Yep, that's what all the Democrat scumbags say: "Change course." "Bush is wrong on Iraq." Etc. Etc.
Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals. All they have are meaningless soundbites like "change course".
100 + years later, and it is the same old story from the same treasonous party:
"The Peace Democrats were opposed to the war and would have accepted a negotiated peace resulting in an independent Confederacy. Most Peace Democrats were from the midwestern states of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, but political dissent was widespread throughout the North. Midwesterners had close economic and sentimental ties with the South, and many of them bitterly opposed the Union's war against what one of them called "the injured, incensed, downtrodden people of the South."
In 1861, Republicans started calling antiwar Democrats "copperheads", likening them to the poisonous snake. By 1863, the Peace Democrats had accepted the label, but for them the copper "head" was the likeness of Liberty on the copper penny, and they proudly wore pennies as badges.
The Copperheads mounted a forceful and sustained protest against the Lincoln administration's policies and conduct. The most popular of the Copperheads was Democratic Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, who in 1862 introduced a bill in Congress to imprison the President. Instead, Vallandigham and a host of other Democrats, including judges, newspaper editors, politicians, and antiwar activists, were arrested and imprisoned without trial on the orders of Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton, who had decided to take off their gloves in dealing with persons "guilty of any disloyal practice".
Fascinating Fact: At the 1864 Democratic convention, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform that declared the war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. "
Well where Murthafurka is concerned, the correct term is Faggocrat....which I took pleasure in calling him
some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Wasn't their cry that Iraq had no wmds at all and no ties to terrorism or al-quaeda at all? Is it me or has their war cry shifted on that issue again?
Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq
I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date
We don't have enough troops there so even less would be the answer. Thanks for that little gem.
Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist.
Nice try murtha but the only measure you put forth to increase the readiness of troops in the U.S. is to pull out of Iraq.
Well Senator, I gave you a chance, I read the entire column that the post provided you and all you have is defeatism. Not one idea to improve the situation. Not one sentence that could be constrewed as constructive criticism. You have offered nothing of value to the discussion. You have just fully reinforced Roves assertion that you are nothing but a Defeatocrat.
Diana Irey BUMP!
Translation: "If we don't change course, we'll have enough success in Iraq on a regular basis that Republicans will keep getting elected over and over again - that's a disaster of epic proportions."
"Casey said the level of attacks -- between 450 and 500 a week -- is roughly the same as it was a year ago. There were times when the level was between 800 and 900 attacks per week. The area of the attacks is also pretty confined. In 14 out of the 18 provinces in the country, there are only about three attacks a day."
For your consideration:
It's real defeatism.