It was quite a donnybrook on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning when Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Jim Webb (D-Virginia) joined Tim Russert to discuss what’s going on in Iraq.
In fact, what began as a civil discussion between two southern gentlemen got quite testy towards the end.
With that in mind, I’m going to roll the tape so to speak, and will only break in when Webb refers to a poll done in May without sharing all the findings (video available here):
MR. TIM RUSSERT, HOST: Senator Webb, do you believe al-Qaeda is the primary enemy in Iraq and threat in Iraq? And do you believe if U.S. troops, in fact, withdrew from Iraq we would leave behind a bloodbath and genocide?
SEN. JIM WEBB: I think they’re going to have problems in Iraq whenever we leave. They have had problems in Iraq for 2,000 years. The question is the circumstances under which we leave, and that’s what we have to work on. And that’s what the people who’ve basically circled their wagons around this administration, rather than moving toward the future like, like, for instance, Senator Warner and Senator Lugar are trying to do, are missing the boat. We have to get strong diplomatic efforts in place that are in consonance with what our military has been doing.
Let me just say a couple things about the points that Senator Graham was making. OK? First of all, with respect to my amendment, 56 senators voted for my amendment. Senator Graham put an amendment in basically supporting the status quo, he got 41 votes. So a majority of the Senate supports what we’re trying to do. And with respect to the idea that any president, you know, would, would not accept this sort of congressional direction, as I said, we have in the past. Presidents have in the past. The best example being when President Truman had to take the recommendation or the requirement of the Congress that you have 120 days in the military before you go overseas.
And with respect to al-Qaeda, quite frankly, al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq to try to destroy a democracy. That’s a very, very flimsy democracy there. We all recognize that. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because the United States was in Iraq, and the people in al-Anbar are not aligning themselves with the United States. It’s “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” This hasn’t been the Iraqi military, the national military that’s been taking out al-Qaeda. It’s been a redneck justice. It’s been these sectarian groups out there who don’t like al-Qaeda. And if we leave, they still will not like al-Qaeda.
So what we have to have is the proper sort of diplomatic energy, which is actually what the Iraq Study Group is proposing, along with what these military people have been doing. And we got to give them a break. This is where I—this is what I don’t understand, with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman. Senator Lieberman attacked me on a show on Monday. You know, Senator Lieberman, every day, is calling for a war against Iran and probably Syria. Maybe a, maybe a, maybe they can tell us where the, the line should be drawn. Maybe, maybe the United States military, all of it, should go to the Middle East and stay all the time. Somewhere in here there has to be a rational line that protects the well being of our troops.
MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, what happens in September?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I think General Petraeus will determine what happens in September, but in July, we’re not going to let politicians deploy troops based on the polling of the moment. And I think the biggest mistake we could make is misunderstanding our enemies. Iran is killing Americans and trying to destabilize this government.
SEN. WEBB: So are Saudis, Senator Graham. So are Saudis, because that’s what the region is.
SEN. GRAHAM: It’s because they fear a moderate form of government. Al-Qaeda has come there to destroy moderation. And if they win—we’ve got a chance to put them on the run, and God bless General Petraeus and these troops. They’re doing things with this surge we could never do before, and it’s been al-Qaeda’s worst nightmare. And the worst thing we could do as a country is when we’re close...
SEN. WEBB: The worst nightmare of al-Qaeda is the Iraqis who’ve stood up to them.
SEN. GRAHAM: ...when we’re close to getting it right is to withdraw because of the next election. They didn’t...
MR. RUSSERT: How long should the...
SEN. WEBB: Hold on, Lindsey.
MR. RUSSERT: How long should the surge last?
SEN. GRAHAM: The surge is set—the—has been in place for two weeks, and we’ve done more in Anbar in last show was September.
SEN. WEBB: We didn’t do that. We didn’t do that in two weeks.
SEN. GRAHAM: It’s been in place for two weeks...
SEN. WEBB: We didn’t do that in two weeks.
SEN. GRAHAM: ...and it’s made enormous progress in areas...
MR. RUSSERT: But how long do you believe the surge will last?
SEN. GRAHAM: When General Petraeus comes back, he will tell us these things. I want to leave. No American wants to occupy Iraq. But history will judge us, my friend, not when we left, but what we left behind. Do we leave a resurgent al-Qaeda that will kill every moderate who helped us? Do we empower Iran? Do they control the south of Iraq? Nobody ever asks the consequences, polls the consequences of this idea, just wash your hands of Iraq.
SEN. WEBB: It’s been, it’s been a hard, it’s been a hard month Lindsey. You need to calm down my friend.
