“If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.”

Support all the way indeed --

GOP Members Pressured to Back War

House and Senate Republicans with reservations about President Bush's plan to boost U.S. troop strength in Iraq by 21,500 are complaining of harsh criticism from their GOP colleagues. This intra-party squabbling, in some cases, has seen Republicans accusing fellow Republicans of undercutting the American effort in Iraq, a charge previously reserved for Democrats.

These lawmakers, several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from party leaders or the White House, are stunned by the hostility expressed by fellow Republicans. They are particularly concerned that anyone who raises questions or challenges the Bush plan will be branded a defeatist who wants to see America lose the war.

They are also worried, especially on the House side, that party leaders haven't prepared their members for the Iraq floor debate that will take place there after the Senate votes on Bush's plan next week.

"We need a full-fledged debate on Iraq within the (House Republican) Conference and we haven't had that so far," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. "This is the issue of our times, and so far, we haven't talked about it."

One GOP lawmaker, who declined to be named, said it is "starting to get really ugly" among Republicans when they try to talk about Iraq and the wisdom of the new Bush policy. This lawmaker said when a Republican stands up who has doubts on Iraq, he's immediately "beaten down" by other Republicans who believe that any deviation from the White House position is intolerable.

Said another Republican with concerns about Bush's new strategy: "It's as if we are stabbing the party in the back, and we are only trying to do what we think is right."

Similar passions were on display Tuesday, when Senate Republicans held a closed-door, members-only meeting to talk about Iraq, a debate that took place in front of Vice President Cheney, who has been one of the most strident voices on Iraq within the administration.

"It was contentious. People feel firmly, and many of us very passionately, in support of our position," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is opposed to Bush's surge plan. "What really upsets me is that those of us who (are) opposed to the surge are somehow not supportive of our troops and General Petraeus." Gen. David Petraeus has been named to command U.S. forces in Iraq.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2573.html

 

Hey, aren't you that plagiarist?

You know very well that the non-binding resolution is only a necessary first step. The American people put Democrats in power to use every means possible to stop this stupid war and bring the troops home and, with the help of a growing number of Republicans, they will do everything in their power to do that. And they will do it in support of the will of the majority of the American people and the troops you pretend to support.

Ironic that you would have the nerve to use the word courage while ignoring the will of brave troops on the ground in Iraq (is it really true that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the Military Times poll? Amazing.) and denigrating brave veterans like Jack Murtha, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and John Warner, not to mention generals Powell, Abizaid and Casey. Maybe you'd like to join Jean Schmidt in calling veterans of foreign wars cowards when they oppose the failed wars of spoiled rotten draft dodgers. You're a joke.

 

We know from your plagiarism and consequent denial of same that you're inherently dishonest basso, but can't you ever make an honest post?

A complete and immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq is in no way "Murtha-esque" and you know it. And your seething contempt for a veteran like Murtha is telling as all hell.

You're a liar and a hypocrite. And I think you know that too.

 

the point is this. If people don't approve of the President's plan is how the war is being carried out. If they don't support that then aren't supporting it "all the way".

 

You've lied here many times and that's well known. The plagiarism to-do was only the loudest, most obvious, recent example. But I didn't call you a liar in this thread as a general statement (though it works as one) -- I did it because you continue to use this hyperbolic, BS, lying spin that Murtha wants all troops gone yesterday. That's a lie and you know it. So to say that 13% of the troops support a Murtha-esque plan is a lie. That should be simple enough even for you to follow.

As for the poll, that's the best you could do after like a month of drafting and re-drafting and spell-checking and trolling the lying liar sites you love so dearly? Dude, that's sad.

When you constantly and consistently equate support or opposition of Bush's policies to support or opposition of the troops, you are stuck with that position. And when half of those very same troops oppose the way Bush is running this war, you are busted. You are knocked out loaded. You lose. As many people have expressed here and elsewhere, your boneheaded, McCarthyesque arguments have landed you here: The troops oppose Bush. Therefore, they oppose themselves. Therefore, they love the enemy and they love it even better when they, themselves, die.

Give up already.

 

thats some pretty weak hayesian spin right there.

"For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war -- in 2004 -- 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush's handling of the war. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003."

if this is the poll you are refering to you did not read the question properly or your math is fuzzy. 50% did not say they wanted more troops. the question asked how many troops should be there...not how many more they want sent in.

only 38% want more troops than are already there. but 39% want the same, less or no troops.

 

Nope. I'm saying whichever nutjob site you cribbed your notes from is. I notice you "forgot the link" again. Anyway, as usual, your source was wrong and, as usual, you don't care. After all, the facts have a liberal bias.

See jo mama's post above for the actual Military Times numbers.

I can't imagine how it can be fun for you to be so utterly and totally wrong about everything always. You're a weird dude.

 

i dont want to speak for batman, but i believe he is pointing out that because of your position on those who oppose the war, you must feel that 50% of the troops hate america and want the troops to fail.

you skipped the part of the poll where 50% of the troops said iraq was unwinnable? are they defeatists? do they just want america to loose because they hate bush? what is your position on this?

for the 5th time, do you actually have any family or close friends who have served in iraq or afghanistan?

 

Maybe you're not a liar. Maybe you're just really, really dumb.

jo mama spelled it out for you and even posted the actual breakdown.

What you care about is "support for the mission?" Well, there are two indicators in the poll of relative support. One is support for how the war's being waged, which loses 42-37 and one is whether we should have gone there in the first place which less than half the troops (41%) believe we should have done.

The poll does not show that 50% want more troops. That's just plain false. Even if it were true, it would be an incredibly low number. But it's not. The poll shows that 38% want more troops while 39% want the same amount or less.

Furthermore, whatever you wish it said, what it actually says is that only half of the troops polled still think we can "win." How you translate "half the troops think we can win" to "sounds like the troops still think we can win" is between you and yourself.

Nearly every single indicator -- whether we should have gone in the first place, the strategy itself and escalation -- comes out with more troops against than for. And the question of whether we can even win there is a split decision. And somehow you turn that into "sounds like the troops still want, and think we can, win." And somehow you turn majority opposition to the mission into majority support for the mission.

So, you're either very dishonest or very dumb. I don't know which it is. But either way, by your incredibly screwed up logic, the troops now oppose the troops.

Way to go.

 

because you are arguing for a policy that half of them do not support and implying that they are unamerican for it.

sounds like you only support the troops when they argee with you and the torturer-in-chief.

 

link?

if almost half = 38% than i suppose you are right (for once).

 

batman spelled it out pretty well, but you obviously have some serious reading comprehension issues so ill try again...

50% of those polled say there is no chance for success in iraq.
only 35% approve of bush's handling of the war while 42% disapprove.
59% say it was a mistake to invade in the first place.

 

Batman, you seriously need a timeout.