My Clone has PREDICTED DE-FUNDING!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Without so much as a phone call to or from me, my clone has stated on his radio show, that he thinks the left is so completely invested in failure in Iraq, that they will, indeed defund the war to insure that failure.
He didn't predict when it will happen, however.

[FaninAma]

Rush is being an alarmist. The Dems will never be able to get this throught the Senate. They know that and the gesture would be just a lot of political posturing.

I do think that even attempting to do so would be harmful to the moral of the troops as wellas the stability of the newly elected Iraqi government. But why would the Dems care about thos issues when there are political points to be scored during an election cycle.

If the US pulls out of Iraq now we will never be trusted by an ally or potential ally again. We might as well give up the Middle East to the radicals.

The sad thing about that if it were to happen is that most in the American public are too stupid to remember who is really to balme for out kids and grandkids having to deal with a stronger, embolden radical Islamic element in the region.

At the very least we need to ensure that if muslims insist on killing someone that it be each other.

[Widescreen]

Technically, even if the war is completely won, it will eventually be defunded so it seems like a pretty safe guess.

[mdklatt]

Without so much as a phone call to or from me, my clone has stated on his radio show, that he thinks the left is so completely invested in failure in Iraq, that they will, indeed defund the war to insure that failure.


I suppose this is different than "the right" not providing enough funding in the first place, you know for stuff like body armor and medical benefits for disabled veterans.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Technically, even if the war is completely won, it will eventually be defunded so it seems like a pretty safe guess.Haha...duh!

[bri]

Technically, even if the war is completely won, it will eventually be defunded so it seems like a pretty safe guess.

I'm sorry, while your logic is correct, we can't accept your answer because all replies MUST be in the form of alarmist, speculative statements informed by your worst opinions of your opponents. ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

I suppose this is different than "the right" not providing enough funding in the first place, you know for stuff like body armor and medical benefits for disabled veterans.


It's not like Bush could walk into Wal-Mart the day before the invasion and buy 200,000 sets of body armor. The Army was in the middle of a 10 year transition from flak jackets to the new body armor that was invented in 1998. The government started buying them as quickly as they could be made after the war started. I guess in hindsight we should have just postponed all military action until everybody had body armor. Maybe we should just wait it out until we invent soldier robots, that way nobody will get hurt.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's not like Bush could walk into Wal-Mart the day before the invasion and buy 200,000 sets of body armor. The Army was in the middle of a 10 year transition from flak jackets to the new body armor that was invented in 1998. The government started buying them as quickly as they could be made after the war started. I guess in hindsight we should have just postponed all military action until everybody had body armor. Maybe we should just wait it out until we invent soldier robots, that way nobody will get hurt.Harry, don't bother. They want failure(defeat, a military disaster, demonstration of US 'republicans incompetence, etc.), and will stop at nothing to get it.

[bri]

We do?

Huh. Someone really should have told us that.

[Scott D]

my clone has predicted de-funding of enron.

my clone must have backwards vision or something.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

my clone has predicted de-funding of enron.

my clone must have backwards vision or something.What does your clone say about nancy pelosi and harry reid?

[usmc-sooner]

my clone would like a piece of ***

[SoonerGirl06]

What does your clone say about nancy pelosi and harry reid?


"Why couldn't you have cloned me after somebody else?"

or how about....

"Somebody shoot me!"

[Octavian]

My clone likes banana splits and is tired of the cold.

[Scott D]

What does your clone say about nancy pelosi and harry reid?

my clone reported that they are insignificant as blowflies around a horse's ***, which conveniently, most politicians tend to be.

[SoonerGirl06]

Without so much as a phone call to or from me, my clone has stated on his radio show, that he thinks the left is so completely invested in failure in Iraq, that they will, indeed defund the war to insure that failure.
He didn't predict when it will happen, however.



I read the following on FoxNews.com which pretty much substantiates what Rush is stating. The Dems are so hell bent on getting out of Iraq no matter what price is paid... not only by our military but by our country as well.