SEN. GRAHAM: I’m going to listen to this general, and I’m not going to let any politician take the place of the general.
MR. RUSSERT: I’ll give you a chance to respond.
SEN. WEBB: Lindsey’s had a hard month. You know, these people who have, you know, gathered around...
SEN. GRAHAM: I don’t know about Lindsey having a hard month.
SEN. WEBB: ...gathered around the president, you know, on the immigration bill, on this bill. I know it’s, I know it’s been tough.
SEN. GRAHAM: It’s about the next 20 and 30 years.
SEN. WEBB: We got to, we got to bring people together, and you know, get a diplomatic solution in place here that’s in consonance with this. When the president announced the surge in January, he said that, by the end of this year, all of the provinces in Iraq would be under the control of Iraqis. That’s clearly not going to happen. And the bottom line here is whether you want to stay for 10 years or whether you want to stay for six months...
SEN. GRAHAM: I want to, I want to beat extremism.
SEN. WEBB: Excuse me. Excuse me, friend. We need to find a formula that takes care of the well-being of our soldiers and our Marines. And there is no...
SEN. GRAHAM: That we can agree on.
SEN. WEBB: There is no operational policy...
SEN. GRAHAM: That we can agree on.
SEN. WEBB: ...that justifies what we’ve been doing. But the tradition...
MR. RUSSERT: But do you...
SEN. WEBB: The traditional operational policy has been if you’ve been gone for a year, you get two years back. We’re now in a situation where the soldiers and the Marines are having less than a one to one ratio, and somebody needs to speak up for them rather than simply defending what this president’s been doing.
SEN. GRAHAM: When they re-enlist in the highest numbers anywhere else in the military, they’re speaking...
SEN. WEBB: You know, this is one thing I really—this is one thing I really take objection to...
SEN. GRAHAM: ...the soldiers are speaking, my friend. Let them win.
SEN. WEBB: ...is politicians who—at the...
SEN. GRAHAM: Let them win.
SEN. WEBB: Politicians who—may I speak?
SEN. GRAHAM: They want to win, let them win.
SEN. WEBB: Is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers. You can look at poll after poll, and the political views of the United States military are no different than the country at large. Go take a look at The New York Times today.
SEN. GRAHAM: The soldiers...
SEN. WEBB: Less than half of the military believes that we should be in Iraq in the first place.
Stop the tape. Our friend Dan Riehl wrote about this today, and the Senator from Virginia – much like today’s Times article – was not representing all the findings from this poll.
As Riehl accurately pointed out, the Times piece referred to a New York Times/CBS News poll done in May. However, as Riehl noted:
There is indeed a May New York Times CBS poll, but if you look at it, you see why it wasn't making bigger news in May. It didn't give the Democrats what they wanted back then.
Why? Well, let’s look at a key paragraph from the May 24 Times article about this poll that doesn’t quite fit into Webb’s view of the world (emphasis added):
While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all spending on the war. The majority, 69 percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should appropriate money for the war, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and that the Iraqi government meets those goals. Fifteen percent of all respondents want Congress to approve war spending without conditions.
So, Senator, as long as you are willing to reference parts of a poll that seem to support your position, wouldn’t it be decent of you to mention the sections that don’t?
And where was Mr. Russert to challenge his guest on this issue? Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if Tim said something like:
Well, to be fair Senator, there were indeed some findings in that May poll that indicate the American people are in favor of continuing to fund the troops as long as there are specific benchmarks. How do you respond to that?
Oh. That’s right. That would be too much like journalism. So, forget it, and roll the tape, because this is about to get good:
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq? Have you ever been and talked to them? I’ve been seven times.
SEN. WEBB: You know, have you ever been to these—I’ve been—I’ve covered two wars as a correspondent...
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq?
SEN. WEBB: I have been to Afghanistan as a journalist.
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq and—have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?
SEN. WEBB: You know, you haven’t been to Iraq.
SEN. GRAHAM: I’ve been to—I’ve been there seven times.
SEN. WEBB: You know, you go see the dog and pony shows.
SEN. GRAHAM: I’ve been there as a reservist, I have been there and I’m going back in August.
SEN. WEBB: That’s what congressmen do. Yeah, I have, I have—I’ve been a member of the military when the senators come in.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, all—listen, something we can agree on, we both admire the men and women in uniform. I don’t doubt your patriotism.
SEN. WEBB: Don’t put political words in their mouth.
SEN. GRAHAM: You know, my election...
SEN. WEBB: You do it—you’ve been doing it ever since I’ve been in Congress.
