my opinions on opinions

[DOGS THAT BARK]

the opinions I seen so far here from liberals are parrallel to their parties---have yet to find one with even an attempted solution to anything only complaints and Sunday quarterbacking on someone put in one of most difficult times in history.

time will tell which were right or wrong moves--unfortunately GW will not have luxury of flopping from one side to the other and being right before he was wrong.

You can 2nd guess how war was ran but need to remember vote in senate was 77-23 and house was 296-133--i'll give those that voted no initially a nod for their opinion but those flopping when times get tough have little credibility and merely political pawns.

 

[The Judge]

DTB, please. Is it really necessary that someone go back and dig up your posts following Clinton's State of the Union addresses? I am confident that if one were to do so, your views would also clearly "parrallel" those of the Republican party as well. The opinions that you have seen are to be expected, I think.

As far as solutions are concerned, that is certainly a difficult dillema. However, for more than two years, Freshman Senator Jim Webb has indeed been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq.

"The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term ?MacArthurian Regency? in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we?re leaving, we don?t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region ? strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we?re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.

The second step would be for us to begin immediate discussions with those countries that are culturally and historically invested in Iraq, and arguably aligned with us, to become overtly involved in a diplomatic solution, taking responsibility at some level for future stability among Iraq?s competing factions. This is do-able. Quite frankly, it will be more difficult in the wake of our failure to take similar steps during the early stages of the recent events in Lebanon. As you might recall, during the first days of that action, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the Israeli attacks. By not taking advantage of those gestures, we lost a great opportunity to bring some long term stability in both situations. But, we should continue to pursue these sorts of solutions, just as we should work to break Syria apart from its unnatural alliance with Iran through direct discussions which is something this Administration has refused to do."

 

[kosar]

The entire Congress was not provided dissenting and contradictory intel before that vote. That has been proven.

Holding people to a vote where they are only spoon-fed only affirmative information is silly.

I guess even the staunchest supporters of this occupation are down to the ol' 'time will tell' routine.

i'll give those that voted no initially a nod for their opinion

I guess that's as close as you'll allow to suggesting that the 'no' people were correct, but i'll take it.

 

[TonyTT]

Well Dog my own OPINION on the matter is that I believe taking Sadam out when we did WAS a good move. I believe he WAS "our boy" at one time, who had outlived his usefullness to us and it was time to "setup" another regime. I also believe that it's very iimportant NOT to let Iran get control of that oil. I am also of the opinion that it WAS NOT Bush's call to do so....I believe he just "puppeted" his part. I am also of the opinion that those that DO call the shots already have a pretty good idea as to how this will play out.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wasn't even thinking of Clintons SOU message Gregg--don't know where you get that!

I definately think ones opinion of SOU will be influenced by which coverage you watched.

Almost forgot about the speech and was tuned to ABC to watch The Unit--when speech came on--continued watching till end--immediately when he started to walk off Katie Couric voice comes on and 1st words out of her mouth is this is president with blah blah blah ratings--has 2 guest speakers one dem and one reb--ask dem 1st question and ask reb 2nd with lead in prior to answer of "now be honest"--that was enough and flipped to my regular news channel and low and behold got to listen to about 10 minutes of discussion with others and gw as walked through crowd--uninterrupted-just sound bite of discussion with others--1st thought was --what an influence media has on events--wasn't surprised either to see this morning abc ranked dead last on viewing--understandbly

--Also thought it was interesting on Pelosi's 1st time on stage--couldn't quite figure when to stand sit or halfway--thought it was my imagination she was blinking like frog in a hail storm but believe it or not others did too and someone actually counted--
"What was worth commenting on, however, was the contrast in blinks per minute between Pelosi and Cheney. While Pelosi clocked a good 25-30 blinks per minute, Cheney barely mustered 3 or 4."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/1580006558.html

on the meat of speech I am adamently against his healthcare proposal once again. Keep the gov out of free enterprise.

while I don't think the dems have hit on it yet this is a tax on middleclass--and I will agree with them.
Most that will get zapped are your middle class auto worker type--and for whose benefit?
Being in health business this under age uninsured is way over hyped--if children come from poor family they will have free healthcare via medicaid or SSI--the people padding these figures are those 24 and under who are healthy and flat don't want to spend the money because their chances of using it are negligible. I have numerous people in this bracket especially if not married who will opt out of group health plan and only have to contibute 25%-???

