1 From one of your posts yesterday:
- the other day, he  (Reid) preemptively declared an effort (the surge) that hasn't even fully been implemented 'a failure.'

From this post:
The most striking failure of the Congressional Democrats (and Reid) is their failure to keep their promise to end the Iraq War.

So will the Democratic leadership eventually be given the same leeway as the Republicans, Good Lt.?

2 So will the Democratic leadership eventually be given the same leeway as the Republicans, Good Lt.?

That question makes no sense whatsoever. Here are three possible answers to your poorly-worded attempt at a coherent though:

A) I didn't type that - the commenter did. Learn to read.

B) Its true, is it not? Reid has failed to end the Iraq war. He and Pelosi promised to, and they've failed.

C) No mercy, no leeway to the Democrat cowards voting to kneecap the troops at every turn after voting to put them in theater. That would be the Democrat party, again.

D) What leeway have the Republicans been given? And for what?

3 Perhaps the reading comprehension is on your end:

A) I didn't type that - the commenter did.
I said it was from your post, not that you'd typed it. Carefully now: you re-printed it on your post, I'm assuming because you agreed, and that's where I read it. Have the courage of your convictions rather than playing gotcha with technicalities.

B.) Its true, is it not? Reid has failed to end the Iraq war. He and Pelosi promised to, and they've failed.
I thought this was so clear a point even you'd get it, Lt.

Reid and the Democratic leadership have been accused here of failing to end the war within 6 months of taking office (I don't recall the six-month timne frame; you nad your posters evidently do.) And yet, these same people are lambasted for not giving the surge it's proper chance. See the connection? Go ahead, take a minute. Now?

C) No mercy, no leeway to the Democrat cowards voting to kneecap the
troops at every turn after voting to put them in theater. That would be
the Democrat party, again.
Yeah, yeah, stick to the point, we've heard this, just like your Repugs and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists have heard the chickenhawk argument again and again. It's just noise. If one cannot re-think the already thought upon ongoing failure well ... that's make you no less dense than George Bush.

D) What leeway have the Republicans been given? And for what?
Your kidding, right? Oh, you mean the latest leeway after four years of rosy scenarios and optimism? Why, the surge man, the surge ... the Bush administration promised us the surge would be the answer. Not enough time to tell yet, you say (and have said repeatedly?) Bullshit, the Democrats have had a whole six months to end the war ... the Republican deserve no more than the same time frame.

Educate yourself from one of your own; read the post from Kafir from yesterday. "Sanity" is the word, alright.



 

4 Perhaps the reading comprehension is on your end:

That also doesn't say what you intended it to, so yes. I did comprehend what you wrote, and it made no sense. IT made no sense for a variety of reasons, which I will expand below. The comprehension is on my end. The bad writing and moronic analysis is on yours. Next.

Have the courage of your convictions rather than playing gotcha with technicalities.

Technicalities? Your whole complaint is about technicalities that you aren't quite sure how to articulate. Aren't technicalities what you claim the BOOSH administration is in violation of every moment of every day? What this translates to is "technically, you didn't type this passage, so I'm full of it trying to ask you to pretend you're somebody else, but I'm gonna try anyway." You're hilariously, to quote a military man, stuck on stupid.

Technically, the surge hasn't even really started in its operational phase yet, but that's too technical for you to comprehend. The places in which the troops presence has increased have seen decrease in violence - the violence has moved away from those areas into other ones. And we all know that Iraq was so peaceful and non-violent before we went in there and found Zarqawi's AQ, right? Of course - that's your caricature of history. Its not technically accurate, but when has reality mattered to the reality-based community?

And here is the central issue you and your ilk consistently strive to block out of your emotional reservoirs: violence in war is not indicative of failure unless more of us are dying then them. Since when is a war not violent? Give us a war that the US has won in which the body count for us was zero. There are none. Since when do people not die in a war? What is your technical standard for measuring success or failure? Do you count dead jihadis? That's how you count success in this war, and there are many thousands more of them dead and out of commission than there will ever be of us fighting them. Soldier deaths suck, but they are remarkably LOW historically  - it would take decades of this conflict at the rate of soldier deaths to reach even the Vietnam war's death count. Ain't gonna happen, so you have to pretend that even one death on our side is somehow indicative of total failure. That "perfect or total failure" standard set forth by your glorious leaders is so moronic and so void of real-world war knowledge that it borders on insanity. Hence, you're a fool if you believe that   If more die, that means the enemy is being engaged. Of course, I wouldn't expect a midget to understand the laws and principles of warfare, but that's cool. You never have, and obviously don't want to understand how conflict works. It is too "harsh" to your mellow to acknowledge what actually happens when we fight barbarians who care so little for life that they blow themselves and their own children up.

