you know if democrat says we should pull some troops out of iraq its called cutting and running etc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10573155/ I wonder what it is when rumsfeild says it? Did you guys see this picutre of bin laden neice Pretty hot http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587661/
Are you guys still doing that down there? I thought slavery had been abolished. I know there is no shortage of rednecks down there. Your president is one of them. But I really thought slavery was illegal.
Oh, I see. Now you were debating my reasoning and not my comments. My reasoning drove you to suggest the president was breaking the constitution. I think I can honestly say I've seen it all now.
I have NEVER stated Bush violated/broke the constitution..I have debated your reasoning... You've made multiple posts suggesting that for safety you would allow a president no matter whom it is violate the constitution above safety... Your twist of my posts is so amazingly off base I can safely say I've sene it all now
Some? They want to cut and run with their tales between their legs. Doesn't the Secretary of Defense make the call when to bring troops home, based upon the needs in Iraq? I was not aware that kerry, pelosi, kennedy and other cut and run dems made that call. Bring troops home based upon the needs in Iraq, vs cut and run. Hmm...
I actually agree with you on this one Gtech if the need for troops has dropped, I see no problem or 'cutting and running' by bringing some of our boys home and dropping troop levels.. It actually makes it more dangerous for our remaining troops if it was a cut and run situation, lets hope it's not... thank god it's easy to move from thread to thread on here...
there is no change of need in Iraq, its for the coming mid term elections, the opionion polls said that people arn't supporting the war why do you think there is change of need?
I honestly don't know if there is one, I simply guess I am putting my hopes on there is one and we can finally start brining more and more of our troops home to their families... If for some reason the need hasn't gone down, time will more than likely tell by increased risk for those left in Iraq.
Incorrect. That's your assumption and again goes to exactly what I continue to say, though your words are the most powerful reinforcement. I have seen no violation of the constitution in this entire discussion. You continued to suggest the president has. And on top of that, if the icing couldn't be any better, now you suggest my reasoning is what you were debating and that the reasoning was: Therefore, you assumed the president had violated the constitution, since you believe that I would allow it for safety. Thank you for making my point! I don't think you could have dug the whole any deeper with that!
I concur, 100%. I don't want anyone over there longer than needed. I'm continuously encouraged to see reports that Iraqis are participating more and more in offensive operations.
I never stated or suggested he did, I was arguing against your 'reasoning' truthfully you didnt' even need to go into your long winded reasoning, but since you decided to and many of the 'reasons' you brought up I felt were false I debated you on them. Guess you must feel I won as you sure changed the subject from the debate of your reasoning to your extremely weak attempt to twist the phrases around of what I said into 'bush broke the constitution' of which I never stated and you know it. Or is this simply yet another example of you can't stand or understand why someone would debate you on a subissue instead of just keeping quiet like you always do, and most others? You stated in multiple posts for your 'reasons' not only Bush but Clinton as well that you did not question any reason they did it for safety, I'd have to look up the exact quote...Thank you for digging your hole that much deeper...If you realy want to keep going with this silly little debate I'll be glad to look up your old posts and start quoting you on what I was arguing about... ---edit This all yet again boils over from you arguing of my 'if' for how I'd support Bush in this situation...I laid out why I would or why I would not clearly, you kept trying to argue reasons for why I should have no 'if' and why you had no 'if'....it's pretty much as simple as that. The argument was for the reasoning, and has absolutely nothing to do with the article or GWB................................