We Democrats want our own nation secure
President Bush keeps referring to the Iraq war as a winnable possibility, but it is not. We went into Iraq on false pretenses and now he is not going to let us get out of there.
We have already lost too many lives of our men and women, leaving wives here at home without husbands, husbands without wives, and children without their parents. We need to stop letting our innocent citizens die for a cause fostered on lies and misinformation.
We Democrats want to bring our service personnel home and secure our own country. I do not appreciate all the lies the Republicans are spreading about us Democrats and our endeavors to do what is right for all American citizens.
Our own country is suffering financially on many levels because we are sending so much money over to Iraq so they can pocket it or use it blow up buildings we are replacing.
It is time we take care of the citizens of the United States of America for a change.
Marlene Brunner, Yuma
Amen Marlene.
Perfect Example.
The Greenburg Tornado. Where is the National Guard and where is the equipment to help that town?
Democrat?
I vote? I vote for anyone I want. First and Foremost I am a United States Citizen. Not just a republican or democrat.
United States security has already been threatened and now we have no one to protect us at home. Thousands have died.
Daily they die. When the English Sailors were kidnapped. England stood up and tried to rescue that team. NOT ONCE. NOT ONE TIME DID GEORGE W BUSH TRY TO HELP NEGOTIATE, OR DO ANYTHING.......HE AND HIS STAFF DID NOTHING TO HELP THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HELD IN CAPTIVITY AND HAD THEIR HEADS CUT OFF ON VIDEO. NOTHING. George ignores it like everything else that has to do with the protection of The US and its citizens. Look at our borders. Its a nightmare. Not to mention trying to sell our ports around the US that more than anything should be highly protected from Terrorists to the very country that caused 9/11. Sell our ports!!!!!! To the Arabs? How in the world did this man get elected twice? Who did that? I couldnt imagine this in a movie. TWICE? Look at our national debt.........who created that nightmare. And John McCain said George has done so much for the economy? Where does he live? Its not in the United States unless he is dreaming. The democrats are at fault? Oh come on. Puh-lease.
Yeah right!!! The Democrat's absolutely want OPEN borders that's real smart huh??? That's a prescription for disaster regarding the influx of terrorists
They suck up to terrorist countries and sabotage the militarys efforts in Iraq with their soft approach and cut and run mentality.
Democrats are interested in our national security?????? You have got to be kidding!!!!hahahahah!
Posted by KMA on May 11, 2007 07:43 AMRead History. Iraq, prior to 2003, was run by a mad man who used chemical-weapons on his own citizens. (How many Kurds died in 1988) He may not have had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 when the United State Military arrived, but who would have stopped him from making more? The United Nations? (very unlikely) Saying that we went to war because Saddam had "WMDs" is a moot point. We went to war to free Iraq and the world from the risk presented by a Hitler like mad man!
I am proud of the men and women in our armed forces who protect our nation at home and abroad. Support them and our desire to achieve victory. I take pride in my country, my flag, and my military.
We all take pride in our military Joe, we would just rather not have them waste their lives for this. 188 Kurds died when Saddam used the chemical weapons against them. But we did go to war because "Saddam had WMD's", you're right, it is a moot point now, especially when we find out he didn't have them. Not to mention the fact that he had no way of delivering them anywhere. So yes, please do read up on your history.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 08:51 AM"We Democrats want our OWN nation secure"
Your own nation? What, are we talking about two different countries here?
Learn to form a sentence before you spout. You sound as bad as Bush!
Posted by truthy on May 11, 2007 09:30 AMKMA , your open border situation, currently brought to you by the Republican administration: Bush and big business.
Even if Democrats want open borders, they are not in charge now.: Bush and big business.
Until you are a registered Democrat, don`t tell us what we want.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 09:36 AMJoe,
You're missing the point.
Saying that we went to war because Saddam had WMDs is not a "moot point".
It was the reason given by this administration for the reason they took us to war. They never said it was to free Iraq from a madman. That was their fallback excuse when no WMDs were found, which they always knew was likely.
And please don't resort to the conservative time honored tradition of trying to play "we have more pride in our troops" card. Liberals have just as much pride in and respect for them as you do.
"It is time we take care of the citizens of the United States of America for a change."
Yeah, Close the borders and deport the Illegals!
Posted by on May 11, 2007 09:50 AMSharon B and Cindy Sheehan should join forces. You have about the same amout of love of country. America is always at fault and terrorists never have to answer for their actions because it's always America's fault. You go girl!!!!
I was a registered Democrat until It was hi-jacked by Soros and his group.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 10:27 AMIt is not explicit; it is not implicit; it is not in the Constitution that America should assassinate brutal dictators worldwide.
