|
Move-on targets dems who disagree
|
| |
After all why should a democrat change his mind after actually going to Iraq
and seeing the facts for themself. Well, Move-on certainly doesn't believe
that facts should get in the way destroying America.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/moveon-targets-pro-surge-democrat-2007-08-29.html
MoveOn targets pro-surge Democrat
By Aaron Blake
August 29, 2007
Rep. Brian Baird's (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is
beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal
group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman in his own
district.
Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position
on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old
war.
MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the
views of his constituents.
The ad does not make specific reference to Baird's conversion.
Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount
of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird
to bring the troops home.
The soldier in the ad served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and describes a
scene from that time, long before the current troop increase that Baird has
cited as the reason for military progress.
Baird voted against the war in 2003 and had opposed it until last
month. Republicans have been quick to key on his remarks as evidence of
progress in Iraq.
MoveOn disagrees, calling the war "unwinnable."
"So far this has been one of the bloodiest summers in Iraq, and voters
don't want to continue down a failed path," said MoveOn campaigner Nita
Chaudhary. "They want representatives who will stand up to President Bush's
reckless policy and bring our troops home."
Baird has represented a swing district in southwest Washington since
1998 but has not seen strong challenges in recent years. He has taken more
than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:51:23 GMT, "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote:
After all why should a democrat change his mind after actually going to Iraq
and seeing the facts for themself.
It's called 'upcoming elections" stupid
In order to get elected, some of the constituency is
needed to get re-elected, you dumb bastard
=====================================================
CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore
The Usenet Racist wrote:
Always the nigger, aintcha white boy?
|
| |
| |
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in
news:%ayBi.48138$Um6.45900@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
After all why should a democrat change his mind after actually going
to Iraq and seeing the facts for themself. Well, Move-on certainly
doesn't believe that facts should get in the way destroying America.
Visiting Iraq is not a good way to get a comprehensive understanding of the
occupation. At best, the visitor gets only a tour rigged to show only what
the Bush Regime wants him to see. Move On is right to criticize anyone who
buys the Regime's snake oil.
|
| |
| |
In article <%ayBi.48138$Um6.45900@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote:
After all why should a democrat change his mind after actually going to Iraq
and seeing the facts for themself. Well, Move-on certainly doesn't believe
that facts should get in the way destroying America.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/moveon-targets-pro-surge-democrat-2007-08-
29.html
MoveOn targets pro-surge Democrat
By Aaron Blake
August 29, 2007
Rep. Brian Baird's (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is
beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal
group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman in his own
district.
Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position
on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old
war.
MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the
views of his constituents.
The ad does not make specific reference to Baird's conversion.
Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount
of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird
to bring the troops home.
The soldier in the ad served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and describes a
scene from that time, long before the current troop increase that Baird has
cited as the reason for military progress.
Baird voted against the war in 2003 and had opposed it until last
month. Republicans have been quick to key on his remarks as evidence of
progress in Iraq.
MoveOn disagrees, calling the war "unwinnable."
"So far this has been one of the bloodiest summers in Iraq, and voters
don't want to continue down a failed path," said MoveOn campaigner Nita
Chaudhary. "They want representatives who will stand up to President Bush's
reckless policy and bring our troops home."
Baird has represented a swing district in southwest Washington since
1998 but has not seen strong challenges in recent years. He has taken more
than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections.
-------------------------------------------------------
Whether the war is "winnable" depends upon who is speaking.
The object of the war was, has been, and IS -- to transfer the
contents of the U.S. Treasury to Bush's supporters, the war
profiteers; to enhance his "Unitary" powers,
and to dominate the oil resources of the middle east.
Continuation of the war continues the looting of the treasury and
confirms his "war presidency".
Bush and his supporters have already "won" the war--- and they
continue winning every day the war continues.
WHAT REALLY TERRIFIES THEM IS THE PROSPECT OF ALL THAT UNITARY
PRESIDENTIAL POWER BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMOCRATS IN THE 2008
ELECTIONS.
-- Gar
-------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
After all why should a democrat change his mind after actually going to
Iraq and seeing the facts for themself.
How is the Republican party treating Repulicans who have gone to Iraq and
come back calling for withdrawal?
Just curious - even though I already know the answer.
Do you?
--
"History! Read it and weep!"
