T1B

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:55 pm**

Pomeroy to Howard Dean:Shut up

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.

On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.

Pomeroy later told the Associated Press that he is tired "of the overblown rhetoric on both sides."

"We have young men and women with their lives on the line," he added. "The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."

Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.

"He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats," Pomeroy said. "As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."

Dean backtracked on his statements somewhat Thursday, saying his assertion that the United States cannot win the war was reported "a little out of context," and that Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on Pomeroy's remarks.

Pomeroy said he also is frustrated with Republicans who have politicized the war and a recent House debate on Iraq that became heated and angry. During that debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt implied that Democratic Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was a "coward" because he called for troops to pull out of Iraq. Schmidt later said her remark about Murtha was a mistake.

"I thought the debate on the House floor was shameful," Pomeroy said. "It was loud, strident and partisan."

Pomeroy, who has visited Iraq three times, said he believes the United States must stay in the country for now to achieve progress on national security, the creation of a stable government and the establishment of a functioning economy.

In 2002, Pomeroy joined 215 Republicans and 80 other Democrats in voting to authorize force in Iraq.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... 106702.prt

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:01 pm**

ChargerMike wrote: "He is not hired to make major policy announcements... As our party chairman...

So Dean has the balls* to step up, and the hawks of both parties are melting down and shitting their pants.

* Even though I think Dean is full of shit and a liar about any Iraq strategy.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:12 pm**

"The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."

RACK

Marty, Dean has the balls to step up and voice the opinion of you and a few others on the fringe of the left. He's not speaking for mainstream Democrats.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:32 pm**

OCmike wrote:
"The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."
RACK

Marty, Dean has the balls to step up and voice the opinion of you and a few others on the fringe of the left. He's not speaking for mainstream Democrats.

Bullshit he isn't.

sin

Chimpy's 15% approval rating amongst registered Democrats

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:43 pm**

OCmike wrote:
"The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."
RACK

Marty, Dean has the balls to step up and voice the opinion of you and a few others on the fringe of the left. He's not speaking for mainstream Democrats.

Dude, you forget who you're talking to.

I look over to the Right, and see Dean.
Your political spectrum is far more incestuous than your myopia allows you to comprehend.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:08 pm**

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:
"The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."
RACK

Marty, Dean has the balls to step up and voice the opinion of you and a few others on the fringe of the left. He's not speaking for mainstream Democrats.
Bullshit he isn't.

sin

Chimpy's 15% approval rating amongst registered Democrats

Like Presidential approval ratings from registered voters in the opposition party are ever more than 15-20%... And don't pull out a red herring where it happened once and claim like it's the norm.

Additionally, we aren't addressing some anti-Bush comments made by Dean, which would make your post relevant. We're talking about Dean's comparison of the Iraq war to Vietnam and his insistence that we will lose if we stay. I hope you're not saying that 85% of the registered libs are dumb enough to believe there are any more parallells to Iraq and 'nam than both had bullets a'flying.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:17 pm**

OCmike wrote:Like Presidential approval ratings from registered voters in the opposition party are ever more than 15-20%... And don't pull out a red herring where it happened once and claim like it's the norm.

How about we look at the polls concerning Bush's handling of the war? You know damn well registered Dems (the people Dean is speaking for) are solidly against this cluster fuck in Iraq.

Additionally, we aren't addressing some anti-Bush comments made by Dean, which would make your post relevant. We're talking about Dean's comparison of the Iraq war to Vietnam and his insistence that we will lose if we stay. I hope you're not saying that 85% of the registered libs are dumb enough to believe there are any more parallells to Iraq and 'nam than both had bullets a'flying.

Yes, I am saying that the majority of rank and file Dems agree with Dean. Pomeroy is a blue dog in a red kennel looking to save his hide.

You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:47 pm**

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:Like Presidential approval ratings from registered voters in the opposition party are ever more than 15-20%... And don't pull out a red herring where it happened once and claim like it's the norm.
How about we look at the polls concerning Bush's handling of the war? You know damn well registered Dems (the people Dean is speaking for) are solidly against this cluster fuck in Iraq.

Apples and oranges. I think most people, regardless of affiliation, think Bush has handled the war poorly. That, and being pro/con the Iraq war are two seperate issues.

Yes, I am saying that the majority of rank and file Dems agree with Dean. Pomeroy is a blue dog in a red kennel looking to save his hide.