It is implicite that America should not (should not) attempt to eliminate evil from the world. Me, your friendly deicide attempting to assassinate the mouse named Faith.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 10:51 AM"The Greenburg Tornado. Where is the National Guard and where is the equipment to help that town?"
The equipment and manpower is there. Always was. Any shortage (which there wasn't) can be shored up by neighboring states who already offered. The dem gov of Kansas never asked for any help and tried to use this disaster to taint Bush. She should be ashamed but obviously isn't.
Sharon B: "KMA , your open border situation, currently brought to you by the Republican administration: Bush and big business."
I agree Bush hasn't done squat to close the borders but to say the current immigration quagmire is his fault is quite a stretch. Those borders have been open for decades.
How come you weren't complaining about the borders prior to Bush being elected?
Sharon, your hypocracy is showing.
KW,
Here's a big fat thought for ya..
The reason no one was complaining about the borders prior to Bush...is because Bush and the GOP had to find something new to divide us over.
The had ridden the "gay marriage" horse to death. They had it completely wrong on Terry Schiavo. Abortion has become divisive enough on it's own and is biting them in the butt.
So they came up with the issue of borders and illegal immigration. It certainly wasn't a new issue. It just hadn't been exploited to it's fullest political advantage by them yet.
Posted by Thomas on May 11, 2007 11:21 AMThomas thinks the conservatives are the ones separating AMERICA. It is not the consevatives beating up liberal speakers for their opinion on college campuses now is it? If you don't agree with liberals they beat you up and then blame conservatives.
It is soooo funny that Democrats claom to want our nation secure but they want open borders. They want to hand over the whole country to the likes of George Soros and the Hollywood elite. Soros is a felon in France for illegal actions and he keeps his money in another country. Moveon.org even says the Dems are bought and paid for. The far left New York times says that the Dems talk on the phone every day to George Soros even though they didn't say his name it is obvious who it is.
You don't have to believe me check it out for yourselves instead of just blindly following a once great party but now a party that has sold out.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 12:13 PMThomas - So Bush and Co created the immigration issue to divide the nation???
That has to be the most irrational argument you ever put forth. Do you read what you type before posting it?
The immigration problem has become pregessively worse for the last 25 years. And here's a news flash for you... It was a huge problem under Clinton as well.
The only reason you complain now is because your boy is out of the white house and you hate Bush.
Maybe you should just stay in the wading pool a bit longer before venturing into the depths of coherent, analytical thought.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 12:42 PMActually meggie, the fact that Bush didn't do anything when Iran kidnapped the Brittish sailors was a good thing--and you don't get to say that too often about this administration. But seriously, the USA letting England respond and not interfering was a good move--there was no chest thumping or any other action to incite a conflict, which many believe Iran was looking for. Wars have been started for less, and luckily, another one wasn't started because of that.
Now, about our citizens being kidnapped, well, that's a whole different ballgame...
Posted by shaupeen on May 11, 2007 12:43 PMI say let the Democrats have control of the war.If they are wrong and the enemy becomes stronger and nukes a large city in the US mostly Democrats will die.Think about it ,most large cities are the targets of the terrorists and those cities are mostly Democrats.How could this be a negative.If this happened even the cowardly Democrats would be mad enough to fight.I think.
Posted by Ron on May 11, 2007 12:49 PMIf there was a war that meant something to anybody but bush, then you would see an influx of people wanting to fight. Both sides of the aisle.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 12:55 PMIt's amazing you would choose to use the words cowardly democrats when it's your boy in charge who skipped out on his duty.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 12:58 PMBut.....but....Sharon B. The Democrats THINK their in charge and the Democrat's are the majority of illegal alien supporters.
Harry Reid (Democrat) is going to push as hard as he can for passage of "comprehensive reform."Why don't the Dems call it what it really is AMNESTY!!!!
A quote from Nancy Pelosi: " I am now the most powerful woman in America."
I don't have to tell the Democrat's what they want......I KNOW what they want. You think Bush is a bumbling idiot well, sit back and watch the Democrat's it won't be a pretty picture either!!!
Posted by KMA on May 11, 2007 02:14 PMJoe said:
(Saddam) "may not have had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 when the United State Military arrived, but who would have stopped him from making more? The United Nations? (very unlikely)"
Hey moron!! The UN DID!!! He once had WMD, got a bunch of sanctions slapped on him and he got rid of them!!
Typical R, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 11, 2007 02:43 PMKMA
You mean amnesty like saint Ronnie gave us?
