Guess which TWO "senators" have NOT

[WarTim 3,457]

Times up.....Good old teddy and OLD man byrd.

Yet, these are the two loudest voices crying about the War and "demanding", though laughable that may be, Rumsfeld resign.

liberals, you just gotta' respect there consistency. They lie out of every side of their mouths and have no clue as to what they are supposed to be talking about.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Anyone notice how the visit by members of Congress down to Gitmo was buried in the back pages of the paper recently? Compare that to the front page, above the fold coverage of charges of GULAG by some folks who have never even been there.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Times up.....Good old teddy and OLD man byrd.

Yet, these are the two loudest voices crying about the War and "demanding", though laughable that may be, Rumsfeld resign.

liberals, you just gotta' respect there consistency. They lie out of every side of their mouths and have no clue as to what they are supposed to be talking about.

166287[/snapback]

Maybe the Commander-in-Chief should take the full tour instead of slipping in and out in the dead of night for a photo op with a fake turkey.

[Tiger Al 0]

Times up.....Good old teddy and OLD man byrd.

Yet, these are the two loudest voices crying about the War and "demanding", though laughable that may be, Rumsfeld resign.

liberals, you just gotta' respect there consistency. They lie out of every side of their mouths and have no clue as to what they are supposed to be talking about.

166287[/snapback]

Maybe the Commander-in-Chief should take the full tour instead of slipping in and out in the dead of night for a photo op with a fake turkey.

166345[/snapback]

I would also add that if the only way one can truly know the situation there is by actually going, then maybe this administration should've put their boots on the ground in Iraq BEFORE making all of their wild WMD claims, despite facts to the contrary given by those who ACTUALLY HAD been there.

[AURaptor 1,126]

BEFORE making all of their wild WMD claims, despite facts to the contrary given by those who ACTUALLY HAD been there.

Yeah, all those whacky U.N. folk w/ their wild Resolutions and such. Nutty.

[Tiger Al 0]

BEFORE making all of their wild WMD claims, despite facts to the contrary given by those who ACTUALLY HAD been there.

Yeah, all those whacky U.N. folk w/ their wild Resolutions and such. Nutty.

166351[/snapback]

Turns out all those 'whacky' U.N. folk were right. Actually, EVERYBODY this administration has demonized has turned out to be right and hasn't had to backpeddle, crawfish OR revise. Nutty.

[AURaptor 1,126]

BEFORE making all of their wild WMD claims, despite facts to the contrary given by those who ACTUALLY HAD been there.

Yeah, all those whacky U.N. folk w/ their wild Resolutions and such. Nutty.

166351[/snapback]

Turns out all those 'whacky' U.N. folk were right. Actually, EVERYBODY this administration has demonized has turned out to be right and hasn't had to backpeddle, crawfish OR revise. Nutty.

166352[/snapback]

Sorry mate, can't have it both ways. Either the U.N. is right for passing all those Resolutions, or the U.N. was wrong. Which is it ? And make no mistake, Saddam was definatly in violation for not owning up to at least showing the U.N. inspectors everything, not to mention a laundry list of cease fire agreements.

It amazes me that even after all this time, you still try to make Saddam out to be the good guy, and Bush the villian here. Astounding.

[Tiger Al 0]

And make no mistake, Saddam was definatly in violation for not owning up to at least showing the U.N. inspectors everything

What do you think was going on between 12/2002 & 3/2003?

[AURaptor 1,126]

And make no mistake, Saddam was definatly in violation for not owning up to at least showing the U.N. inspectors everything

What do you think was going on between 12/2002 & 3/2003?

166358[/snapback]

Saddam sure as hell wasn't in compliance. Everyone realizes that, even folks in the U.N. He was biding his time. Just like he did for the previous 10 yrs.

[Tigermike 3,053]

And make no mistake, Saddam was definatly in violation for not owning up to at least showing the U.N. inspectors everything

What do you think was going on between 12/2002 & 3/2003?

166358[/snapback]

Could he have been passing out some of those oil for food tickets? Or could he have been sitting back expecting France and Germany & Kofi Anan to bail him out?

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Times up.....Good old teddy and OLD man byrd.

166287[/snapback]

That just means two things:

There ain't no woman for fat Teddy to waddle after in the friendly neighborhood Iraqi taverns and, the type of infrastructure we're building over there won't be named after former KKK member Robert Byrd.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Once again, the twin leftists of this board attempt to change the subject of the thread. It went from discussing how ironic it is that the two biggest mouths in the Senate that incessantly criticize the President, the war, and the troops without leaving the comfort of their offices to how it is Bush's fault that Saddam was finally stopped. Nevermind that the terrorists of the world are meeting Allah by the thousands half way around the world and because of it the world is a better place; the focus of this fight should be about the rhetoric spewed by two morons who don't care enough about the subject to go see what is really happening firsthand. Hillary even went to Iraq for Christs sake!

My granddaddy taught me at a young age that I should never criticize things I know nothing about. It seems ol' Teddy and the Grand Cyclops could use some of his lessons about common sense and idiocy. All the backbone and courage in the Kennedy family must have went to John.....Teddy sure didn't get any of it.

[WarTim 3,457]

Let's face it. The libbies would love to run a ticket comprised of hitlary and saddam. Two good socialist-communist.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Once again, the twin leftists of this board attempt to change the subject of the thread. It went from discussing how ironic it is that the two biggest mouths in the Senate that incessantly criticize the President, the war, and the troops without leaving the comfort of their offices to how it is Bush's fault that Saddam was finally stopped. Nevermind that the terrorists of the world are meeting Allah by the thousands half way around the world and because of it the world is a better place; the focus of this fight should be about the rhetoric spewed by two morons who don't care enough about the subject to go see what is really happening firsthand. Hillary even went to Iraq for Christs sake! 