SEN. GRAHAM: I’m up for re-election. Every Republican who’s supporting this position is doing it against the polls.
SEN. WEBB: You know, you said on the floor, “Let them win. They want it.”
SEN. GRAHAM: This is not about my election, my friend...
SEN. WEBB: They want it, my friend.
SEN. GRAHAM: ...this is about the next generation.
SEN. WEBB: No, you said on the floor this week, “Let them win.”
SEN. GRAHAM: The troops are not the problem. The troops can win. I...
SEN. WEBB: Thirty-five percent of the United States military agrees with the policy of this president.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, why do they keep...
SEN. WEBB: By poll. By poll.
SEN. GRAHAM: ...re-enlisting? Why do they go back?
SEN. WEBB: Because they love their country.
SEN. GRAHAM: That’s not the problem. No, because...
SEN. WEBB: Because they love their country, they do not do it for political reasons.
SEN. GRAHAM: And they...
SEN. WEBB: My family’s been doing this since the Revolutionary war.
SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, well, so, so has my family.
SEN. WEBB: They do it for—they do it because they love their country, because they have a tradition, and it is the responsibility of our national leaders to make sure that they are used properly.
SEN. GRAHAM: In conclusion, I think they go back because they see the face of the enemy that we’re fighting. They don’t want their...
SEN. WEBB: Well, you got to look at the polls, Lindsey, instead of...
SEN. GRAHAM: ...kids to go back, they don’t want their grandkids to go back.
SEN. WEBB: ...instead of the seven or eight people they bring in line when you make your congressional visit.
SEN. GRAHAM: Bin Laden said this is the third world war in Iraq. They go back because they know the consequences of losing. God bless them, and let’s make sure they can win, because they can.
SEN. WEBB: I’ll let them judge what you said.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued.
SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah. Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Jim Webb, thank you very much.
SEN. WEBB: Thank you.
SEN. GRAHAM: Good television.
Yes it was.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Webb rules!
July 17, 2007 - 01:32 ET by goldwaterfanJim Webb was awesome in that debate. Lindsay "Gomer" Graham is just a whiny, delusional, chickenhawk, apologist for this idiotic war. He got his head handed to him by a true American hero, James Henry Webb Jr.....
Gawd, that Webb is annoying
July 15, 2007 - 23:21 ET by motherbeltGawd, that Webb is annoying...first belligerent, then solicitous and smarmy. And don't forget patronizing ("Lindsey's had a hard month. [ ]you need to calm down, my friend). Made me want to slap him two ways.
What a disgraceful performanc
July 16, 2007 - 11:40 ET by KC MulvilleWhat a disgraceful performance! The first several interchanges were fine, until Webb, like an adolescent, began talking while Graham was talking. Then he tried to shout Graham down. That was priceless, because Graham was arguing that we shouldn’t run military policy by polls, and Webb’s counter-argument was: but look at the polls! He was, at that moment, doing exactly what Graham was criticizing. Then, when Russert gave Webb a chance to talk, Graham pulled the same act on Webb … and Webb had the pompous and oblivious gall to stop the segment and indignantly ask if he could speak without interruption. In the distant past, I had hope for Webb. But he’s revealed himself as a typical media creation. It angers him when others speak instead of him.
Quick notes:
You know, I'm sorry but there
July 15, 2007 - 23:30 ET by drillanwrYou know, I'm sorry but there is just something very uncanny and weird about Webb.
You have the uncivil confrontation he classlessly (hope that's a word) shoved at the President when W inquired after Webb's son who was serving in Iraq. And then Webb's gun in a paper bag, that I don't recall was covered properly by the media or explained or investigated sufficiently by TPTB.
And his display on Meet The Press was just bizarre. He insinuates that Graham's seven trips to Iraq were staged dog and pony shows??!! Yet, he's made no effort to go there himself ... just waves that "I was a journalist" banner ... as if that makes him an expert. And his assuming to insist Graham dare not put words in the mouths of the troops ... but it's alright for him to do so based on stupid polls. (and we all know how poll questions are crafted to make the answers work in favor of the pollster's agenda ... even if the person answering meant something completely different.)
Anyhow, when I hear Senators or Congressmen call each other "friend" I usually see it as a code word for "You bastard ..."
