If dems and Reid had a say during WWII

[Gilly]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon042307.gif

Like today they'd be screaming one thing "When the going gets tough, surrender!"

[Gibby]

Don't some of the older Dems have distinguished military records?

[notacon]

The Dems DID have a say in WWII. They were solidly in power and defeated the enemy.

They were led by one of the best presidents...and the BEST war time leader this country has ever seen...Franklin D. Roosevelt.

THAT war was a real and necessary one against a real enemy that was a true threat to this country.

Iraq is a unnecessary war based on LIES against an overinflated non-existent threat. The Iraq war is exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to protect the country.

The biggest mistake the Democrats did is allowing Bush to wage it in the first place. They should have exposed him for the lying weasel he is.

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

[Dole] stated during the Vice Presidential debate, "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans-enough to fill the city of Detroit."

Bob "Pacifist" Dole

[comericatigers]

The Dems DID have a say in WWII. They were solidly in power and defeated the enemy.

They were led by one of the best presidents...and the BEST war time leader this country has ever seen...Franklin D. Roosevelt.
THAT war was a real and necessary one against a real enemy that was a true threat to this country.

Iraq is a unnecessary war based on LIES against an overinflated non-existent threat. The Iraq war is exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to protect the country.

The biggest mistake the Democrats did is allowing Bush to wage it in the first place. They should have exposed him for the lying weasel he is.

FDR's polls
How do FDR's approval ratings compare with Bush's? In his second term, well before the start of WW II in Europe, FDR's approval ratings are as follows:

A 2002 article by Ron Faucheux called "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," written during the height of President Bush's post-9/11 approval ratings, offers an intriguing historical survey. Presidential approval polls are relatively new. The Gallup Organization started the tradition in 1938, during Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term.
Not surprisingly, the numbers tend to spike in times of war. The record holder for highest approval rating? President George W. Bush, who topped out at 90% in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. His father is the runner-up, with an 89% rating during the first Gulf War. Harry Truman scored 87% in April, 1945, following FDR's death and during the final stages of World War II. FDR achieved 84% after Pearl Harbor.

The all-time worst numbers belong to Harry Truman (23%),
http://ask.yahoo.com/20051011.html

FDR was at 50% during terms 2, 3, & 4 before his death. I think the most startling number is Truman. He dropped the bombs, ended the war and started the rebuilding of Europe with the Cold War intact. Let's wait and let history decide Bush's fate.

[uppy]

Great Post Sir !

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

FDR's polls
How do FDR's approval ratings compare with Bush's?

I guess we don't get the real comparison. As you said, the peaks are an approval rating for a war. Truman isn't FDR. And I think 50% for FDR's general number is probably right given what the country went through.

[JLB]

Bob "Pacifist" Dole

What?

[comericatigers]

The Dems DID have a say in WWII. They were solidly in power and defeated the enemy.

They were led by one of the best presidents...and the BEST war time leader this country has ever seen...Franklin D. Roosevelt.

THAT war was a real and necessary one against a real enemy that was a true threat to this country.

Iraq is a unnecessary war based on LIES against an overinflated non-existent threat. The Iraq war is exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to protect the country.

The biggest mistake the Democrats did is allowing Bush to wage it in the first place. They should have exposed him for the lying weasel he is.

Yep markets and raw materials were extremely important especially during the greatest depression the world has ever known. Oil makes the world run--literally. It's all about money! The press demonizes the Iraq war, unlike WWII. Let's get off the FDR soapbox. The man along with LBJ sold America down the river with all of these hand me out programs that have cost taxpayers more money than the Iraq war ever will. To clarify, I am fine with Social Security and Medicare. The working class deserves services, unlike the unworking and the useless.

[comericatigers]

The Dems DID have a say in WWII. They were solidly in power and defeated the enemy.

They were led by one of the best presidents...and the BEST war time leader this country has ever seen...Franklin D. Roosevelt.

THAT war was a real and necessary one against a real enemy that was a true threat to this country.

