finally responds long enough to insist that Congress will not allow more troops to go into Afghanistan,...
Posted on 11/01/2009 1:37:37 PM PST by chessplayer
Barbara Boxer apparently holds meetings on the streets of Oakland, according to her companions, who didn’t want to allow a constituent with a camera to question Senator Ma’am on policy in Afghanistan. Boxer finally responds long enough to insist that Congress will not allow more troops to go into Afghanistan, which then prompts the question of whether we should keep troops there at all if we’re not going to fight to win there. Boxer walks away, even though the constituent calls her “Senator” … repeatedly:
What a POS she is.
But Ma’am, isn’t this the essential war, the war of necessity, ya’ know, the war that Bush ‘took his eye off of’, the war we HAD to win?
America: No more respect to Boxer.
finally responds long enough to insist that Congress will not allow more troops to go into Afghanistan,...
Oh, come on.....couldn’t the guy tell she was “in a meeting” as the pin-striped a-hole says? I mean it’s pretty obvious since she was outside and not speaking to anyone.
What a piece of work she? is!
“Boxer walks away, even though the constituent calls her “Senator” … repeatedly:”
?!?!
BUT HE CALLED HER “SENATOR”!
That story needs to be blasted over the airwaves, all over California.
Please, Californians, for the love of God, DO NOT RE-ELECT BOXER!!!!!
Is Congress going to scr*w the pooch on this one to allow the Prez to come out smelling like a ... petunia?
Boxer is going to avoid about 95% of Oakland!
“Senator Ma’am”.
I can’t get that incident out of my mind. Sometimes things happen which are so revealing of people’s character. And that incident reveals unflattering things about Barbara Boxer.
The character of people in public office is something we should all be concerned about. People’s fitness for high office goes beyond a checklist of their stands on the current issues of the day.
i hate to say this but i don´t think that there is a big difference in the result. if “we” send 1 or 100.000 troops to afghanistan. the result will be the same. there is nothing left to win. so “we” can fight there forever and change nothing or just cut and run. btw. this does not mean that there would be no chance to win if me might have to come back (with other tactics). but lets face it afghanistan is unwinnable right now.
Yup - she demanded her version of respect from an heroic General for whom she held palpable contempt. That episode made me want to puke on my TV.
YouTube link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1dJtutbcMk
SHE IS A DISGRACE!!!!! CALIFORNIA, VOTE HER OUT!!!!
and another g.d. scumbag
Domestic Enemy
darkside 321 said: “btw. this does not mean that there would be no chance to win if me might have to come back (with other tactics). but lets face it afghanistan is unwinnable right now.”
Are you some kinda freekin’ Troll. Surrender yourself to AmeriCorps and Moveon back home!
She’s been a left-wing idiot all her life.
Which brings us to the question, what war would the Democrats support. It wasn’t to long ago the old radical, Ms. Hillary, was telling us how essential it was that we get Afghanistan right. Now the Democrats are engaging in their usual strategy, which is quit.
We went to war in Afghanistan because U.S. citizens were attacked and killed on U.S. soil. If the Democrats won’t fight for that, they won’t fight for anything. Except perhaps to keep themselves in power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.