Posted by Reagan's whore on May 11, 2007 02:47 PMPelosi has now changed the rules again after claiming she was going to make congress toe the line with unnecessary expenditures.
She eliminated several requirements so congress could use military aircraft over the Easter recess, 13 in all at a cost of $10,000 per flight.
She has also removed the newly placed ban (Jan 07) of congress accepting free flights from lobbyists saying as long as the congressman has a personal relationship with the lobbyist offering the flight then it's ok.
This was all done with a voice only, midnight vote that she hoped nobody would notice.
Is this what we have to look forward to?
Hey Repugnant the MORON! Which 1 of the 17 UN reprimands were the successful 1 that had the little check box marked YES under the COMPLY category? Yes the UN did its job???? What Kofi and Family making $$$$$$ in the Oil for Food project that was OOOOOh so successful. Quit pulling bits and pieces out of the whole story for your own good. Trying to make this whole mess fit within a small BLOG is asinine in itself but your Bully tactics are very tiring and your a MORON. See I can call names just like you!! Dumas MORON. When you are ready to debate in a non-combative, soundbite, and shortsided mindset, let us know MORON.
Dang that felt good Apologize to all but Repugnant the MORON
Posted by on May 11, 2007 03:17 PMKeith: I warned you. I suggested you employ premier scribes like god appoints to get his word out. You are reaping what you sow and you are not sowing anything but ridicule. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Arisen Ape)r22037yahoo.com(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 05:11 PMUnnamed coward wrote:
"Which 1 of the 17 UN reprimands were the successful 1"
Clearly you can't read, or remember history. The one that said "destroy your WMDs"
Posted by Repugnants are liars (and illiterate moron cowards) on May 11, 2007 05:14 PMHEY MORON
Yes not finding significant WMDs(some were found very degraded) and the Iraqi Admin not complying with the content of THAT resolution. What is the status of that resolution. It WAS NOT complied to even by UN standards as there was no documentation to the destruction of WMDs. Even the DEMS deduced that in their VOTE. WHAT A MORON. Details my little MORON friend. OH and yes you are so well known for non anonymoty on here. Oh yes there you are on the Dex web pages. Now I have a name fellow Coward.
What a MORON
Posted by soros mini mi on May 11, 2007 05:20 PMWhen you are truly ready for a civilized dialogue, we can chat as adults, but tired of your hate filled tactics that you find humor in. We are all citizens and we may disagree, but what happened to civil discourse?
The answer lies within your rantings and mine. How about a dialogue???
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Did Saddam disarm?? Yes or no question.
Answer is yes, so all other whining about third world corruption aside, sanctions worked.
Posted by Repugnants on May 11, 2007 05:41 PMKW, I stand by my post of 9:36. Won`t dignify your opinion on my love of America with a rejoinder.
Why do you hate women? See how easy it is to make asumptions about someone? You did link me and Cindy.
KMA: She is.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 07:44 PMDo you know Saddam disarmed? Is this a fact or theory? He did not fully comply with the 17 resolutions. That is why Congress approved. If he did remove all WMD, why did he not comply with the 17 resolutions.
Pot calling kettle black. Just your name(first yours and then mine) is combative and lacking in a search for dialogue. Your comments are short, sharp and your attempt at humor through name calling is legendary.
But I do thank you for a civil dialogue in this instance. I guess I am just tired of the hate put forth on here (both sides guilty) and just making an absurd point with the name calling of my own.
soros mini mi,
You're a typical Authoritarian Bush Culitist and Dear Leader can do no wrong as far as you're concerned.
I don't understand why you can't just admit that he's a failure and that you failed as a voter if you voted for him.
It's ok, we all make mistakes... Some more than others of course..
Posted by Charles B on May 11, 2007 10:08 PMThis quote is taken from the History channel website:
In the search tool type "Saddam" the scroll down to the section that documents his actions while he was in control of the country.
"Hussein to refocus his attention on the rebellious Kurds, against whom his forces used poison gas while razing hundreds of villages and killing an estimated 70,000 people. Up to 5000 were killed in March 1988 in a poison gas attack authorized by Hussein against the Kurdish town of Halabja, which had been captured by Iranian troops and their Kurdish rebel allies."
188 people? Who is lying?
Charles you are next my friend. I did NOT vote for Bush. Not in agreement with that admin on many levels. I am an equal opportunity partisan hater. I think both parties are bringing us down and with the acceptable attitude on this forum that resembles a Hannity and Colmes type structure where only 1 side can be correct and try to name call and yell like schoolyard bullies without any true dialogue is dispicable and you too are part of that. I went over the top to make a point.