If person 24 or under wants good individual plan in ky it will run less than $100--however cell phone-cable tv ect are much higher priorities.

If they could get it for $50 I doubt you have 50% apply.--but you when they do apply--when they have problem and anticpate expense--then they want on immediaely with no pre-existing conditions--get about 10 calls like that a week.

So my reply to GW is stay the hell out of privite market sector.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

and thanks for post on Webb- Gregg.

My question to him would be why its ok long term Kuwait and others but not Iraq. If we leave Iraq and they move to Kuwait--what then-- retreat to where?

The prob I have with webb and others they let the opposition dictate their next move--not good--and is exactly the intent of opposition--and what about the kurds--shall we hang them out to dry also---someone is trying to give the world the opinion we can't finish anything we start--and it isn't those that are doing the fighting.

---I see someone else sided with some on issue today--and what I would like him and others to remember we weren't there when they attacked previously-numerous times-- I don't believe
--hmm he certainly has his timing down on these pep speechs--if only he could have been on stage--but from what I see he has several proxy's standing in

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Zawahri warns U.S. of reprisal if policy unchanged 1 hour, 43 minutes ago

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri warned Americans of a reprisal "far worse than anything they have seen" if Washington did not change its policies toward Muslim states.


"You are facing the Islamic rage ... what awaits you, should you press on (with current policies), is far worse than anything you have seen," Zawahri said in a video posted on the Internet on Wednesday.

Leaders of the militant group which carried out the September 11, 2001 aircraft attacks against U.S. cities often argue that its "terrorism" is justified as a way to change pro- Israel U.S. policies and to punish Washington for its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I will talk to you in a language you understand; If you want to live safely you have to accept reality and reject the illusions that (U.S. President George W.) Bush is trying to deceive you with," he said in the video.

Part of the video was posted earlier this week on the Web site of the U.S.-based SITE institute.

"You have to try your utmost to reach an understanding with the Muslims, only then you will enjoy security. But if you continue with the policy of Bush and his gang then you won't dream of it," he said.

Zawahri also vowed retaliation against Ethiopian troops for helping the Somalia's interim government rout rival Islamist.

"The Mujahideen will break their backs with God's power and help," Zawahri said.

Ethiopia said on Tuesday its forces began leaving the Somali capital. It has said it does not plan to stay after it completes its mission.

The Egyptian militant also urged Palestinians to abandon President Mahmoud Abbas as a "traitor" and said he had sold his religion and Palestinian land.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[djv]

On Iraq I would have liked to seen a vote with the correct info. As we see now as many more have got the light how they were given 1/2 cup. Many of them Reb's. They are swing the other way. Most trust for Bush is gone and not just that of congress. The American people will not be fooled any longer. Those polls are not ling.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

They voted to give George Bush the authority to use force as a last resort. It was not a vote to go to war.

I'm in my early thirties right now and I cant imagine i'll ever see a president who could make as many wrong decisions as this one. Bush has set this country back years. He had a chance to step up after 9/11. He chose to use it to scare the public and further his agenda. A war criminal is what he has become. We have become the terrorists.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Since Gregg used Jim Webb views lets look at his views on certain matters--if you think he'd like to punch GW in mouth--it would be only after Kerry for his Viet Nam propaganda.

Wish someone would ask him what he thought of liberal and protest movement that resulted in slaughter of millions he defended--and hopefully his wife Hong Li who escaped Vietnam afterfail of saigon will be next to him when he replys--her family was not so fortunate.

be that what it may --back to Iraq

I respect severals opinions here who are against iraq war--and I would be willing to change my stance if they think they could do 3 things.

1st When people were sacrificing their lives to vote
and holding up fingers in pride--could you be at polls and turn them back and tell em we changed our mind.

2nd Afterviewing this short video--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrStaIoh-w&mode=related&search
-- could you go back and tell these people-forget it we don't care.

3rd Go to the troops look them in eye--and tell em we don't think what your doing is worth it-your 2 or 3 tours here and efforts mean squat--its their war tell em goodby your leaving tomorrow.

---and for those die hard liberals I would have only 1 option--and that is they would be forced to go to Iraq after we pull out and bury the women and children that get slaughtered as result.

If everyone had to be there and be personally involved in their convictions --I don't think I'd be the one changing my stance.

