Text 37328, 199 rader
Skriven 2006-08-24 12:48:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: Lieberman and OBL
=========================
 ...

 RW>>> Which they don't already. Somehow I don't see how a
 RW>>> legitimate polictical party can stab a person in the back,

 BK>>  You mean like the Republicans stabbed McCain in the back?

 RW> They did?

 The rumor they got started that he fathered a black child
 qualifies. The smears about his military service, that he
 betrayed the other POWs, and that he was unstable because of his
 time as a POW, also qualifies.

 BK>>  No political party stabbed Lieberman in the back.

 RW> That's not what the press is saying.

 The press has gotten too much in the habit of kissing Bush's
 butt.

 BK>> The voters chose another candidate after Lieberman stabbed the
 BK>> democratic party, and their presidential nominee, in the back.

 RW> LOL! A primary election by the democrats for the democrats
 RW> doesn't speak for all of the voters. But the results surely

 It speaks for the democrats who cared enough to vote. That's
 what primaries do.

 RW> do. The whacko far left backstabbed lil' Joe for honestly
 RW> stating the facts.

 So, now you think opposing a candidate is back stabbing? Don't
 want any competition for office?

 BK>>  Holding office through a party does not confer lifetime support.

 RW> More BS...

 You think once elected you are entitled to be nominated forever?

 BK>>  Lieberman has turned against the principles the democratic party
 BK>>  supports. His choice. That's what elections are all about.

 RW> It seems like the libs have gone too far to the left...but

 I'm not interested in what libs did, I'm interested in what
 democrats do.

 ...

 RW>>> especially one who ran as a Presidential candidate just two
 RW>>> years ago.

 BK>>  Anyone can *RUN* as a presidential candidate. Lieberman was more
 BK>>  interested in Lieberman than in America, it would seem.

 RW> Who was the VP candidate with Algore? You don't get there
 RW> by the seat of your pants.

 Why not? How did Quayle get there?

 BK>>  McCain ran as a presidential candidate 6 years ago.

 RW> I voted for him, to send a message to Bush.

 I voted for him because I thought he was the best choice. After
 he kissed up to the Religious right and Bush he lost my respect.

 BK>> Bush's people smeared is family. How are the republicans not much
 BK>>  worse?

 RW> I don't recall anybody smearing him, let alone the Bush
 RW> family.

 Bush supporters started a rumor that McCain had fathered a black
 child. Which he and his wife are raising. That's the child they
 adopted from Bangladesh.

 RW>>> But thus is the nature of the far left liberal Democratic party...

 BK>>  Thus is the current temper of the American people.

 RW> BS.

 Read the polls. Or do you know by some mystical means?

 BK>> Remember, 75% of the troops in the field in Iraq support the
 BK>> timetable for withdrawal that Lieberman so arrogantly disdains.

 RW> You took a poll? Where are the stats? Didn't think so.

 I'm sure you didn't think when you posted that.

 Or is the Army Times too far left for you? I found the same info
 on the Stars and Stripes website.

 http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1566644.php

 **************************************************************************
 February 28, 2006

 Troops poll: Pull out of Iraq in six months

 By Gordon Trowbridge
 Times staff writer

 About half of American troops in Iraq believe the U.S. military
 should leave the country within six months, and three out of
 four think they should pull out within a year, according to a
 first-of-its-kind attempt to scientifically gauge the opinion of
 troops in a war zone.

 The poll, released on Tuesday by national pollster John Zogby,
 includes face-to-face interviews of 944 randomly selected
 military personnel at four large U.S. bases. Among the findings:

 ? 29 percent said U.S. troops should withdraw immediately.
 Another 22 percent said the U.S. should withdraw within six
 months, and 21 percent within a year. Just 23 percent said they
 believe troops should remain ?as long as they are needed.?

 ? 58 percent said the reasons for the U.S. mission in Iraq is
 clear in their minds; 42 percent said it was unclear or they
 were unsure.

 ? 85 percent said they believed a main reason for invading Iraq
 was ?to retaliate for Saddam?s role in the 9/11 attacks.? That?s
 despite the fact that there is very little concrete evidence
 linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, and that several independent
 inquiries have found no links whatsoever between Saddam and the
 attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

 Zogby, a widely recognized pollster who has done work for NBC,
 the Wall Street Journal and other organizations, conducted the
 poll for the Le Moyne College of Syracuse, N.Y., his alma mater.
 He said he is unaware of any previous attempts to independently
 and scientifically poll troops deployed to a combat zone.

 Stars and Stripes, an independent publication produced under the
 auspices of the Defense Department, did an unscientific survey
 of thousands of troops in 2003, finding low morale and other
 issues. In January, the annual Military Times Poll ? which
 surveys readers of the Military Times papers as representative
 of career-oriented troops ? found support for the Bush
 administration?s policy in Iraq slipped significantly in 2005.

 Zogby said his poll used civilian surveyors to randomly select
 troops for face-to-face interviews at four large U.S. bases in
 Iraq. The technique is similar to those used by U.S. pollsters
 to perform exit polls outside voting precincts on election day.

 Zogby said he could not reveal more information on the
 personnel used to perform the surveys, or specify which bases
 were polled, because of concerns for the security of the
 interviewers.

 More results are available on Zogby?s Web site
 <http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075>.

Copyright © 2006

 **************************************************************************

 BK>>  Or do you consider the troops in the field to be "far left"?

 RW> All of those I've seen and heard from support what is going
 RW> on there now. Those who oppose it have declined to go,

 About 3/4ths decided we should be out within a year, after they
 went.

 Or are you counting the troops who had letters published in
 their hometown papers, then, when they were contacted, said they
 didn't know anything about them?

 Or are you counting that Military officer, rank and service
 varied according to the account, who's letter about the
 wonderful things we were doing in Iraq was circulated in various
 newspapers and web sites, and chain emails? Which letter later
 turned out to have been mainly a copy of a speech L. Paul Bremer
 gave to a meeting about Iraq.

 RW> which ends up in a courts martial, sending them to prison.
 RW> Those are the far left you represent.

 The 75% of US troops in the field in Iraq as above. I'll gladly
 accept the part of representing them.

 Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove and Bush most certainly don't.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Why do republicans hate America's Veterans so much?  <Alternet>
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)