

Iraq wasn't just about oil, it was also about graft on a scale this country has never witnessed.

The money that is being stolen and or simply thrown away over there is absolutely outrageous. We're talking about BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars that the Bush administration doesn't seem to care about getting back.

Part of the reason for this war was to make certain people rich and to make certain other people richer.

Mr I, is this true?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Mr I, is this true?

Read it but keep a vomit bucket close by. It's that sickening.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

[240 is Back]

oh, I know.  I like to make people assert a position, show evidence to the contrary, then battle it out as they attack the source.

ROlling Stone, huh?

lol... do they still do that here?  Attack facts because the source isn't fox news? 

[ieffinhatecardio]

Sure, people on both sides do it especially with blogs and or extreme right or left wing propaganda sources.

You won't find any comments on that piece from the Conservatives of the board. They ran and hid from it like it was the plague. There's no defending the graft and waste.

[240 is Back]

yeah, the far right crew doesn't have a lot of ground to stand on these days.

That is, of course, unless they choose to be honest about their positions.

But, that hurts to admit you were wrong, or suckered.

[The Coach]

With N Korea being a mich higher threat on the WMD scale than Iraq was in 2003, why do you suppose we chose to invade Iraq instead of NK?

Simple, basically because he's not that much of a threat, even his allies thought he was an idiot by going against the threats of sanctions. IMO, he was smart enough to realize that if his allies turned against him he would have no one to back him.

Iran on the other hand is a real threat because, like i said before, supplying the insurgence with arms, has said on numerous occations that Isreal should be wiped off the face of the map along with the US. (and like idiots, we let him into our country) and is harbouring BinLadens brother to top it off and if he's doing that, IMO he knows where BinLaden is and isn't saying.

[240 is Back]

Simple, basically because he's not that much of a threat, even his allies thought he was an idiot by going against the threats of sanctions. IMO, he was smart enough to realize that if his allies turned against him he would have no one to back him.

He fired missles at Hawaii on the 4th of July.  He set off a nuke 11 months ago.

You consider that "not much of a threat"?

In that case, how can you consider Admedijad a threat, when he hasn't fired a missle or set off a nuke?

Iran on the other hand is a real threat because, like i said before, supplying the insurgence with arms, has said on numerous occations that Isreal should be wiped off the face of the map along with the US. (and like idiots, we let him into our country) and is harbouring BinLadens brother to top it off and if he's doing that, IMO he knows where BinLaden is and isn't saying.

The question you're responding to was IraQ.   Not Iran. 

Why was Iraq more of a threat in 2003 than NKorea, even though NK was far more advanced in nuke development, and banned ALL UN searches?  (Saddam let us search every castle, just not his personal bedrooms)

[Decker]

Here come the excuses..........did you seem to forget that almost 90% of congress approved him? Lets face it, any little bit of improvment in Iraq is a loss for Liberals, you guys have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you want us to not only lose the war but make a total mockery of America.

Hillary Clinton and the people she answers too, MoveOn.org, have tried their best to discredit Pertraeus, a four star general who serves in Iraq for his country, that has taken bullets (literally) for his country and has pretty much an inpeccable military record and TRIED to slam his reputation. Who in the fuck are they to question the integrity of this man??

Again, it's not an wonder that congresses numbers are in the shitter and seem to keep getting lower by the day. I said this along time ago when these idiots BARELY won that i was just going to sit by and watch them make asses of themselves, and sure as shit as I sit here typing this, it's happening. 

“We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.”

-George Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html

September 2007 GAO report on the surge
1.   Constitutional review Unmet
2.   De-Bathification reform: Unmet
3.   Oil revenue sharing: Unmet
4.   Guidelines for semi-autonomous regions: Partially met
5.   Enact electoral reform: Unmet
6.   Enact insurgent amnesty laws: Unmet
7.   Disarming illegal militias: Unmet
8.   Baghdad security: Met
9.   Establish three trained Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad: Partially met
10.   Eliminate political interference with Iraqi military commanders: Unmet
11.   Ensure that Iraqi Security Forces are even-handed: Unmet
12.   Ensure no safe-haven for outlaws, regardless of religion: Partially met
13.   Reduce sectarian violence and eliminate illegal militia: Unmet
14.   Establish joint security stations across Baghdad: Met
15.   Increase Iraqi security force independence: Unmet
16.   Ensure the rights of minority legislature political parties: Met
17.   Spend $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction: Partially met
18.   End Iraqi political undermining of Iraq security forces: Unmet

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466_pf.html

Petraeus characterized the Surge as a success.