P.S. -I would sure love to se
July 15, 2007 - 23:42 ET by drillanwrP.S. -
I would sure love to see both Senators' emails from the troops after this.
webb only veneer
July 15, 2007 - 23:43 ET by Pragmatic-ManWebb is running scared. He has no real content to support his positions. I also think that he is getting hammered on the home front by his son. Just a hunch. The rash answer to W was the first indicator. The lack of visits to Iraq is another indicator that he is not on good terms with his son. If you were a prominent senator, and went to Iraq, where your son was deployed, would you not visit him?
Unless... your son did not want to be seen with you.
I also loved how Webb told Graham not to put words in soldier's mouths, then turns around one breath later and does this exactly. Hypocrisy real time. Always nice when you don't have to wait for it.
}}----> Wesley Webb Clark
July 16, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Cool ArrowMost disgusting about these retired military leaders is how easily they can change their spots to fit into the first political template offered. I would have bet money both Wesley Clark and Jim Webb would have chosen careers as Republicans but a little insult here, or a big party opening there gives one a whole new outlook.
show me the money!
July 16, 2007 - 00:13 ET by Pragmatic-ManWe're low on principle but high on opportunism with some of these switch-hitters.
Show me the money!
I respect Webb. Even if he
July 15, 2007 - 23:58 ET by mostlymoderateI respect Webb. Even if he is wrong, I don't think is intentions are as vindictive as most other Democrats.
If you really believe that, I
July 16, 2007 - 00:06 ET by kathleenirishIf you really believe that, I have some prime land in North Korea for sale....
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
but Webb is vindictive
July 16, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Pragmatic-ManBut, Webb proved today that he does have an abusive manner about him. This was manifest in the manner with which he attacked the integrity of Graham's comments. Also, that jab he gave W in the White House right after the election was very unwarranted.
Vindictive indeed. Sorry to disagree, but I must.
And regarding a general distaste for the man himself, you only need to reference his books. Remember the passage about the father giving his young son fellacio? Yes, nasty but true. He claims that he only wrote about what he has seen. Who would put such filth in print, regardless of the relevance? What good is it, and how many ways can there be to get the message across without such a visual being put into print?
}}----> Webb Worm
July 16, 2007 - 00:19 ET by Cool ArrowI'm sure the circumstances under which he observed the father/son floor show were mere happenstance.
I could say the same thing
July 16, 2007 - 00:19 ET by mostlymoderateI could say the same thing about Mrs. Cheney and her lesbian book, but I think that is beneath the scope of this conversation. As for that "jab" he gave W in the White House being unwarranted, I think not. I guess I get tired of the quick attempts to "Swift Boat" any military man that is not a member of the G.O.P. Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, John Murtha, et. Al.
Mostly Liberal, not "MOD
July 16, 2007 - 00:29 ET by kathleenirishMostly Liberal, not "MODERATE" (what, in comparison with Castro or Kennedy?):
You give yourself away with the 'Swift Boat' reference. How was what they said and documented untrue? Yeah, poor, poor John "Do You Know Who I Am?!" Kerry. The media lined up behind him and NOT the swift boat veterans... how about a new term in regards to being smeared by made-up lies that are intended to throw an election? I call it "Rathered".
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
P.S. Murtha and Clark are inc
July 16, 2007 - 00:33 ET by kathleenirishP.S. Murtha and Clark are incompetent stooges, probably traitors but definitely loony liberals. Can you say, "unindicted co-conspirator". I hope Murtha gets the pants sued off of him for slandering certain marines for his own political gain. Not worthy in any way of respect!!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Mrs. Cheney is not an elected official
July 16, 2007 - 00:48 ET by Pragmatic-ManMrs. Cheney, I shall remind you, is not an elected official. If Webb wants to write vile junk, let him. First amendment.
But Mrs. Cheney does not represent a constituency, does not establish policy and is off the political radar. When Wolf questioned her he was out of line, completely. And if you want to put relevancy to the issue, there is a gross nature to Webb's writing that is not found in Mrs. Cheney's writing.
Try again.
Nice Try!!
July 16, 2007 - 00:52 ET by mostlymoderateNice Try!!
nice try = I win
July 16, 2007 - 00:56 ET by Pragmatic-Mannice try = I win
Weak. Care to take another attempt at content?
}}----> Mrs. Cheney?
July 16, 2007 - 00:58 ET by Cool ArrowI guess I must've lost my invitation to Mary Cheney's wedding. You guys got yours?
Don't forget Scooter Libby's
July 16, 2007 - 11:38 ET by waka wakaDon't forget Scooter Libby's bear-on-girl action in his book! I think that takes the cake.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Don't forget Scooter Libby's
July 16, 2007 - 11:39 ET by waka wakaDon't forget Scooter Libby's bear-on-girl action in his book! I think that takes the cake.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
swift boating?