Iraq is a unnecessary war based on LIES against an overinflated non-existent threat. The Iraq war is exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to protect the country.

The biggest mistake the Democrats did is allowing Bush to wage it in the first place. They should have exposed him for the lying weasel he is.

"Reid and four Democratic candidates for president -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- voted to give Bush a blank check for war."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20459

Woops, the Dems are just as guilty.

[Green Lantern]

http:///www.lotsofbids.com/toon042307.gif

Like today they'd be screaming one thing "When the going gets tough, surrender!"

Is there a point to this thread?

[notacon]

FDR's polls
How do FDR's approval ratings compare with Bush's? In his second term, well before the start of WW II in Europe, FDR's approval ratings are as follows:

A 2002 article by Ron Faucheux called "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," written during the height of President Bush's post-9/11 approval ratings, offers an intriguing historical survey. Presidential approval polls are relatively new. The Gallup Organization started the tradition in 1938, during Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term.
Not surprisingly, the numbers tend to spike in times of war. The record holder for highest approval rating? President George W. Bush, who topped out at 90% in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. His father is the runner-up, with an 89% rating during the first Gulf War. Harry Truman scored 87% in April, 1945, following FDR's death and during the final stages of World War II. FDR achieved 84% after Pearl Harbor.

The all-time worst numbers belong to Harry Truman (23%),
http://ask.yahoo.com/20051011.html

FDR was at 50% during terms 2, 3, & 4 before his death. I think the most startling number is Truman. He dropped the bombs, ended the war and started the rebuilding of Europe with the Cold War intact. Let's wait and let history decide Bush's fate.

Who said anything about polls?!?!?

Polls don't mean shit.

FDR was a GREAT war time leader...period.

Bush is the WORST leader this nation has ever seen...period!

[notacon]

"Reid and four Democratic candidates for president -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- voted to give Bush a blank check for war."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20459

Woops, the Dems are just as guilty.

Guilty of what?!?!

The Dems did not lie about the threat from Iraq. The Dems did not cherry pick and lie about supposed "intelligence". The Dems did not decide to go to war on false pretenses.

The politics at the time precluded sensible solutions and the Dems did not have the balls to stand up to Bush.

But, this is still Bush's war...Bush's screw up, Bush's incompetance, Bush's lying.

[Matt]

Some times war is necessary.

2003 wasn't necessary.

[comericatigers]

Guilty of what?!?!

The Dems did not lie about the threat from Iraq. The Dems did not cherry pick and lie about supposed "intelligence". The Dems did not decide to go to war on false pretenses.

The politics at the time precluded sensible solutions and the Dems did not have the balls to stand up to Bush.

But, this is still Bush's war...Bush's screw up, Bush's incompetance, Bush's lying.

The intelligence was collected during the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both Dems, Repubs, and most of the world thought Iraq had WMD's. The intelligence was wrong. The Bush administration and congress based their decision to go to war off of that intelligence. Bush did not lie, the intelligence was wrong. Wrong intelligence is not entirely Bush's fault.

[Matt]

The intelligence was collected during the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both Dems, Repubs, and most of the world thought Iraq had WMD's. The intelligence was wrong. The Bush administration and congress based their decision to go to war off of that intelligence. Bush did not lie, the intelligence was wrong. Wrong intelligence is not entirely Bush's fault.

If you get on the wrong side of the highway, and drive in the opposite direction that you're going because of a mistake in the directions, do you just happily continue going the wrong way once you figure out that something is wrong?

[comericatigers]

Guilty of what?!?!

The Dems did not lie about the threat from Iraq. The Dems did not cherry pick and lie about supposed "intelligence". The Dems did not decide to go to war on false pretenses.

The politics at the time precluded sensible solutions and the Dems did not have the balls to stand up to Bush.
But, this is still Bush's war...Bush's screw up, Bush's incompetance, Bush's lying.

And now the Dems don't have the balls to stay in Iraq nor do they have the balls to stop funding Iraq. Dems just don't have balls. And if Hillary is elected she already has balls (literally). But figuratively, she won't use them.