Let’s see, cherry-picked information ignoring countervailing evidence such as violence in Iraq is up and only 3 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.

Somebody’s pulling another Iraq-type misinformation campaign.  Either Petraeus is lying about the progress in Iraq or the General Accounting Office is lying.

And the good general could not even answer this question:  Senator John Warner asked Petraeus point blank, will the policy you are recommending make the United States safer. And General Petraeus said he did not know, that he was focused on accomplishing the mission given to him.


 

[240 is Back]

Coach, 90% of congress approved removing saddam.

90% of congress didn't approve running up a 5 year war to bilk for billions and create chaos to steal oil.

Four more defections and this war starts to end.  We've already secured the biggest oil field.  I guess we're trying to divvy up the remainders between our companies.

Remember- the pentagon said 1 year ago that October 2008, we'd pull most of our forces out - leaving only the green zone team and oil teams.  Takes the war issue out of the election and cripples the Dem running on an anti-war platform.  Anyone doubt this is stll the plan?

[OzmO]

That's f-ing pathetic that we have people all gong ho, to invade Iran, the same people who live in their nice little homes preaching their "principles" while others carry the burden.

In invading Iraq, and now looking like we are be forced to start with Iran, we are not the country we once were.

We are instead, a country of sheep who have been tricked by the wolves and have learned to like it.

We should change our name to "U.C.A."   United Corporations of America.

[The Coach]

90% of congress didn't approve running up a 5 year war to bilk for billions and create chaos to steal oil.

1. Since when does anyone put a time limit on a war?

2. Since when does anyone put a price on war or freedom for that matter. The money that has been used hasn't an impact on our economy.

3. Steal oil? Get over it Rob, if it wasn't for us securing our intrests the oil would be 5 times higher than it is now, and if we're "stealing" as put it, then where is it? Oh wait, let me guess....lining the pockets of conservatives.......righ t?

[The Coach]

“We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.”

-George Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html

September 2007 GAO report on the surge
1.   Constitutional review Unmet
2.   De-Bathification reform: Unmet
3.   Oil revenue sharing: Unmet
4.   Guidelines for semi-autonomous regions: Partially met
5.   Enact electoral reform: Unmet
6.   Enact insurgent amnesty laws: Unmet
7.   Disarming illegal militias: Unmet
8.   Baghdad security: Met
9.   Establish three trained Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad: Partially met
10.   Eliminate political interference with Iraqi military commanders: Unmet
11.   Ensure that Iraqi Security Forces are even-handed: Unmet
12.   Ensure no safe-haven for outlaws, regardless of religion: Partially met
13.   Reduce sectarian violence and eliminate illegal militia: Unmet
14.   Establish joint security stations across Baghdad: Met
15.   Increase Iraqi security force independence: Unmet
16.   Ensure the rights of minority legislature political parties: Met
17.   Spend $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction: Partially met
18.   End Iraqi political undermining of Iraq security forces: Unmet

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466_pf.html

Petraeus characterized the Surge as a success.

Let’s see, cherry-picked information ignoring countervailing evidence such as violence in Iraq is up and only 3 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.

Somebody’s pulling another Iraq-type misinformation campaign.  Either Petraeus is lying about the progress in Iraq or the General Accounting Office is lying.

And the good general could not even answer this question:  Senator John Warner asked Petraeus point blank, will the policy you are recommending make the United States safer. And General Petraeus said he did not know, that he was focused on accomplishing the mission given to him.


 

Congress is at an 11% approval rating..........quit making excuses, that's why your (Dems) numbers are in the shitter because they keep lieing and putting their foot in they're mouths.

[Decker]

Congress is at an 11% approval rating..........quit making excuses, that's why your (Dems) numbers are in the shitter because they keep lieing and putting their foot in they're mouths.

Did you see the GAO report and compare it with Petraeus's testimony?

Or maybe you're correct, my criticism of the democrats for not standing up to Bush on the war is really my wholehearted support of the democrats for not standing up to Bush on the war.

Either Petraeus or the GAO lied.  You apparently agree with Petraeus and his error filled testimony over the non-partisan GAO report.  Why you do that is your business but your choice betrays your partisanship.

Why are you so interested in polling numbers anyways?