WASHINGTON — The new Democratic-led Congress is on a collision course with the White House over how far lawmakers can or should go to stop the war in Iraq, a dispute that could test the bounds of the Constitution.

President Bush has insisted he won't back down on a decision to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq and will ignore any resolutions passed by Congress that state opposition to his plan. The Senate is expected to consider such a measure in coming days.

Some Democrats say Congress must consider tougher alternatives to force the president's hand, including cutting funding, capping the number of troops allowed in Iraq and setting an end date for the war.

"This Congress was never meant to be a rubber stamp," Sen. Barbara Boxer told her colleagues last week. "Read the Constitution. The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Boxer has proposed a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days, allowing a minimum number to say behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

But many legal scholars and congressional Republicans say such legislation is not within Congress' power. The president has control of military forces, they say.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who plans to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But whether a president needs congressional approval to wage war is up for debate among many scholars. In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

"People think Congress has to say OK to everything," said John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who helped Bush write the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion. But if that were true "that means every war we've fought since World War II is illegal."

Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California in Berkeley, said Bush's request that Congress pass a resolution authorizing force in Iraq was purely a political one. The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the GOP-run House and 77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but was not considered a declaration of war.

According to Yoo, the resolution was seen solely as a way of bringing Democrats onboard.

Sen. John Warner, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and former Navy secretary, said he agrees Congress has no right to manage a war.

"In an ongoing operation, you've got to defer to the commander in chief," said Warner, R-Va.

But the veteran senator said he understands the debate that surrounds constitutional war powers and lawmakers' ability to check the executive branch.

"There's always going to be this gray area between the powers of Congress and the powers of the executive branch," Warner said. "Never has been resolved, never will. We all want to leave it in a gray area."

Sen. Russ Feingold, who will chair Tuesday's hearing on war powers, says Congress shouldn't flounder on the issue when it has the ability to end the war by cutting funding for it.

In coming months, the Bush administration is expected to request Congress approve at least $700 billion in military funding, giving lawmakers the clearest opportunity to pull the plug on the war. The bill is expected to include 2007 and 2008 supplemental war spending, as well as 2008 annual military spending.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees defense spending, says he wants to place such stringent conditions on the funding that Bush will have no choice but to scale back U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Feingold, D-Wis., proposes eliminating the war budget after six months, an approach he says will give Bush time to bring troops home without adversely affecting their well being.

"Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the president's failed Iraq policy," Feingold said. "That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nice '06 election, America!

[bri]

[delicious payback]If you don't like it, why don't you move to Canada?[/delicious payback]

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[delicious payback]If you don't like it, why don't you move to Canada?[/delicious payback]You're the one advocating the running. So go.

[FaninAma]

The Democrats are full of hot air. They don't have the necessary pieces of anatomy to to defund the Iraq war.

BTW, when was the last time a major conflict ended with victory for the US when there was a Democratic majority in Congress?

[Shaz-Bot]

The Democrats are full of hot air. They don't have the necessary pieces of anatomy to to defund the Iraq war.

BTW, when was the last time a major conflict ended with victory for the US when there was a Democratic majority in Congress?


Gulf War I

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Democrats are full of hot air. They don't have the necessary pieces of anatomy to to defund the Iraq war.

BTW, when was the last time a major conflict ended with victory for the US when there was a Democratic majority in Congress?A poster said Gulf War 1. That was over so quick the dims didn't have enough time to thwart the war. The point is the dims have no stomach for casualties, NO MATTER THAT GIVING UP WILL LIKELY LEAD TO A MORE CALAMITOUS WAR IN THE FUTURE!
Can you imagine during World War 2 having the media give on-the-spot reports of some of the horrible battles where we lost thousands of lives. We would have given up as we are now preparing to do. What would the world be like if we had given up then?

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

:les: DON'T THWART THOMETHING YOU CAN'T FINITH!!!

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

The post above has nothing to do with this 'debate' - I just wanted to do it.

