jstein wrote: > You've just presented the "stab in the back" talking > point very nicely, thank you. > The stab in the back are all those congressional leaders who voted to go to war against Iraq and now say they didn't mean to go to war with Iraq, the Dems and Pubs and people like you.
The Dems could have prevented the mistake in the first place if they have not voted to authorize the President to use force against Saddam. The Dems could have prevented 9-11 if they had done their job. The Dems could have won the war in Korea and in Vietnam if they weren't such back-stabbers. The Dems could have provided U.N. food aid in Somalia instead of retreating like cowards from Mohamed Farrah Aidid. > > *Nobody* is "invested in failure" in Iraq. Of all the > > right's calumnies, that is perhaps the most unspeakably > > vile. > > > > It's the old "stab in the back" strategy, dragged out > > and dressed up in an effort to excuse the failures > > that have already occurred. > > > > Flanigan's sentence says it all Judy. He doesn't care if > > it works. He just wants it over and for us to say it solved > > nothing. > > > He wants us to RECOGNIZE that it solved nothing; that's > already a fait accompli, and most Americans realize it > by now. > Stop the lying, Judy. Over 50% of voting Americans voted for Bush AFTER the Iraq invasion. Over 90% of Republican voters still support the war. 99% of all congressional leaders voted to use force to oust Saddam. The U.S. congress voted aginst de-funding the war effort in Iraq. > I'd add that it has not only solved nothing, > It has solved the question of who is willing to fight to win a war. > it's created a vast mountain of new and > To vote to go to war, then vote to retreat in defeat before winning the war, is not only a back-stab and a slap-in-the-face to every fighting soldier, it is a national shame. > significantly more dangerous problems. > And you want to give the federal government the job of providing national health care? Go figure.