[comericatigers]

If you get on the wrong side of the highway, and drive in the opposite direction that you're going because of a mistake in the directions, do you just happily continue going the wrong way once you figure out that something is wrong?

War and driving is not a good analogy.

[Matt]

War and driving is not a good analogy.

The fact that you pay attention to the analogy above the point is part of the point.

[Matt]

And now the Dems don't have the balls to stay in Iraq nor do they have the balls to stop funding Iraq. Dems just don't have balls. And if Hillary is elected she already has balls (literally). But figuratively, she won't use them.

I don't think we should be in Iraq and I don't think we should fund Iraq.

Now if I was a Democrat campaigning right now, I'd have to face allegations of not supporting the troops (well, duh) and being un-Patriotic.

If your Republican strategy is to create catch-22's, congratulations. But that's not an effective homeland or foreign policy strategy and since we've apparently sacrificed progress in the way of winning the debate and winning the election, you can be happy to consider yourself winners of what you're turning into a terrible place to live.

[uppy]

Some times war is necessary.

2003 wasn't necessary.

I thought 9/11 happend in 02

[comericatigers]

The fact that you pay attention to the analogy above the point is part of the point.

???

[comericatigers]

I don't think we should be in Iraq and I don't think we should fund Iraq.

Now if I was a Democrat campaigning right now, I'd have to face allegations of not supporting the troops (well, duh) and being un-Patriotic.

If your Republican strategy is to create catch-22's, congratulations. But that's not an effective homeland or foreign policy strategy and since we've apparently sacrificed progress in the way of winning the debate and winning the election, you can be happy to consider yourself winners of what you're turning into a terrible place to live.

I thought not funding the troops would force them to come home and save lives. Deomcorates can save lives. Sounds pretty patriotic to me. Oh wait, Dems would not win power with that strategy in the short term. They are all talk no action.

[Matt]

I thought not funding the troops would force them to come home and save lives. Deomcorates can save lives. Sounds pretty patriotic to me. Oh wait, Dems would not win power with that strategy in the short term. They are all talk no action.

Not funding the troops forces them to come home and saves lives if the administration doesn't deem the current funding as appropriate. What is your point though, exactly?

That no matter what the Democrats do, unless they support the war, will not win the power and will constitute all talk and no action? Because....? Because they aren't doing what you want?

Are you just a baseless hate monger?

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

I thought 9/11 happend in 02

try 2001. war 2003.

[Matt]

I thought 9/11 happend in 02

What?

[Matt]

try 2001. war 2003.

Wow, lol

[uppy]

try 2001. war 2003.

My mistake, the war started 9/11 2001

[Matt]

My mistake, the war started 9/11 2001

That's a pretty big mistake coming from a supporter of America's current foreign relations strategy, don't you think?

[uppy]

That's a pretty big mistake coming from a supporter of America's current foreign relations strategy, don't you think?

Shit happens ,I hit the wrong key

[comericatigers]

Not funding the troops forces them to come home and saves lives if the administration doesn't deem the current funding as appropriate. What is your point though, exactly?

That no matter what the Democrats due, unless they support the war, will not win the power and will constitute all talk and no action? Because....? Because they aren't doing what you want?

Are you just a baseless hate monger?

If the Dems truly want to save lives and end the war, they should not continue to fund the war. The Dems say the war is lost. Why fund the war if it is lost?

Actually supporting the war is not popular and the Dems only do what is popular at the time. Example--Supporting the war in the beginning (popular times) Now not supporting the war is popular. Sounds like a John Kerry flip flop. Well I have to be bipartisan. Many prominant republicans no longer supprort the war either. The point is the Dems should make true on their statements. If the war is lost, stop the money (they let Bush have a blank check) and brinng our boys and girls home.

[uppy]

try 2001. war 2003.

The war on terror started when we where attacked on 9/11

[Matt]

The war on terror started when we where attacked on 9/11

Iraq is not a part of the War on Terror.