July 16, 2007 - 00:52 ET by Pragmatic-ManSo, mod, how is it that once a person utters another person's remarks, that they are swift boated? How is it that when reporting on Murtha's outrageous condemnation of the Haditha Marines, that we are swift-boating him? Seems to me he swift boated himself. He is a stooge, a crook, and a liar.
And you defend him? Say it ain't so.
As for Wesley Clark, he is simply a sell out. Whoa, there goes a swift-boat!
Prag,I don't think that Mostl
July 16, 2007 - 01:05 ET by ViperPrag,
I don't think that Mostly has a response for either of us. You brought up several good points for him to respond to and the utterly lame reply you got was... Nice Try! That's right up there with... (spoken in your best 5 year old voice) I know you are but what am I...
I just simply asked why he had respect for Webb.
No Response..... Starting CPR......
lost another troll
July 16, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Pragmatic-ManWe lost him! Get the paddles! Ready ----- CLEAR!!
==============
So many libs, so little content.
Another one flatlined........
July 16, 2007 - 01:13 ET by ViperAnother one flatlined.............
Elvis has left the building.......Thank You and Good Night!
}}----> Moment of silence
July 16, 2007 - 01:16 ET by Cool ArrowIs it OK to play TAPS for a troll? I've got a kazoo.
Nice work. Anyone who says
July 16, 2007 - 01:20 ET by kathleenirishNice work.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Too funny!It's getting late f
July 16, 2007 - 01:22 ET by ViperToo funny!
It's getting late for me here and now you have me humming taps in my best imitation of a kazoo. Thanks!
I am still here, I just don't
July 16, 2007 - 01:24 ET by mostlymoderateI am still here, I just don't intend to try and change your mind. People like you will sell out your only military just to protect your corrupt, uninformed, mistaken President. That's ok with me. However, I choose to listen to both sides about our occupation in Iraq, not just the talking points of an administration that has failed at everything it ever attempted in his almost 8 years. Immigration: FAILURE, occupation in Iraq: FAILURE, Social Security Reform: FAILURE. You're that 18% of the Country that will support your President no matter what and "screw" the men and women that actually have to go to that hell hole we call Iraq. Armchair warrior's, that's all you are. You think this is just a big "Rambo" movie or something. Goodluck in 2008 !!! You are going to need it.
Mostly,You still have not res
July 16, 2007 - 01:35 ET by ViperMostly,
You still have not responded to the questions asked of you and your post contains nothing but talking points, none of which have to do with the topic of this thread. Also, what you call occupation, I call liberation, but I guess that would be coming from one of the sides you choose not to listen to or attempt to understand. It appears as though you see nothing but FAILURE in front of you.
}}----> Yo Mostly incontinent
July 16, 2007 - 01:35 ET by Cool ArrowIslam declared war on us years ago. We ran out of cheeks to turn while Slick Willie was getting his wick wet.
Or maybe we should have concentrated only on the Japanese in WWII. If it means nothing that a war is declared.
We will by no means sell out our Military like the Dems sold out our boys in Kennedy/Johnson's war. That was the price we paid for not investigating a stolen election. Yeah, we know what you're all about.
failure???
July 16, 2007 - 01:36 ET by Pragmatic-ManSaddam ousted: success
Tax cuts: success
Longest running bull market of ALL TIME: success
Dow Jones record highs: success
Afghanistan liberated from Taliban: success
Libya abandons their nuke program: success
North Korea shuts down their reactor: success
Need I continue?
}}----> Unfair Pragman
July 16, 2007 - 01:47 ET by Cool ArrowYou should note the Clinton administration extracted promises from the North Koreans that they weren't building nukes. Doesn't that count for something?
And who can for get Madelaine Allbright who staunchly stated our coalition going into Iraq was too small. Never mind her birth parents died in German Concentration Camps. Damn the press for yanking that WASP rug out from under her. Especially since her lifelong mission has been the destruction of Israel.
Bush successes
July 16, 2007 - 01:53 ET by Captain RepusNot to mention that this 'moron' president has played the 'intelligent' congress like a fiddle, has historically changed the supreme court, wiped the floor of the best the dem's had to offer in presidential debate after debate, effectively dealt with international crisis after crisis almost from the first day of his first term (remember the naval aviators kidnapped by China), made our economy the strongest in world history while every other major nation is wallowing in social and economic failure, lead the world in responding to disasters of biblical porportions (other than New Orleans), and on and on. Now his 'failed' policy in dealing with North Korea has succeeded, Iran is trembling in fear and allowing inspections. No wonder these liberals are beyond frustrated.
libs hate strength
July 16, 2007 - 02:07 ET by Pragmatic-ManIf it's one thing libs hate, it is uncompromising strength. If it doesn't make them "feel" good, then how can it "be" good?
