So, you didn't think Pelosi would try for a pull-out of Iraq?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The exit polls showed the majority of american people aren't happy with the way things are going in Iraq. That doesn't mean they want us to cut and run.

Exactly and I am not certain the Dems understand that...and THAT worries me!

I think some of them do and some of them don't, so they'll piss away a bunch of freakin time arguing about it. Then they'll use it for a big freakin political issue to try to defeat the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. So while our government is sitting around in a big circle-jerk, the bad guys will just keep doin what they do best.

Blame Bush - he sh!tted away the public trust.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

I thought I already spanked you with this one! Well, it's bears repeating:

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Blame Bush - he sh!tted away the public trust.

easy now big guy, elections are over.

[rclouse 0]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

easy now big guy, elections are over.

Yes they are - and Bush is the reason for the result.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

[dalegg 143]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

[I'm Gone 60]

Blame Bush - he sh!tted away the public trust.

You need to work on your profanity usage. It's pissed away the public trust. LOL

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

...been drinkin' that kool-aid waaaay too long, brother.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Blame Bush - he sh!tted away the public trust.

You need to work on your profanity usage. It's pissed away the public trust. LOL

When Bush does it - its a turdblossom, to quote one of his own adages.

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

Nothing to do with the war being a ###### idea to begin with....

[dalegg 143]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

...been drinkin' that kool-aid waaaay too long, brother.

Seriously, why do you think we would have lost? The North Vietnamese were not making any significant gains, the U.S was stabilizing relationships with China, Russia would have eventually gone bankrupt or tired of not getting anywhere. With the new bombing policy set forth by Nixon, we would have eventually flattened Hanoi. If all of this continued, how would the North have won?

Edited November 14, 2006 by dalegg

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

20 more years, eh? At an average of 18 deaths of US service personnel / day, that means we wouldn't have lost but another 131,500 or so of our young men. And we would have accomplished what, exactly, in return?

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[I'm Gone 60]

Nothing to do with the war being a ###### idea to begin with....

Plus the reason for involvement in the war the Gulf of Tonkin incident was also a bit suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

...been drinkin' that kool-aid waaaay too long, brother.

Seriously, why do you think we would have lost? The North Vietnamese were not making any significant gains, the U.S was stabilizing relationships with China, Russia would have eventually gone bankrupt or tired of not getting anywhere. With the new bombing policy set forth by Nixon, we would have eventually flattened Hanoi. If all of this continued, how would the North have won?

Why were we there? Particularly when you talk about normalizing relations with communist China. If we can have normal relations with communist countries what is the purpose of fighting other people's civil wars?

[Dean iWait 0]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled. Pull your head out. You're the one who seems to be forgetting the "minor details" here. The U.N. drafted numerous resolutions demanding Sadam give up his weapons of mass destruction. Every member nation in the U.N. security council believed he had them or why would they keep drafting resolutions tellin him to give them up. Bill Clinton came out and said he had them. John Kerry came out and said he had them and he's a member of the senate intelligence committee.