Iraq was a war against Weapons of Mass Destruction, that didn't exist due to faulty intelligence. Get with the program of your parties lines.

[Matt]

If the Dems truly want to save lives and end the war, they should not continue to fund the war. The Dems say the war is lost. Why fund the war if it is lost?

Actually supporting the war is not popular and the Dems only do what is popular at the time. Example--Supporting the war in the beginning (popular times) Now not supporting the war is popular. Sounds like a John Kerry flip flop. Well I have to be bipartisan. Many prominant republicans no longer supprort the war either. The point is the Dems should make true on their statements. If the war is lost, stop the money (they let Bush have a blank check) and brinng our boys and girls home.

Only the Dems do what is popular at the time? You're just a forum pundit, apparently. That is a ridiculously naive, one-sided and unfair comment.

I wouldn't fund the war, of course I don't have a deciding vote in the matter due to indirect democracy in all of its glory. And before you go making more Mark Wohlers like accusations, I didn't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) in the most recent Congressional elections. Thanks.

[uppy]

Iraq is not a part of the War on Terror.

Iraq was a war against Weapons of Mass Destruction, that didn't exist due to faulty intelligence. Get with the program of your parties lines.

Iraq is part of the war on terror and so will Iran

[Matt]

Iraq is part of the war on terror and so will Iran

That's a pretty broad definition of the War on Terror, you've got, there.

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

Iraq is part of the war on terror and so will Iran

No, these wars are wars against the people against whom we are fighting.

[uppy]

That's a pretty broad definition of the War on Terror, you've got, there.

Iraq is part of the global war on terror.IMHO, the failure to firmly establish

this theme has been one of our major failures. We simply lost the language

skirmish to the Left, who talk about two wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. They

should have been set up as campaigns in the larger war against islamic

totalitarianism, no different from North Africa in WWII. This also puts people

thinking about a long war, which was predicted.What you have seen Matt is

the left harping on the two or three war themes for the last three years.

You are a young guy so you may not be use to this tactic that has been

enployed by the left since the 60s

[notacon]

The intelligence was collected during the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both Dems, Repubs, and most of the world thought Iraq had WMD's. The intelligence was wrong. The Bush administration and congress based their decision to go to war off of that intelligence. Bush did not lie, the intelligence was wrong. Wrong intelligence is not entirely Bush's fault.

Nonsense.

The GOP talking points.

Bush and co. brought the WMD to a higher level talking about nuclear capability...unmanned drones that could reach our shores...and close ties to al Qaeda...ALL LIES!

The intelligence from Clinton's day was spot on. What it said was that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's and almost all of his capability to produce more was totally destroyed.

It was the 5% that was in question.

Bush overhyped the 5% and uncertainty that surrounded his capability.

In any event it was the nuclear capability and ties to al Qaeda LIES that sealed the deal.

Why do you think they outed a CIA agent?

Jeeesh. The gullible that continue to spread the GOP lies are dangerous.

[notacon]

Iraq is part of the global war on terror.IMHO, the failure to firmly establish

this theme has been one of our major failures. We simply lost the language

skirmish to the Left, who talk about two wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. They

should have been set up as campaigns in the larger war against islamic

totalitarianism, no different from North Africa in WWII. This also puts people

thinking about a long war, which was predicted.What you have seen Matt is

the left harping on the two or three war themes for the last three years.

You are a young guy so you may not be use to this tactic that has been

enployed by the left since the 60s

It's unbelievable to me that one person could be so ignorant of reality.

[uppy]

Nonsense.

The GOP talking points.

Bush and co. brought the WMD to a higher level talking about nuclear capability...unmanned drones that could reach our shores...and close ties to al Qaeda...ALL LIES!

The intelligence from Clinton's day was spot on. What it said was that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's and almost all of his capability to produce more was totally destroyed.

It was the 5% that was in question.

Bush overhyped the 5% and uncertainty that surrounded his capability.

In any event it was the nuclear capability and ties to al Qaeda LIES that sealed the deal.