Screw the troops?!?!?!?
July 16, 2007 - 01:42 ET by Pragmatic-ManScrew the troops?!?!? How dare you denigrate the mission these soldiers are on. They are volunteers for their country, more than I can say for you OR me! They fight for your freedoms to denigrate their Commander in Chief.
This is some bumpersticker to you, isn't it! Let me tell you, Mostly Moonbat, this war has been going on for centuries and will continue long into the coming generations. If you don't want to fight the enemy then go ahead and start saving for your dhimmitude. I choose to support our troops, their mission, and the patriots within our borders defending the decisions of the President.
Nice political maneauver...
July 16, 2007 - 01:48 ET by mostlymoderateNice political maneauver...act like you give a damn about the troops. Get real angry and passionate. Use lots of words like "mission" and "Commander in Chief" and "patriots". Talking points, talking points, talking points...unfortunately, that gibberish only works with the 18% I mentioned before. Yawn...goodnite. "Support Them Troops"!!!! Oh, but pay contractors triple what an enlistee makes, make enlistees purchase their own body armor, make enlistees GO BACK to Iraq AGAIN even after they already served their time. Yea, support the troops dude. If you only meant it.
I do mean it
July 16, 2007 - 01:54 ET by Pragmatic-ManI do mean it. I support the mission they are on, I support funding them. I support giving them more supplies, better armor, better humvees, and more air support.
What do you support, surrender? Other than bashing patriots and surrendering, you are weak on content but strong on hate.
talking points
July 16, 2007 - 01:55 ET by Pragmatic-ManBy the way, Commander in Chief is a term, not a talking point. Patriot is a noun, not a talking point.
18% 18% 18% 18%Sheesh, you Le
July 16, 2007 - 01:56 ET by Unsane18% 18% 18% 18%
Sheesh, you Leftists and your obsequious love of polls...
Coupled with your refusal to read, its a wonder people do not take you seriously.
And what's with "mostlymoderate"? What? Are you ashamed of being a Leftist?
And what do YOU consider "supporting the troops"? What, bringing them home and REFUSING to send them out if they risk a hangnail in deployment phase? I hate to say this, but the military is there to project power worldwide to protect your freedom to bitch and moan about how horrible that is with impunity. And that unfortunately means that some lose their lives from time to time. But then, Hitler didn't have the Wehrmacht escort our troops onto the beaches and into France. Nor did Kim-Il Sung do the same with the Korean People's Army at Inchon.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}----> Dammit Unsane
July 16, 2007 - 01:58 ET by Cool ArrowI was trying to say that first.
}}----> Mostly Mockery
July 16, 2007 - 01:57 ET by Cool ArrowAnd your obsession with percentages means you are a "go with the flow" kind of guy.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows as Zimmerman said. Try standing up for what you believe rather than making yourself feeeeeel strong with polls.
sounds like you hate the troops
July 16, 2007 - 02:01 ET by Pragmatic-ManSounds to me like you absolutely hate the military, hate to fight the enemy, and are prepared to betray your countrymen by forcing a failure in Iraq.
Well, it just so happens that the Iraq conflict has been won. The Iraq government, albeit not fully functional, is in place. The Iraq army, albeit not up to full strength, is installed in much of the country. What we are doing there now is pursuing outside terrorists, mainly Saudis.
So give us the mostly moderate plan. What should we do? Redeploy? What is your plan? What should we do with Iran? Should we push into Tora Bora again, and go after the Taliban remnants? What should we do, enlighten me.
"So give us the mostly
July 16, 2007 - 02:34 ET by ckc1227"So give us the mostly moderate plan. What should we do? Redeploy? What
is your plan? What should we do with Iran? Should we push into Tora
Bora again, and go after the Taliban remnants? What should we do,
enlighten me."
He'll have to get back to you. He has to take a poll first to find out.
}}----> Enter Richard Dawson
July 16, 2007 - 02:46 ET by Cool ArrowOur survey says!
Asshat Alert!
