But isn't that just what a monarchy is? More specifically "constitutional monarchy"? I can think of quite a few off the top of my head
I can't believe you actually subscribe to newsletters like that and you actually run to post it on the internet to show people
Here is what Joe Lieberman has just said: http://www.hannity.com/index/lieberman There is a man who won't compromise common sense for political agendas Also:
All sudden the opionion polls turn on iraq and half the politicians start saying how much we have accomplished there and how we can start pulling out troops. if the democrat the say the war is mistake and will be never ending so we should bring troops home if they are republican suddenly the mission is almost accomplished and we should bring some troops home Most people who have a coming election are talking about how we should bring some troops home
It's not our election that really matters -- it's the upcoming elections in Iraq that really matters. Our foreign policy will remain effectively unchanged no matter who we elect. As much as the Democrats spew idiocy, when they take the oath of office, they will be forced to make the same difficult decisions as George W. Bush has made. Heck, the Democrats will probably be better at putting a nice spin on everything -- which would certainly be an improvement. The Bush administration has been very short on salesmanship.
Let see what has happened so far: First: there was WMD and the reason that they were not found, because it was moved, stolen and soon it will be found. The usual supporter here agreed. Government finally admitted there was none. Second: Government said that they should have right to torture people. The usual supporter here agreed. Government backed down from that position and admitted that it is illegal. Third: Government said that it has the right to keep Americans as enemy combatant without charges and for indefinite period. The usual supporters here agreed. The government got scared of the case going to court and charged the guy with offenses that was not even related to his arrest. Fourth: The government said that they will be in Iraq and will not pull out until they win. The usual supporters here agreed. The government is backed to the wall and pretending that the government in Iraq is stable and planning to pull out, even everybody knows that situation is worse than a year ago. Fifth: The government said that Iraq is going to be a democracy and people will have better life than under Saddam. The usual supports here agreed. The government in Iraq has already been involved in tortures, the strongest group is backed by Iran and Iran most likely will have a very strong influence in Iraq as soon as USA pulls out. The new Constitution even gives less right to women than under Saddam. Sixth: The government said that this administration has the support of the Americans public. The usual supports here agreed. Every news agency and polls has confirmed that this administration actions is not approved or trusted by American people. Is it possible that Bush administration can be more wrong than it has already been?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5177956987382860214&q=aegis http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/27/ixworld.html
You really think thats going to change anything? The shiite have formed their own miltias to torture and kill not only insugents but political enemies, the sunnis are still helping to blow up shiites, what do you think the election is going change? War has fallen apart , the original people who supported it are all flip flopping because they don't want to be voted out of office. The public doesn't support the war anymore, they don't trust the president, or cheney. Other repulicans are distancing themselves from Bush. The public thought that it would be a year in Iraq, but no one has the stomach for an actual war. The republican party is falling apart, 3 major people in the party indicted now, between scooter , delay and the dude from california. As soon as those abrmoff lobbists start snitching on each other, you can bet their will be at least a couple more indictments, and you know they will be friends of delays. You guys better start drumming up the "war on christmas" shit because it ain't lookig good.
Who thought that? Seriously, did you think that? Do you know anyone who thought that? We'll be fighting the GWOT for the next 50 years. There are no easy outs, no matter how much Liberals might "dream". I am endlessly amused by Liberals who believe that war should be easy, like some sort of video game or perhaps a trip to the mall. War is hard. It's competitive. People kill to win. It's brutal and it's ugly. It doesn't match with Liberal sensitivities and it never will. That is not the nature of war. OMG! Slimeball politicians flip flopping! Say it ain't so! Heavens! This must be something new in all the history of humanity!
Both of those statements are 100% true. 1. We were greeted as liberators. duh. 2. Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. Do the terrorists we are fighting now have tanks? No. OK, then it's not major combat. It's small unit combat. The issue may simply be that you have no knowledge or understanding of the technical meaning of certain terms. Are you ESL?
ahahahahhahaha depends on what the definition of sex is, the whole thing is falling apart, everyone know the president was full of crap when he made his case for war you guys are so lost its starting to seem pathetic