| |
|
Pukeworthy: Democrats blame Bush for Iraq quagmire
by Hazel Burke
| Apr. 11, 2008 |
Democrats are accusing Bush of playing politics with the Iraq War strategy. But the Democratic Party voted en masse for the original use of force authorization and the vast majority have voted to fund the war ever since.
It is clear that politics and concern about their own re-elections motivated Democrats in Congress to vote to support Bush up and down the line for the last 7+ years. A few drank the Bush Kook-Aid, and many actually believed in invading Iraq for oil and Israel, and many Democrats appear to have voted for continuing the war because they were afraid of being branded pacifist, isolationist, bin Laden-loving Defeatocrats.
However, in total the Democratic strategy has been to give Bush everything he asked for, to ensure that he received the full measure of blame for everything that has gone wrong. They feared asserting leadership in defense of America's best interests -- and the Constitution -- and feared engaging in honest dialogue about how to deal with terrorism and Iraq.
So if anyone can be said to have used Iraq for political ends it is the Democrats. Bush is just a doofus crap-head who believes his own lies and doesn't know the first fucking thing about running a war, or a country, that has been clear for years now. The Democrats are manipulative cynics in this battle, who purposely allowed America to be degraded to advance their own selfish ambitions for power and wealth.
We expect that of Republicans and are not surprised. Of the Democrats many expected more than "Republican-Lite", which is to say, Republicans except without courage or conviction.
|
|
Democrats appear to have voted for continuing the war because they were afraid of being branded pacifist, isolationist, bin Laden-
loving Defeatocrats. ...
The Democrats are manipulative cynics in this battle, who purposely allowed America to be degraded to advance their own selfish ambitions for power and wealth.
We expect that of Republicans and are not surprised. Of the Democrats many expected more ... |
|
|
|
Democrats fear next president faces Iraq 'quagmire'
Excerpt:
Anti-war Democrats Wednesday accused the White House of
plotting to saddle the next president with a "quagmire"
in Iraq, as the top US war general faced a second day of
intense scrutiny in Congress. ...
"We are stuck in a twilight zone in Iraq," said Democratic
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. ...
"When violence is up, the president says we cannot bring
our troops home. When violence dips, the president says we
cannot bring our troops home.
"President Bush has an exit strategy for just one man -- himself -- on January 20, 2009."
|
|
The big difference between Republicans and Democrats in this matter is that the Democrats have been hypocritical, in the truest sense of the word -- which is criticizing others while doing the same thing yourself, not because of your human weakness (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak), but to cynically advance a covert agenda.
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
|
|
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace,
anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't
find anywhere else.
$3 each or two for $5
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
YOU CAN HELP
| |
|
| |
The dialogue page is our "letters to the editor" section.
To participate, email your comments to newsuneed at yahoo.com.
|
| |
