If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

6

60Grit

Guest
I don't know how any of you can comment on it.

I read the article twice and each time came away with a inconclusive idea of what exactly they were trying to address.

Good luck with this one....:banginghe
 

bigox911

Senior Member
Might as well go straight to the horses mouth...what are Democrats actually saying? I believe House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D) said it best...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vlr3gG8q0nw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vlr3gG8q0nw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

Maybe that's why Dems were pressing for a report so quickly...because they feared what the usually left crowd at the NY times wrote about in the article "A war we might just win" might come to pass.
 

SBG

Senior Member
That, I understood, clear as a bell.....:bounce:
Not a lot of fuzz on that one.

You guys are wasting your fingers responding to the 10%ers here. They know that the articles is representative of the truth. They are scared to death that the sponges will figure it out. Why do you think they were all over the airwaves this weekend trying to smear the reputation of Petraeus?
 
I will grant you that the author's unsupported arguments leave plenty of room for interpretation, but like him, you have veered into supposition with no evidence to support it.
 
Might as well go straight to the horses mouth...what are Democrats actually saying? I believe House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D) said it best...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vlr3gG8q0nw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vlr3gG8q0nw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

Maybe that's why Dems were pressing for a report so quickly...because they feared what the usually left crowd at the NY times wrote about in the article "A war we might just win" might come to pass.

Clyburn is stating political reality. A negative report from Petraeus would be a problem for Republicans, would it not?
 

SBG

Senior Member
Clyburn is stating political reality. A negative report from Petraeus would be a problem for Republicans, would it not?
Apples and oranges analogy.

A negative report would be bad for the democrats since they are invested in defeat. You know it...
 

bigox911

Senior Member
Clyburn is stating political reality. A negative report from Petraeus would be a problem for Republicans, would it not?
Exactly...if we don't succeed, it would be bad for Republicans but more importantly it would be bad for America. If we do succeed it would be great for America, but bad for Democrats. It is reality isn't it?
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
The article itself is too ridiculous to comment on but when I first read the thread title , I thought Oh No Howies listening to RushBo again which brings me to wonder did Rush steal the line from townhall or was it the other way around ?? :bounce: You guys do know what Rush and Sean did before the whacks in this country started taking them seriously don't you ?? :banana:
Well, Sean worked as a construction foreman and owned his owne construction business. Rush was a DJ and a public relations director for the Kansas City Royals.

I guess your assumption is that you have to be a liberal elitist, pointy headed academic in order to be taken seriously. At least thats what it sounds like to me.

Again another elitist assumption from the left. Arrogant to the last!
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Rush as been in radio since he was a kid, fired many times and Sean worked construction, both worked themselves up the ladder and built themselves up to where they are today, proving America still offers opportunities to those willing to work for their dreams and your point is?
Dixie,

You know that's foreign to pointy headed liberal elitists. Working hard and pulling yourself up doesn't compute to the collective.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Dixie,

You know that's foreign to pointy headed liberal elitists. Working hard and pulling yourself up doesn't compute to the collective.
Yup, the socialist only recognize people that live on government handouts
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Use your imagination and a colorful word on the end of that string and it becomes the acronym PHLEA (flea)

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Are they members of the Pointy Headed Liberal Elitist Association?
 
Top