-Bokonon
_______________________________________________
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:51:23 GMT, "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote:
It's called 'upcoming elections" stupid
Wrong you moron or else he'd continue spouting the hate Bush's war party
line.
In order to get elected, some of the constituency is
needed to get re-elected, you dumb bastard
Therefore you're saying that the country doesn't after all agree with
move-on either.
What a dumb cocker you are. What's laughable is you just sucked you own
dick and are too stupid to recognize that fact!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/moveon-targets-pro-surge-democrat-2007-08-29.html
MoveOn targets pro-surge Democrat
By Aaron Blake
August 29, 2007
Rep. Brian Baird's (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is
beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal
group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman in his own
district.
Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position
on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old
war.
MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the
views of his constituents.
The ad does not make specific reference to Baird's conversion.
Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount
of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird
to bring the troops home.
The soldier in the ad served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and describes a
scene from that time, long before the current troop increase that Baird has
cited as the reason for military progress.
Baird voted against the war in 2003 and had opposed it until last
month. Republicans have been quick to key on his remarks as evidence of
progress in Iraq.
MoveOn disagrees, calling the war "unwinnable."
"So far this has been one of the bloodiest summers in Iraq, and voters
don't want to continue down a failed path," said MoveOn campaigner Nita
Chaudhary. "They want representatives who will stand up to President Bush's
reckless policy and bring our troops home."
Baird has represented a swing district in southwest Washington since
1998 but has not seen strong challenges in recent years. He has taken more
than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections.
=====================================================
CB - aka Unfrozen Caveman Politician Algore
The Usenet Racist wrote:
|
| |
| |
How is the Republican party treating Repulicans who have gone to Iraq and
come back calling for withdrawal?
Just curious - even though I already know the answer.
If you have any evidence that they are targeting and/or demonizing them,
then by all means post that information!
--
"History! Read it and weep!"
-Bokonon
_______________________________________________
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
|
| |
| |
If you have any evidence that they are targeting and/or demonizing them,
then by all means post that information!
Surely you're not going to to deny that Bush -- excuse me, Cheney -- had any
generals who dared disagree with him on Iraq sacked? Do we really need to
revisit this well documented history?
|
| |
| |
Surely you're going to show how these military officers, some with 30+ years
of service under many administration, have always been shills for each
respective administration?
Didn't think you could you lying scum liberal!
Surely you're not going to to deny that Bush -- excuse me, Cheney -- had
any
generals who dared disagree with him on Iraq sacked? Do we really need to
revisit this well documented history?
|
| |
| |
Surely you're going to show how these military officers, some with 30+
years
of service under many administration, have always been shills for each
respective administration?
Didn't think you could you lying scum liberal!
I accept your concession that you cannot deny that the failed Cheney/Bush
administration has kicked out veteran military officers who dared to
disagree with their failed policies.
|
| |
| |
First rule of debate kimmey: You have to prove your ASSERTION. Just because
you say so only works in your romper room!
In other words just because you claim generals reporting on conditions in
Iraq are lying for Bush, YOU HAVE NEVER PROVED THAT CLAIM!
years
I accept your concession that you cannot deny that the failed Cheney/Bush
administration has kicked out veteran military officers who dared to
disagree with their failed policies.
|
| |
| |
First rule of debate kimmey: You have to prove your ASSERTION. Just
because
you say so only works in your romper room!
And since you failed to prove your assertion, you lose. Glad you agree and
concede the debate.
In other words just because you claim generals reporting on conditions in
Iraq are lying for Bush, YOU HAVE NEVER PROVED THAT CLAIM!
Are you a total moron? I said that generals who told the truth (i.e.,
denied Bush's lies) were dismissed. This is a matter of public record and
even you can't be so stupid that you would attempt to deny it. Hence, this
new made up claim of yours.
|
| |
| |
Kimmey you have never discredited yourself as much as you did here.
Un-f*cking-believable!
because
And since you failed to prove your assertion, you lose. Glad you agree
and
concede the debate.
Are you a total moron? I said that generals who told the truth (i.e.,
denied Bush's lies) were dismissed. This is a matter of public record and
even you can't be so stupid that you would attempt to deny it. Hence,
this
new made up claim of yours.
|
| |
| |
Kimmey you have never discredited yourself as much as you did here.
Un-f*cking-believable!
Yep, once again you cowardly avoid the facts and then project your own flaws
onto your betters.
You're a laughingstock, nothing more.
|
| |
| |
|