Why do you think they outed a CIA agent?

Jeeesh. The gullible that continue to spread the GOP lies are dangerous.


WMD..where a small part of the reason for the battle of Iraq the main reason

is the war on terror and the need for bases to figh it

[uppy]

It's unbelievable to me that one person could be so ignorant of reality.

Point out whats ingorant

[Green Lantern]

Iraq is part of the global war on terror.IMHO, the failure to firmly establish

this theme has been one of our major failures. We simply lost the language

skirmish to the Left, who talk about two wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. They

should have been set up as campaigns in the larger war against islamic

totalitarianism, no different from North Africa in WWII. This also puts people

thinking about a long war, which was predicted.What you have seen Matt is

the left harping on the two or three war themes for the last three years.

You are a young guy so you may not be use to this tactic that has been

enployed by the left since the 60s


I find the ignorant part of this post to be that you ignore that we are propping up the totalitarian regimes in the middle east right now.

[uppy]

I find the ignorant part of this post to be that you ignore that we are propping up the totalitarian regimes in the middle east right now.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...I'm simply trying to illuminate the

terrain in which we currently find ourselves deployed.Question,Aqua what

would happen if the goverment of Pakistan fell and was taken over by islamic

nuts and how many hours would it take India to go to war to protect its self?

Next question is do you want to pay $10 bucks a ga for gas ?

We do what is needed to do.

[Green Lantern]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...I'm simply trying to illuminate the

terrain in which we currently find ourselves deployed.Question,Aqua what

would happen if the goverment of Pakistan fell and was taken over by islamic

nuts and how many hours would it take India to go to war to protect its self?

Next question is do you want to pay $10 bucks a ga for gas ?

We do what is needed to do.

I suppose India might go to war if it felt threatened. I am pretty sure they would consider their options after the dictatorship fell based on what the new government had to say to them. I don't think they would go straight to war just because some new form of totalitarianism ruled next door to them.

Want to pay $10? I'll pay what it costs. I seem to remember it was cheaper before we went into Iraq though.

[comericatigers]

Only the Dems do what is popular at the time? You're just a forum pundit, apparently. That is a ridiculously naive, one-sided and unfair comment.

I wouldn't fund the war, of course I don't have a deciding vote in the matter due to indirect democracy in all of its glory. And before you go making more Mark Wohlers like accusations, I didn't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) in the most recent Congressional elections. Thanks.

Matt, I am not personally attacking you.

[Matt]

Matt, I am not personally attacking you.

I know.

[uppy]

I suppose India might go to war if it felt threatened. I am pretty sure they would consider their options after the dictatorship fell based on what the new government had to say to them. I don't think they would go straight to war just because some new form of totalitarianism ruled next door to them.

Want to pay $10? I'll pay what it costs. I seem to remember it was cheaper before we went into Iraq though.

My thinking is if Pakistan fell to islamic crack-pots India would have no other

choise but get ready for war with people that have the bomb.In fact the

whole world would need to come to grips with this fact.

[comericatigers]

Nonsense.

The GOP talking points.

Bush and co. brought the WMD to a higher level talking about nuclear capability...unmanned drones that could reach our shores...and close ties to al Qaeda...ALL LIES!

The intelligence from Clinton's day was spot on. What it said was that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's and almost all of his capability to produce more was totally destroyed.

It was the 5% that was in question.

Bush overhyped the 5% and uncertainty that surrounded his capability.

In any event it was the nuclear capability and ties to al Qaeda LIES that sealed the deal.

Why do you think they outed a CIA agent?

Jeeesh. The gullible that continue to spread the GOP lies are dangerous.

I could be wrong but I never heard about this 5% shit. Can someone please provide a reliable link? I would really like to know.

[coryjd]

I could be wrong but I never heard about this 5% shit. Can someone please provide a reliable link? I would really like to know.

Another liberal arguing point.

[35Pete]

The Dems DID have a say in WWII. They were solidly in power and defeated the enemy.

