Democrats and "political theater" - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

hcap · 03-24-2007, 04:38 AM

At least they didn't use uniformed military, active duty or veterans, as props in their political events today.

Meanwhile our prez accused them of "political theater" while using a backdrop of current or former troops in uniform as window dressing for his political press conference attacking the Democrats as un-American.

philsfan07 · 03-24-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hcap

At least they didn't use uniformed military, active duty or veterans, as props in their political events today.

Meanwhile our prez accused them of "political theater" while using a backdrop of current or former troops in uniform as window dressing for his political press conference attacking the Democrats as un-American.

Ron Artest pleaded not guilty???

Racer98 · 03-24-2007, 10:18 AM

What an idiot.

Ron Artest, I mean.

Was Bush's speech just to say "9/11" over and over again to win support?

Lefty · 03-24-2007, 11:57 AM

We are in a war and you call our troops a prop?
9-11 happened because the fanatical Islamists want to conver the world to their way of thinking. They still do. WE should never forget 9-11, if we do, we will be facing more. We must defeat the terrorists and if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, we will be in a greater fight, face even more terror. If we don't stabalize Iraq and keep Iran from growing stronger, our way of life is lost. That's the truth that G.W. is trying to make everyone realize and face up to. Unfortunate the dems more interested in political power than the country.

Tom · 03-24-2007, 02:19 PM

Lefty, you have to wonder if the Iranian kidnapping of Brittish sailors is not partly due to the new dems in power - they know they can pretty much do whatever they want to now and the quitocrats will do NOTHING.
They smell blood in the water. And maybe even see Kennedy's car it it, too!

Dave Schwartz · 03-24-2007, 03:54 PM

I heard a quote from Dean Heller (R-NV) yesterday that essentially said he while he supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he does not support cutting the funding to support their effort.

In other words, while they are there they need all the money they can get for supplies and equipment.

Sure made sense to me.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Secretariat · 03-24-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I heard a quote from Dean Heller (R-NV) yesterday that essentially said he while he supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he does not support cutting the funding to support their effort.

In other words, while they are there they need all the money they can get for supplies and equipment.

Sure made sense to me.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Me too Dave. The House Bill doesn't cut funding, but gives the Prez everything he wants monetarily. The major issue is the timetable attached. It will be interesting if the President if given all the money he asks to fund the troops, decides to veto it because Iraqi accountability is attached to it. If so, he may be the one doing the voting against supporting the troops. The man has shown no compromise on this debacle. That is why his poll numbers are around 30%

And Hcap good point. Putting the military behind him for a photo op speech was about as "poltical" as it gets.

Tom · 03-24-2007, 05:48 PM

Let's not hold up money for peanut storers - not growers, storers. and spinach famers. After, they are putting thier lives on the line every day too, right?

The dems have only proven what I said all along - disguting bastards and bitches, every one of them. Disgrace to America. And traitors. Pelosi is a POS in the first degree. and Sec cannot spin it any other way - it is surrender by a house full of cowards and scoundrels.

Dave Schwartz · 03-24-2007, 06:38 PM

Geez, I must have getten it wrong, huh?

LOL

Oh, what the heck. I call them as I see them.

Lefty · 03-24-2007, 08:50 PM

The timetable is the poison pill. The enemy knows when we'll leave, they lay back, take over Iraq and we get to have more 9-11's. Hope the Pres sticks to his guns.

46zilzal · 03-24-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty

The timetable is the poison pill. The enemy knows when we'll leave, they lay back, take over Iraq and we get to have more 9-11's. Hope the Pres sticks to his guns.

You mean from the Saudi's since they are behind most of it? Of course he will stick to his guns to protect Bandar and daddies Carlyle friends!!

Lefty · 03-24-2007, 10:15 PM

46, you must be a disciple of Michael Moore or some other far far left person or persons.
See if you can ccome up with some orig thinking here: Q: What do you think will happen if we set a date to leave Iraq and adhere to it?

Lefty · 03-24-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

You mean from the Saudi's since they are behind most of it? Of course he will stick to his guns to protect Bandar and daddies Carlyle friends!!

Your thinking all revolves around Bush hatred. Think about the free world for a change and the implications of an announced withdrawel.

46zilzal · 03-24-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty

Your thinking all revolves around Bush hatred. Think about the free world for a change and the implications of an announced withdrawel.

Well since NO one should have gone there in the first place it is a moot point. The more I read in Woodward's latest STATE of DENIAL , the more I am convinced of it from the clowns own quotes.

also, Washington Post
Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

Lefty · 03-24-2007, 11:38 PM

zilly, you don't seem capable of a thghtful answer when pressed. It's not a moot point. What we do or don't do now in Iraq affects the world, so you see it's not purely academic. Zilly, the rutabaga is you. Once again you have used a word incorrectly. Shame on you for calling others names.
What do YOU think will happen if we give a timetable for leaving Iraq and adhere to it? One more chance, zilly. Put down the lib books and think. Are you up to it?
Btw, if we hadn't removed Saddam he would still be murdering, raping and torturing his own people. He might even have a nuke by now or hit us with biologicals. Bush did the right thing. But the q is now, what are the consequences of leaving prematurely?