July 16, 2007 - 02:09 ET by Sua Sponte 75Where to start, oh where to start with your clown antics.........Alright, to begin with lets make it clear first and foremost that you have no clue as to what you're talking about, that you've never served or if you did it was for a short time and you're disgruntled. That being said, for the past few years it's been apparent that if you're in the military, odds are that you are going to deploy to a combat zone and most likely multiple times. Now if for some reason you become "tired" of all of this, now stay with me on this, you can opt NOT to re-enlist. That's right, you heard it here, you can choose not to stay in the military. But to put a little hole in the theory you're probably mulling around in your head, re-enlistment rates have been very steady, especially for first termers. Your theory that all returning troops are being forced back for another tour is complete lie, many and I mean many volunteer to return, not that you would have any insight or understanding of that. Now onto your bogus buying your own body armor. Initially there were instances where troops did buy their own body armor, that story is long and gone and so old it's not even funny. You state that we're "occupiers", then try to throw in the old "I support the troops", you then state we are failing in our mission, then throw in "I support the troops", that dog just won't hunt. I believe the key thing here is that before talking about something, maybe you ought to have a clue about it first because all you're doing here is really making yourself look like an assclown. Please do yourself and everyone else and quit trying to speak for me, my troops and my mission. We're doing just fine without it. And finally, your use of "dude" just kinda says it all.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
beautifu, Sua!
July 16, 2007 - 02:19 ET by Pragmatic-ManSua, beautifully done! Wonderful deconstruction.
Much Appreciated
July 16, 2007 - 02:24 ET by Sua Sponte 75Thank you very much. It gets tiresome of listening to these clowns as they feverishly paddle their chickenwire canoe talking points.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}----> Well put Sponte
July 16, 2007 - 02:20 ET by Cool ArrowOr as I like to say. "The enema of my enemy is my friend, Mr. M16.
And once again, you will sh
July 16, 2007 - 02:40 ET by mostlymoderateAnd once again, you will shuffle off to bed, like your "President", knowing that you have done absolutely NOTHING to help with the situation in Iraq. Must feel good, "dude"!!
shuffling off to bed
July 16, 2007 - 02:45 ET by Pragmatic-ManI have done my all, no matter how limited, to help in Iraq. You have betrayed your troops with your diatribe. Sleep tight (if you can sleep at all).
p.s.... he's your President too!
Yeah, you really make a dif
July 16, 2007 - 02:47 ET by mostlymoderateYeah, you really make a difference. If that helps your conscience, then more power to you.
I try
July 16, 2007 - 02:53 ET by Pragmatic-ManI don't make much of a difference, but I try. I wish I could do more. One man, one vote. And only so much time in the day.
How about you, what's your contribution lately, besides all the condescention?
still waiting
July 16, 2007 - 02:57 ET by Pragmatic-ManStill waiting for that surrender plan. Helllooo!
}}----> Crickets chirping
July 16, 2007 - 02:59 ET by Cool ArrowThen approaching from the distance in his soprano voice comes Mostly singing "Kumbaya my lord."
What have you done to help in
July 16, 2007 - 12:02 ET by waka wakaWhat have you done to help in Iraq, traitor? Warblogging does not count! Get your chickenhawk a$$ over there, pronto! And if your too old or fat, get a loved over there!
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
For waka waka
July 17, 2007 - 06:20 ET by UnsaneSome thoughts:
No one is forced to join the military. I can't force anyone to join.
Warblogging? In a hat tip to Mr. Bishop, what does that make you? Better than us?
I volunteered to go, and you will know when I am there when you start to see a very sudden dip in my postings, you snotty, whiny ingrate.
And by the way,
If reality has a well-known liberal bias, please explain the demise of the Second World, the rotting EU, and why people are running from North Korea (when possible), Cuba, and Zimbabwe.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And what would be YOUR plan?T
July 16, 2007 - 14:06 ET by FastEdAnd what would be YOUR plan?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
"And if your too old o
July 16, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Jerry"And if your too old or fat, get a loved over there!"
I love you waka, so I'm sending you.
Of course, you'll probably defect and join those that think like you.. you know.. the "freedom fighters".
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Cowboy Up Asshat
July 16, 2007 - 02:48 ET by Sua Sponte 75I take it that you plan on listing what you've done to "help" with the situation in Iraq? With all the respones to your football bat posts and your inability to compose any cognizant response, it doesn't look good skippy. It may be time to go ahead and get your exit visa stamped and head on back to Asshatistan.
And with that, I'll leave you with a quote from John Stuart Mill....maybe you can look him up at your school library tomorrow.
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
still waiting for mostly's plan
July 16, 2007 - 02:50 ET by Pragmatic-ManOh, and I am still waiting to hear your plan for the war. Pullout, redeploy, surrender, give up, what will it be?
But there is no plan from the lib side. You don't even have a clear cut plan for surrender.
