Now I see Pelosi has decided she won't meet with Petraeus after all.
I guess it would be 'unseemly' to actually meet face to face and
listen to someone she will call a liar at her next press conference,
so why put herself in that position?
So booth, if the war is lost, as you, Reid and Pelosi feel, and the
president is going to veto any bill with a timeline, and there aren't
the votes to override that veto, and they're going to fund the troops
eventually anyway, why don't they stand on principle and go for the
whole shootin' match with this bill, and ask for immediate and
unconditional withdrawal? That's what they want, isn't it?
It would make the democrat leadership's position clear and on the
record, and I would actually admire them for that, because it's the
honorable thing to do, instead of this crass, mamby pamby hedging of
bets and dereliction of duty that is designed to do only one thing,
lose the war and blame bush for the resulting carnage.
Who wants to be the last soldier to die for a lost war, that won't
actually be lost until some arbitrary future date certain, chosen by
cowardly politicians who don't want to talk to the Generals in charge
of the war?
On 4/24/07, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
errr... Rick, after 5 years, isn't it time to admit that we've been
losing the war as slowly as we can? Isn't it time for a change?
rick baird wrote:
> but, he promises, he won't believe a word he says.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV4DIURvbwY
>
> have patience America, they're losing the war as fast as they can.
>
--
---------------------------------
Booth Martin
http://www.Martinvt.com
---------------------------------
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