---and TU with all do respect leaving the liberal cartoons aside--the little girl was quite moving--now compound that a pic a million times of those that died in Vietnam because of media and protestors with same agenda as today--you might want to copy some pics here from documentary "the killing field" where it showed thousands in mass grave--and speaking of mass graves somehow you managed to put up those photo's compliments of Saddam--and what about the photo of the kurdish children dead after gas attack--why did you omit them?

http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

Didn't suit your Agenda? I respect your opinion as always but was quite disappointed of they liberal cartoons that you posted--would have never expected that from you..

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Wayne:

That childs face is not a "cartoon". My assumption that she is what you would call "collateral damage". She is the real, repeat that, real result of your boys invasion of Iraq instead of spending his time in the mountains of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

Yeah Wayne that would have been the hard job. But like in Viet Nam, your boys took the easy way out. You sound like Lynn Cheney who doesn't want to see the caskets come off the planes. Your right, your people don't want reality, they want the sanitized version of their war.

Piece of crap.

Eddie

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Edward on the little girl--what part in my post of
"and TU with all do respect leaving the liberal cartoons aside--the little girl was quite moving"
--didn't you understand?

You can spin it anyway you want--

Like walmart--Despite the fact that they$245 million to charity last year-and were named by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as the largest corporate cash donor in America.

Look how liberal blogs spin it--
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/2005-06/charity.php

Almost as bad as your ACLU card carrying Pres/VP candidates last election whining bout 2 america's while one is stiffing social security for bout 1/2 mill the other is stiffing charities for big fat 0---

You can get your liberal BS out to your 90% demographics who will believe anything and to the liberal element who want to believe but other than that--your shit won't float many places

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Unfortunately, I understand 99% of your posts, Wayne. I understood your heart-felt, passing comment concerning the girls face as "...quite moving" the same as I understand the vice-president as a compassionate conservative.

Frankly, although they are just words on a screen, I find those words you chose, in light of your past posts concerning muslims, quite disingenuous. And you can quote me. I would choose disgusting, horrific, at the very least, very sad. "Moving" sounds like something you do in a stall.

You see Wayne, I think history will call un the "evil doers".

Eddie

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

1. the opinions I seen so far here from liberals are parrallel to their parties---have yet to find one with even an attempted solution to anything only complaints and Sunday quarterbacking on someone put in one of most difficult times in history.

2. time will tell which were right or wrong moves--unfortunately GW will not have luxury of flopping from one side to the other and being right before he was wrong.

1. You're unbelievable. You make it sound like the Democratic party is complaining about some issues with the economy. We were driven into a war under false pretenses and now we are in the midst of a complete disaster. Any Democrat that mentions cutting bait in Iraq is immediately dismissed. The solution(s) you're looking for don't exist because there is no way we can pull troops out of harm's way, install an American like Democracy, and protect those that are trying to build this Democracy. The agenda in Iraq doesn't allow for a resolution that can expedite getting our troops out of there. The agenda is owned by the current administration, and Democrats have no say in that agenda. Until they do, don't expect to see any "resolutions" to your liking.

Since you are having such a hard time finding Democratic recommendations on the Iraq debacle, here is mention of one... http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/13/iraq.next/index.html?eref=rss_latest

It was really difficult to find. I went this site called Yahoo.com, and the entered "Democrat Solution Iraq".

2. "Time will tell" indeed. How about the past few years? Does that time not count? If you think we're going to someday look at GW the way we look at Lincoln, you're living in a dream world.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I'm not going to spend as much time debating this as its pretty clear. Out of respect for DTB i'm done. Other than to say I used to be a Republican. I cant believe anyone could dream of the problems we have today and what is coming in the future. Terrorists dont plan one year at a time. It may take them 15 years but they are going to hit us harder than you can imagine. All those deaths are going to be on the tab of George Bush. Dont forget all those ones in New Orleans too. Ohh yeah and in Iraq too. :nono:

PS I used to use the Saddam gassed his people to defend the invasion. It doesnt hold water.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

sorry if I was terse T.U.-- didn't mean to offend you and if I did I'm sorry.

P.S. Oly did let it stand--but looks weak now--if you ever see something you like there and don't have time to get account funded-- give me a PM elsewhere and I'll get it down for you.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

sorry if I was terse T.U.-- didn't mean to offend you and if I did I'm sorry.

P.S. Oly did let it stand--but looks weak now--if you ever see something you like there and don't have time to get account funded-- give me a PM elsewhere and I'll get it down for you.

Thanks DTB. No, I have thick skin. I just didnt want to talk about politics on here all day long thats all.