[JohnnyMack]

Republicans have the whole martyr routine down pat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Republicans have the whole love of country routine down pat.fixed

[mdklatt]

fixed


Good thing, because after six years of Bush's foreign policy shenanigans the entire rest of the planet can't stand us.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Republicans and Democrats have the whole love of their own pocketbook routine down pat.

FIXED

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Good thing, because after six years of Bush's foreign policy shenanigans the entire rest of the planet can't stand us.1)If you gobble the goop of the MSM, and 2) If they are right, and you let that dominate your analysis of the situation.

[GrapevineSooner]

Nice '06 election, America!

Blame the not-so-conservative Republicans in Washington.

[usmc-sooner]

sometimes when I read these threads

I can hear "I'm right, no your wrong, I'm right, your wrong...your wrong your wrong!!!" set to music.

[FaninAma]

Gulf War I

Strongly disagree. The Gulf War I did not end in victory. Saddam Hussein remained in power. He was weakened but his regime killed hundreds of thousands of people who tried to oppose him during this war. I bet the Shiites who had burning oil poured on them from helicopters after the Gulf War didn't appreciate the "victory" the US won.

MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Blame the not-so-conservative Republicans in Washington.Absolutely. Every bit as much to blame as the dims.

[JohnnyMack]

Strongly disagree. The Gulf War I did not end in victory. Saddam Hussein remained in power. He was weakened but his regime killed hundreds of thousands of people who tried to oppose him during this war. I bet the Shiites who had burning oil poured on them from helicopters after the Gulf War didn't appreciate the "victory" the US won.

MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?

Was removing SH from power part of the plan?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Strongly disagree. The Gulf War I did not end in victory. Saddam Hussein remained in power. He was weakened but his regime killed hundreds of thousands of people who tried to oppose him during this war. I bet the Shiites who had burning oil poured on them from helicopters after the Gulf War didn't appreciate the "victory" the US won.

MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?Good points.

[NormanPride]

Strongly disagree. The Gulf War I did not end in victory. Saddam Hussein remained in power. He was weakened but his regime killed hundreds of thousands of people who tried to oppose him during this war. I bet the Shiites who had burning oil poured on them from helicopters after the Gulf War didn't appreciate the "victory" the US won.

MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?

I agree that America comes first, but if we make everyone mad at us, we're going to get screwed trade-wise. And since we're already amazingly in debt with everyone, I'd prefer not to do that.

[GrapevineSooner]

Depends on whether or not the reason a nation is mad at us is valid.

[OklahomaTuba]

I agree that America comes first, but if we make everyone mad at us, we're going to get screwed trade-wise. And since we're already amazingly in debt with everyone, I'd prefer not to do that.

Oh please, the panty wearing faggy appeasment types will be mad at us no matter what. These types, like their friends on this board, live life with their heads in the sand, in some make believe world.


These same mental midgets were mad at us when we tried to win the cold war. Nothing will ever change, they will always be on the wrong side of history. Always have been.

[OklahomaTuba]

Depends on whether or not the reason a nation is mad at us is valid.
Well, we did bust up a rather nice deal in the oil for food scandal.

[OklahomaTuba]

I agree that America comes first, but if we make everyone mad at us, we're going to get screwed trade-wise.
I say, bring it on.

Our debt is meaningless so long as we have bigger guns than everyone else. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have a lib friend who occasionally talks about how "we're not respected in Europe" I just say I couldn't care less. That response seems to puzzle him, and he says no more about it, until the next time he hears it from Nat. Pub. Radio or some other leftist media.

[jk the sooner fan]

:les: DON'T THWART THOMETHING YOU CAN'T FINITH!!!

friggin spek limits.....

[OklahomaTuba]

I have a lib friend who occasionally talks about how "we're not respected in Europe" I just say I couldn't care less. That response seems to puzzle him, and he says no more about it, until the next time he hears it from Nat. Pub. Radio or some other leftist media.
Heh, never mind that a country like Germany actually elected a more conservative pro-American Chancellor just a few years ago.

[Vaevictis]

BTW, when was the last time a major conflict ended with victory for the US when there was a Democratic majority in Congress?