My granddaddy taught me at a young age that I should never criticize things I know nothing about. It seems ol' Teddy and the Grand Cyclops could use some of his lessons about common sense and idiocy. All the backbone and courage in the Kennedy family must have went to John.....Teddy sure didn't get any of it.

166375[/snapback]

Damn right. This thread started out so constructive and useful. If only 86 year old Byrd would stroll the streets of Baghdad...Then he'd get it! He'd be so pro-war he'd try to sign up! Teddy would get so fired up, he'd go to Abu Grahib himself and kick a little @ss-- or at least grab some! This thread started with so much promise, then those damn pinko, commie b@stards ruined it!

[texaubie 0]

And make no mistake, Saddam was definatly in violation for not owning up to at least showing the U.N. inspectors everything

What do you think was going on between 12/2002 & 3/2003?

166358[/snapback]

I think Saddam was hoarding money by the boat load from the oil for food program.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

OK, please try to comprehend this concept. If I were so concerned about the troops being in a "quagmire" that I would call for their immediate retreat, I would at least go and take a look for myself before I went shooting my big mouth about it. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Its not about being pro war or anti war (you keep spinning all your discussions to that point), its about witnessing things for oneself before forming and espousing opinions.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

OK, please try to comprehend this concept. If I were so concerned about the troops being in a "quagmire" that I would call for their immediate retreat, I would at least go and take a look for myself before I went shooting my big mouth about it. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Its not about being pro war or anti war (you keep spinning all your discussions to that point), its about witnessing things for oneself before forming and espousing opinions.

166389[/snapback]

Has Dick Cheney been? Hannity? Rush? They got strong opinions.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I don't recall any of them saying we're in a quagmire and that we should immediately retreat. Hannity or Rush aren't in a government position, are they? I believe Cheney's boss has been there several times.

C'mon...focus man! Try harder.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I don't recall any of them saying we're in a quagmire and that we should immediately retreat. Hannity or Rush aren't in a government position, are they? I believe Cheney's boss has been there several times.

C'mon...focus man! Try harder.

166392[/snapback]

I'm trying, TIS, but its soooo hard!

Okay, focus, focus...wait, Cheney has a boss? Oh yeah, Lynn.... She's been to Iraq?

Now Rumsfeld has been a few times, especially right after it came out he was using a machine to sign death notices. Sunday he said it could last about 12 years. Is that a quagmire?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Oh, so now its Lynn Cheney and Rumsfeld. Nice....Keep trying.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Oh, so now its Lynn Cheney and Rumsfeld. Nice....Keep trying.

166413[/snapback]

I'm applying your logic. Rumsfeld has seen more of Iraq than Bush and he says 12 years. Is that a quagmire?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Nope, so temper your glee for the time being

How do you define quagmire? Teddy Kennedy does it with no evidence at all.

Ironically, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was among the first politicians to compare his brother's Vietnam quagmire to Iraq. But his office acknowledged Monday that he is one of three senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee who has not yet visited the country.

Some reporters think they can see quagmires in the future.

The record suggests that reporters often don't recognize a quagmire when they see it. For instance, President Bush was first asked whether he could avoid a quagmire in Afghanistan four days after the start of the war there.

Apparently they can't recognize quagmires before they happen after all.

The president said he could avoid a quagmire, but less than two weeks later the Los Angeles Times noted hand-wringing at home.

"The experts are warning that both the political and military elements of Operation Enduring Freedom are doomed to slip into a quagmire or fail entirely," read the Oct. 26, 2001, editorial. Two months later, the United States liberated Afghanistan.

Gotta love those experts. They're always so right about everything.

The quagmire metaphor also hanged over early coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Eight days into the war, The New York Times and The Washington Post compared Iraqi fighters to the resilient North Vietnamese. Eighteen days later, the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Those reporters are sharp, aren't they? And they seem to learn from their mistakes too.

Link

[Tigermike 3,053]

Oh, so now its Lynn Cheney and Rumsfeld. Nice....Keep trying.

166413[/snapback]

I'm applying your logic. Rumsfeld has seen more of Iraq than Bush and he says 12 years. Is that a quagmire?

166417[/snapback]

quag·mire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwgmr, kwg-)

n.

1. Land with a soft muddy surface.

2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.

Looking at the dictionary, it would appear that after loosing the House of Representatives, the Senate and two of the most hotly contested presidential elections ever conducted, the Democrats are the ones in a quagmire.

[WarTim 3,457]

Shawn H. & Rush have more "sway" with the American people than teddy and old byrd.

Those are just the facts.

[Tiger Al 0]

OK, please try to comprehend this concept. If I were so concerned about the troops being in a "quagmire" that I would call for their immediate retreat, I would at least go and take a look for myself before I went shooting my big mouth about it. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Its not about being pro war or anti war (you keep spinning all your discussions to that point), its about witnessing things for oneself before forming and espousing opinions.

166389[/snapback]

Did you have some such requirement that Bush personally check out Iraq for all of those WMD's before he invaded? If he were so concerned that Iraq was a world threat, shouldn't he have at least gone and taken a look for himself before starting a war? Isn't it about witnessing things for oneself before forming and espousing opinions?