Bullshit, the Democrats have had a whole six months to end the war .

And they've failed miserably at what you seem to think is a relatively simple task. I mean, they have the PEOPLE on their side, right? Why can't they do it, then?

Reid and the Democratic leadership have been accused here of failing to
end the war within 6 months of taking office (I don't recall the
six-month timne (sic) frame; you nad (sic) your posters evidently do.)

Actually, they were accused (con convicted) at the Politico in the comments of this, but I highlighted their noticeable failure via this commenter here for everyone's amusement. Technicality.

Your point is ridiculously stupid. I'll give the Donk pukes any time frame I want - they gave the surge no chance to succeed, and they'll get the same treatment here. If they can declare it a failure before it even begins in earnest, then I can declare them failures by their nosediving approval ratings in the same time frame. If everyone is clamoring for such a quick and immediate withdrawal, then why can't they pass legislation mandating such? Why can't you get a funding cutoff through both Democrat-controlled chambers? Because there isn't a mandate for what you want. And there never was. Simple.

Yeah. And they f*cked that up just like everything else they've tried to do. That's because only 23% of the public approves of any one thing they're doing. You are among the 23%er fanboys still hanging on and thinking they're doing a bang-up job kneecapping the troops, denying them funding, denying them reinforcements, calling them incompetent and failures, trying desperately to lose the war with every news cycle, etc. Keep it up, heroes.

So stuff this crap about "republicans." They're not in charge in Congress. You're glorious Dhimmicrat 'leaders' are, and they're miserable disgraces.

I guess you also missed the post in which the Marines are telling Reid and the Democrats to take their defeatist BS and cram it, huh? Yeah. You definitely missed that. Learn from your betters.

Why, the surge man, the surge ... the Bush administration promised us the surge would be the answer

You do realize that the last troops for the effort were put in place today, right? It isn't exactly like driving through a McDonald's and getting an apple pie, moron. Anyone with three brain cells to rub together knows that.

So your hero Harry Reid, man, gave them negative two days to begin the actual operation, dood. I mean, just putting the troops in place doesn't mean they've done anything, right, man?

I also see you missed the violence reduction and movement away from surge areas from the post below. As I said - READ, man. Read. Don't emote. Read.

If one cannot re-think the already thought upon ongoing failure well

Tell it to the troops, jackass. Go ahead, tough guy. Tell them they're failing. I dare you. You're glorious leaders are, and they're setting up some dynamite campaign ads for next year.

Yadda yadda chickenhawk. And if you aren't willing to pick a gun and join yourself, you aren't allowed to even hold an opinion on the war, for or against. Those are your "chickenhawk" rules. And for that matter, if you haven't been an elected official, you can't hold an opinion on one. Capice? Not a teacher? No opinions on education. Not a cop? No whining about the police state, because you don't know what they go through. Not a Republican? Well then you can't advocate they do anything or not do anything. Maybe only soldiers should be able to vote, since they're the ones in the way of the bullets. You approve, right? You aren't one. See how that works?

Stupid rules, aren't they? Yes, they are. And they're liberal rules designed to shut down the brain and the discussion, probably because thinking about things like war and soldiery rather than emoting over them aren't the strong suits of any liberals like yourself. They've done quite an excellent job of shutting down the brain on your end, I see. So unless you're a soldier, you can't call for them to withdraw, back down or do anything. Tough break, skipper.

Your. Rules. Not. Ours.

Begone, troll. You have nothing to say, and are engaged in the same "gotcha" game that you accuse us of.

5 That's right "B."

Nothing to say except the usual brain dead drivel.

Have a nice life.

6 The news media had to go easy on the carping and back stabbing for about a year as partisan politics would not go over well with the public. Then public attention wandered and the news media was able to take advantage of the Bush administration's public relations incompetence and start lying. This allowed the Democrats to go on the attack.

Bush is faced with a two front war. He is doing well in Iraq, but the partisan politics has edged over into treason, and may well end up another Vietnam betrayal.