If you don't consider Desert Storm, then WWII.

For the bonus round, when was the last time a major conflict ended with victory for the US when there was a non-Democratic majority in Congress? :D

[FaninAma]

I agree that America comes first, but if we make everyone mad at us, we're going to get screwed trade-wise. And since we're already amazingly in debt with everyone, I'd prefer not to do that.

The trade issue bugs the crap out of me. I will never understand for the life of me why the US should be frightened of any other nation over trade. Why? Because we are the biggest debtor/consumer the world has ever known. It would be like Krispy Kreme donuts threatening to not let Robert Allen buy any more of their donuts.

I understand how this country is hooked on cheap foreign goods but if push camr to shove I think this country could survive a trade war far better than any other country in the world.

There's 2 reasons we don't risk it:
1.The politicians are afraid of the consumers who are addicted to the cheap products.
2.A lot of the countries we have large trade deficits with hold a sizeable portion of our national debt(via bonds, etc) and if they all cashed in at the same time Uncle Sam would be in trouble.....but so would they. Anything that hurts us hurts the world economy even more. Our consumerism is the only thing propping up the world economy right now.

[mdklatt]

MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?

It shouldn't, but what other countries think of us is part of our national interests...or else why even bother having a State Department? Isolationism is certainly not an option, and it's shortsighted to think that we can simply bully everbody to get what we want if they won't give it to us.

[mdklatt]

I will never understand for the life of me why the US should be frightened of any other nation over trade. Why? Because we are the biggest debtor/consumer the world has ever known.

*COUGH* China and India *COUGH*

[SoonerGirl06]

The Democrats are full of hot air. They don't have the necessary pieces of anatomy to to defund the Iraq war.


That may be true... but their hot air shenanigans are weaking our positions with the terrorists who are waiting for the right opportunity to strike again. And if we pull out of Iraq right now, it will be sooner than you think.

[SoonerGirl06]

Good thing, because after six years of Bush's foreign policy shenanigans the entire rest of the planet can't stand us.


Too bad. Maybe we should stop sending billions of dollars to the rest of the planet whenever their asses get into trouble.

[bri]

Well yeah, but if we don't pull out of Iraq in time, we'll knock her up. And we can't be havin' no baby momma drama.

[SoonerGirl06]

.MDKlatt, why should our own national interest be subservient to what other countries think of us?

Excellent point.

[SoonerGirl06]

I agree that America comes first, but if we make everyone mad at us, we're going to get screwed trade-wise. And since we're already amazingly in debt with everyone, I'd prefer not to do that.


Well then we can just stop sending money to all those other countries whenever a crisis hits them. That'll fix the trade deficit.

[Viking Kitten]

Well yeah, but if we don't pull out of Iraq in time, we'll knock her up. And we can't be havin' no baby momma drama.
"Hey Bri, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy **** on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?"

[SoonerGirl06]

I have a lib friend who occasionally talks about how "we're not respected in Europe" I just say I couldn't care less. That response seems to puzzle him, and he says no more about it, until the next time he hears it from Nat. Pub. Radio or some other leftist media.


I guess they (the Europeans) must have forgotten how we saved their asses in WWII.

[bri]

"Hey Bri, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy **** on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?"

You mean Shenanigans?

[Viking Kitten]

Ooh ooh ooh! HE SAID SHENANIGANS!

[bri]

Aaaaaaand...scene.

[toast]

why would the dems want to de-fund the war before the '08 elections? pulling out prematurely (sexual reference noted) could prove more disastrous, as it is now they could simply ride the anti-Bush sentiment all the way to the White House.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

why would the dems want to de-fund the war before the '08 elections? pulling out prematurely (sexual reference noted) could prove more disastrous, as it is now they could simply ride the anti-Bush sentiment all the way to the White House.They simply can't afford for America to win anytime during the next 2 years, and establish a permanent democray in Iraq. That would make the dim look like the selfish bastages that they are(making it clearer even to the most unobservant of the American potential voting masses)