No content, again.
}}----> Mostly's plan
July 16, 2007 - 02:55 ET by Cool ArrowWhen Global Cooling reaches hell. Pragmatic.
this guy is something empty
July 16, 2007 - 02:59 ET by Pragmatic-ManThis mostly guy is something quite empty. His condescention and complete inability to engage the topics is astounding.
}}----> Failure to engage
July 16, 2007 - 03:02 ET by Cool ArrowLiberal talking points go no deeper than the accusation.
Clown Down
July 16, 2007 - 03:03 ET by Sua Sponte 75Come on guys, give him a chance, he's lacing up his bowling cleats as we speak.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
leafing through the pamphlets
July 16, 2007 - 03:10 ET by Pragmatic-ManMostly is leafing through the pamphlets on his desk, the ones he got at the last moonbat convention. There's gotta be some content in there somewhere!! Keep looking.
Check that one out over there, yes, the one that says "Surrender in Seven Languages".
}}----> Bowling cleats
July 16, 2007 - 03:11 ET by Cool ArrowHe's searching through the kitchen drawer looking for a left-handed fork.
a lawyer who can't argue
July 16, 2007 - 03:13 ET by Pragmatic-ManGuess what, this mostly guy is a lawyer. Copyright stuff, TORT.
You would think he could formulate a cohesive argument. Isn't that the point of using an attorney, someone who can argue a case?
}}----> Logical, and yet
July 16, 2007 - 03:20 ET by Cool ArrowAnd yet, what are the chances he would stand before a logical judge? Weren't most of them lawyers too? Doesn't a "cute" defense trump the law every time?
Your Honor, my client was duped by George Bush.
No Response Response
July 16, 2007 - 03:35 ET by Sua Sponte 75Probably not going to get any type of response. I think mostly and schmidt are having a sleep over so right about now I'm sure they're snuggled up in their Lord of the Rings sleeping bags chatting about unicorns..........candy......puppies.........myspace and stickers till mom scolds them and they gently drift off.....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}----> Lord Of The Rings
July 16, 2007 - 03:48 ET by Cool ArrowThat's the part of the movie where Mostly shouts "Damn you, Schmidt, I can't quit you"!
All the lawyers I know
July 16, 2007 - 03:38 ET by Sua Sponte 75All the lawyers I know say "dude", in fact that's a key element in selection.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
moderates
July 16, 2007 - 03:02 ET by Pragmatic-ManIt seems to me that moderates are either conservos who don't realize it, or libs who can't admit it.
And this mostly fellow is definitely the latter.
}}----> Goes without saying
July 16, 2007 - 03:09 ET by Cool ArrowConservatives know themselves and wouldn't label themselves as "moderates"
"Moderate" on the other hand, is codespeak for bleeding heart liberal because it doesn't sound as foolish as "Liberal"
Libs are much too heavy into the art of disguise. Though I'm disgusted by the ploy, I can't deny they are very good at attracting lazy Americans who would rather steal from me than stand with me..
Hey Prag,I had to drop back i
July 16, 2007 - 03:04 ET by ViperHey Prag,
I had to drop back in to see how you are doing. I see that Mostly has not backed up any of his statements or even answered the question I asked. But that was to be expected. The ability to actually do some critical thinking does not seem to be evident. He has his mind made up and has comitted his insults to memory. Just more regurtitated bile. It would be a lot more interesting if Mostly would step up to the plate to debate. But that would entail answering questions as well as coming up with some of his/her own to further the discussion along.
what do you expect, he's a lib
July 16, 2007 - 03:07 ET by Pragmatic-ManYeah, but I didn't expect much anyway, he's a lib. And a nasty one at that. Quite the condescending fellow.
}}----> Condescending
July 16, 2007 - 03:16 ET by Cool ArrowI like Larry Elder's reference to Democrats treatment of Blacks as "patronizing condesension". Slavery lives and Robert Byrd still smiles.
it's like going to college
July 16, 2007 - 02:16 ET by Pragmatic-ManThe lib position on this war is akin to proud parents sending their son to college, giving him tuition, driving him to the dorms, paying special attention to his progress....
Then BAM!!! He gets great grades but they start telling him that his efforts to do better are for naught, that he is a bad student, but a good person, that they are going to let him stay through the next semester, then fail to pay his tuition, leaving him holding the bag, with no moral support for his education.
Then they go to his friend's parents and tell them what a bad kid he is, behind his back.
When he walks in the door back home after having to quit school, after giving it his all, they call him a baby killer.
Libs, what nice parents they make to our troops.