If you remember every time Bill Clinton tried to commit forces to places that actually wanted our help. The republican congress was all like "Your just doing that to cover up your blow job" and your trying to be the world police. Now look at us.. At it again, but instead of actually helping people who want our help...We are fighting a fight that most don't want us too. Lets just protect the Kurds and be done with it.
That is what partisanship gets you. Too many in politics see success for the nation, when the other party gets the credit for it, as a bad thing.
It does not matter which party is in power, the other guys do not want to see success caused by politics that are not their own. Just look at the troop deployment issue. The president is sending over a new general and more troops. The new general went before a congressional committee and stated that if he does not get these extra troops he will fail. Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!
*Sigh* Cremlian's statement, except for the last sentence, was composed completely of FACTS. As in NOT partisan. He fairly characterized republican ojections to BC based on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Then he said that most people don't want us in Iraq. THIS IS A FACT.
As usual, your phrase "success for the nation" hurts my brain. What success? Who said anything about success?
Now your statement "The new general went before a congressional committee and stated that if he does not get these extra troops he will fail. Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!" IS partisan. It is intended to persuade the reader to agree with a position by misstating facts and ascribing intent unsupported by facts.
My statement about partisanship in Congress is in direct support of Cremlian's statement. No matter what Bill Clinton tried to do he was hampered by his personal problems and the partisanship of the Republican Congress who were drunk on their new found power.
As to the public being against us in Iraq you also need to look at why the public feels that way. Even in opinion polls that ask about the President's approval rating the rating may be 30% approval but the internals of the poll may show that out of the 70% who disapprove 50% of them may say he is going too far while the other 50% may be saying he is not going far enough.
It is also important to remember that the President IS the Commander in Chief of the military, not Congress or the electorate.
My statement about the General is entirely factual. If I came to you and said I wanted to be represented by you on a court case and after talking you told me that one particular piece of evidence (in my possession) would be the key to winning the case and without it you would lose at trial and I then told you that you could not use it, would that not be guaranteeing failure?
Also, what facts did I misrepresent?
a) The general spoke with a Congressional committee b) The general said he needed the troops c) The general said he would fail without the troops d) Congress is trying to stop the extra troops
I had a source for a transcript from the committee meeting where Lieberman specifically brings this up but my source has decided to move the article to their "paid" area of the website.
ORLY? I have a source that says Lieberman turned a backflip and crawled up his own asshole, "but my source has decided to move the article to their "paid" are of the website."
TRY to stay relevant: It doesn't matter one bit, under the terms of the statements above, who is the "commander-in-chief"
Clinton actively encouraged other nations not to intervene, but all the deaths aren't his fault. Kofi Annan also has a charge to answer. And I call bullshit on his regret. It takes up 2 pages in his autobiography, he went there but didn't leave the airport and was not upset enough to attend the 10th anniversary commemorations. If it is the biggest regret in his administration how much of his $5000 a plate dinners go to genocide survivors?
Anyway I try to keep my Clinton loathing to myself, I'm just pissed about Hillary announcing and her leading in the polls for the Democratic Primary.
The only poll that matters is the one taken in November 2008
Guess what! I enrolled to vote! I'm very excited, once my letter gets to California and is processed and comes back I shall be a registered voter. Good thing I left 2 years.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi blinked around 30 times a minute, Dick Cheney blinked around 4 times a minute. He also ripped the head of a puppy and ate it at 20minutes in.
Comments
As usual, your phrase "success for the nation" hurts my brain. What success? Who said anything about success?
Now your statement "The new general went before a congressional committee and stated that if he does not get these extra troops he will fail. Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!" IS partisan. It is intended to persuade the reader to agree with a position by misstating facts and ascribing intent unsupported by facts.
My statement about partisanship in Congress is in direct support of Cremlian's statement. No matter what Bill Clinton tried to do he was hampered by his personal problems and the partisanship of the Republican Congress who were drunk on their new found power.
As to the public being against us in Iraq you also need to look at why the public feels that way. Even in opinion polls that ask about the President's approval rating the rating may be 30% approval but the internals of the poll may show that out of the 70% who disapprove 50% of them may say he is going too far while the other 50% may be saying he is not going far enough.
It is also important to remember that the President IS the Commander in Chief of the military, not Congress or the electorate.
My statement about the General is entirely factual. If I came to you and said I wanted to be represented by you on a court case and after talking you told me that one particular piece of evidence (in my possession) would be the key to winning the case and without it you would lose at trial and I then told you that you could not use it, would that not be guaranteeing failure?
Also, what facts did I misrepresent?
a) The general spoke with a Congressional committee
b) The general said he needed the troops
c) The general said he would fail without the troops
d) Congress is trying to stop the extra troops
I had a source for a transcript from the committee meeting where Lieberman specifically brings this up but my source has decided to move the article to their "paid" area of the website.
TRY to stay relevant: It doesn't matter one bit, under the terms of the statements above, who is the "commander-in-chief"
GWB = Commander in Chief
Anyway I try to keep my Clinton loathing to myself, I'm just pissed about Hillary announcing and her leading in the polls for the Democratic Primary.