Now that you have made an accusation. Is there anything you want to discuss or just attacking for attacking sake. We can discuss what Rep was discussing but lets use facts put forth by the UN first. Or would you just like to throw out accusations and resort to name calling when you dont get your way. I will be civil as long as you are and we can probably agree on certain points while agree to disagree on others. What is it
Posted by Soros Mini Mi on May 11, 2007 10:19 PMYet another source documenting how "Evil" Saddam was,
The following quote can be found by following this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
"Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands"
Multiple souces saying the same thing? Saddam only killed 188??
But none of that was what the President said was the reason for the war.
All that stuff came a bit later, and then was added to whenever Bush needed another justification.
Dick morris said Bushs plan in Iraq suffered from "mission creep". That is the best remark I have heard on this subject.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 12, 2007 12:11 AMFor you dems. who really want a secured nation,VOTE REPUBLICAN.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 07:48 AMAnonymous 188
Saddam killed thousands of his own citizens.
Facts not in question here.
Saddam HAD WMD in the 80s.
Saddam didn't have WMDs in 2003.
It was asserted that the UN couldn't disarm him (Joe on May 11, 2007 08:44 AM) , yet after sanctions of debatable efficacy he disarmed.
What's in question?
Posted by Repugnants are confused on May 12, 2007 08:16 AMAnd furthermore Soros Mini mi:
I've said it from the start:
THIS BLOG SUCKS!!!
Any responsible commentary section requires creating a user profile and entering a verifiable email address for confirmation before posting.
This keeps people responsible for their postings.
I don't know if Linda Seebach is just lazy, or what their rational is for such a rediculous forum.
Clearly they just want a shouting match, or they wouldn't print every rediculous transcribed RNC "Defeatocrat" memo from Brian Stuckey.
So until the RMN creates a reasonable forum, I'm going to call Rs repugnants, and when their arguments are lies I'll call them on it.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 12, 2007 08:23 AMMr. "Repugnant",
Unfortunately, the "responsible commentary sections" to which you refer also are very selective in what they permit to appear. Most of the time, it is only that which agrees with whatever it be that is being "commented" upon.
The Rocky Mountain News has provided a truly open forum here. One in which even the "shouting match" is allowed. This may not be to your liking; but for those of us who believe in a truly open and free marketplace of ideas - not just a nice cozy mutual admiration society format - this blog is both instructive and good fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 12, 2007 08:44 AMSoros Mini Mi,
"Charles you are next my friend. I did NOT vote for Bush."
Re-read my post, I never said you did...
As for this:
"Do you know Saddam disarmed? Is this a fact or theory?"
Well it's a fact so far as the Weapons inspectors were concerned at the time. They'd been looking and hadn't found any before Bush ordered them out so he could play his macho "Shock and Awe" games with hundreds of thousands of human lives.
Honestly Soros, if you're still defending the faulty and ever-shifting reasoning behind our unprovoked attack of Iraq how do you expect anyone to take your exhortations for civil dialogue seriously?
Posted by Charles B on May 12, 2007 08:47 AMSharon B asks me: "Why do you hate women?"
I would've have posted that same piece about any politician regardless of sex or party affiliation. Yet because it was Pelosi you've determined I hate women. Very interesting thought process you have.
Better questions would be:
1) Why would you defend the underhanded dealings of a politician?
2) Why are you so insecure in your sexuality that you felt the need to accuse me of hating women?
Posted by KW on May 12, 2007 09:14 AMOld Grouch: I concur: "instructive and fun" ~~ and now if they would align themselves with us, and lets include Sharon B whom I've chosen as my antidote, there would be less antagonism. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen ape)r22037@yahoo.com(ffrf.org on May 12, 2007 09:36 AMKW, because I mixed up your post with someone who posted without a name.
Sorry, by the way, liked your lilnk to Maccaffry.
Thanks.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 13, 2007 10:16 AMmarlene,why didn't you finished the sentence Like with but the idiot dems. made denver a sanctuary city,marlene and all dems.obviously are too stupid to know what these idiots they voted in did to denver.marlene is right about we have lost too many people in iraq.So blame the people who are responsible for this,all the idiots who voted for clinton.Ignorance hurts all americans.
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2007 09:56 PMmarlene,why didn't you finished the sentence Like with but the idiot dems. made denver a sanctuary city,marlene and all dems.obviously are too stupid to know what these idiots they voted in did to denver.marlene is right about we have lost too many people in iraq.So blame the people who are responsible for this,all the idiots who voted for clinton.Ignorance hurts all americans.
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2007 09:56 PM