They were led by one of the best presidents...and the BEST war time leader this country has ever seen...Franklin D. Roosevelt.

THAT war was a real and necessary one against a real enemy that was a true threat to this country.

Iraq is a unnecessary war based on LIES against an overinflated non-existent threat. The Iraq war is exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed to be done to protect the country.

The biggest mistake the Democrats did is allowing Bush to wage it in the first place. They should have exposed him for the lying weasel he is.
FDR was a criminal and a thug. We covered that already.

[notacon]

FDR was a criminal and a thug. We covered that already.

FDR was the best war time leader this country has ever seen...he was a true American HERO...he also was one of our best president. We did cover that already.

[notacon]

I could be wrong but I never heard about this 5% shit. Can someone please provide a reliable link? I would really like to know.

Scott Ritter, Head of UN weapons inspector in the 90's, has continually contended and has testified to Congress, that 90% to 95% of Iraq's WMD's were destroyed in the 90's.

Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html)


As a former UN inspector, I'm also familiar with the level of disarmament achieved concerning Iraq's banned WMD. And during my time in Iraq, 95 percent of the WMD produced by Iraq were verifiably accounted for. But I've always contended that Iraq is a WMD archaeological site, and that if one digs long enough, vestiges of these past WMD programs will be uncovered. Determining whether the discovery of the sarin artillery shell represents such an archaeological discovery, or is part of Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpile of WMD, rests with a full forensic exam of the shell.

[deconstruction]

What tool started this thread?

[Gilly]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon042307.gif




i did, i found an excellent comic that states the dems current position on Iraq.

[Ralonzo]

Bush is the WORST leader this nation has ever seen...period!

Ahem:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/images/lsea_0001_0001_0_img0012.jpg

This is where your partisanship becomes a little too obvious, and thus devalues all of your other posts.

[Ralonzo]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070418/bok.gif

[Matt]

i did, i found an excellent comic that states the dems current position on Iraq.

Explain to me, rationally, what is wrong with coming home? Explain to me, rationally, what harm it does?

[Matt]

Ahem:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/images/lsea_0001_0001_0_img0012.jpg

This is where your partisanship becomes a little too obvious, and thus devalues all of your other posts.

James Buchanan sucked all sorts of bag. Hell if Ronald Reagan's Conservatism empowers these sorts of people, I'm not even sure how you give him a passing grade.

This is not what conservatism used to be.

[Gilly]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070418/bok.gif

:rofl: that one better than then my original

[Ralonzo]

http://www.kollinger.com/_toons/reid427.jpg

[Ralonzo]

http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/13372/2000498776834384495_rs.jpg

[nehemiah]

i like the cartoons.... but we're talking about human beings here.

you're using cartoons to buttress the argument that more Americans need to die.

makes me a bit queasy. :barf:

[Gilly]

naw, US doesnt surrender, wus reid needs to learn that

[Matt]

lol

"But we're winning!!!"

What the hell are we winning? The War on Principle?

[nehemiah]

btw, your cartoons are not based in fact.

:rofl:

[ticatfan3]

FDR had to lie thru his teeth to get america involved in the war, if it was not for FDR, america would have waited until the nazi's had complete control over europe before she would have gotten involved and it would have cost a lot more then it did.

[Matt]

FDR had to lie thru his teeth to get america involved in the war, if it was not for FDR, america would have waited until the nazi's had complete control over europe before she would have gotten involved and it would have cost a lot more then it did.

Which in and of itself makes lying an enviable quality!

[Green Lantern]

FDR had to lie thru his teeth to get america involved in the war, if it was not for FDR, america would have waited until the nazi's had complete control over europe before she would have gotten involved and it would have cost a lot more then it did.

And knowing this, that Americans, by nature, do not really care about the conflicts and stupidities of the rest of the world since they have the luxuries of oceans separating them from the most of the world and peaceable neighbors, why would our current president try and sell us on a war that will take "20 years" during a moment of heated public passion after 15 terrorists killed 3,000 people, do you think?