Most CA dems that I know of have their jaw hit the floor every time a new Dean quote is played on TV. Seems like an odd way to show solidarity or agreement.

You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?

No, because having been in the military, I have a big picture perspective and I understand that wars are not fought and won at microwave speed. With a war fought by pussies who hide amongst the public using mosques, women and children as shields, this is especially true. It's going to take a while when there isn't a standing army to fight.

Sure, I can see how if you watch the evening news it would get a bit discouraging, but I have friends who are over there and other friends who send along e-mails from relatives or friends, that tell me what it's really like. Our reporting in Iraq is basically done like a crime blotter where nothing positive is reported. If there were a California News Service that only reported murders in this state, don't you think they could fill up a nightly newscast with just those grisly scenes in Bakersfield, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, El Cajon, etc? There's easily 10 murders a day in this state, just like there's about 10 soldiers killed a day in Iraq. But they choose to talk about other stuff on the news here, but for "some reason", when it comes to Iraq, the national news only wants to report on the deaths or other negative stories.

I'll give you a perfect example: We keep hearing about how we're spending all of these tax dollars to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure when it could be spent here in the USA. Over and over they beat that drum. Now when was the last time you saw frame one of footage from Iraq showing what that money has gone to build? Anyone?...Bueller? Exactly. God forbid that NBC, CBS or ABC actually show something positive happening in Iraq!

I'll give you another example: When the oil pipeline was continuously being bombed at the close of formal hostilities, we heard over and over about how unsafe it was and that we could never secure it from sabotage. Now when was the last time you heard of the pipeline being bombed? And how many positive stories have you heard about how well-secured it is now? Thanks for playing.

Don't tell me the people in this country aren't being programmed what to think by our lefty news services. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see it just by flipping on a TV set. The ratio of positive to negative stories happening in Iraq, according to people who are there, is 90-to-10. But all we hear about here in the states is the negative 10, and that fucking sucks.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:01 am**

Martyred wrote:Dude, you forget who you're talking to.

I look over to the Right, and see Dean.

How proud.

Safe to say you've never actually worked to earn anything of your own in your entire life.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:30 am**

poptart wrote:
Martyred wrote:Dude, you forget who you're talking to.

I look over to the Right, and see Dean.
How proud.

Safe to say you've never actually worked to earn anything of your own in your entire life.

Show's how much you know.

I work hard enough to maintain my house, and a little bit left over to help
the less fortunate brothers and sisters.
But then, I'm a Socialist living in a Socialist country.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:12 am**

OCmike wrote:Apples and oranges. I think most people, regardless of affiliation, think Bush has handled the war poorly. That, and being pro/con the Iraq war are two seperate issues.

Over half of all Americans thing the war was a mistake. How do you fingure a majority of DEMOCRATS bucking that trend and agreeing with Bush?

Most CA dems that I know of have their jaw hit the floor every time a new Dean quote is played on TV. Seems like an odd way to show solidarity or agreement.

Never mind that you are probably mistaking social nicities for true political belief. You live in a district where a Member of Congress can say "Every lesbian spearchucker is hoping I get defeated", and get re-elected.

No, because having been in the military, I have a big picture perspective and I understand that wars are not fought and won at microwave speed.

Let the chickenhawk smack commence.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:27 am**

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:Apples and oranges. I think most people, regardless of affiliation, think Bush has handled the war poorly. That, and being pro/con the Iraq war are two seperate issues.
Over half of all Americans thing the war was a mistake. How do you fingure a majority of DEMOCRATS bucking that trend and agreeing with Bush?

Agree with Bush? I thought we were talking about the war. Stop play "Fun with Engrish", BSmack-san.

Here's the thing... I think that many people, like yourself were originally against the war for whatever reason. Many others followed suit when there were no WMDs found. 99% of the rest who now claim that they are against the war were given their opinion by the nightly news brainwashing and the constant near daily bombardment by pollsters asking them slanted questions like "Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake?" When those lemmings say they're against the war, I take it with a grain of salt. If the major networks started airing all positive stories about Iraq tomorrow

....seriously, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...okay, I'm better now...those same sheep would be all for the war in Iraq and you know it. So how about we settle this pre-civil war-style and go for a 3/5's compromise on at least 50% of those who claim to be against the war? :D

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:Most CA dems that I know of have their jaw hit the floor every time a new Dean quote is played on TV. Seems like an odd way to show solidarity or agreement.
Never mind that you are probably mistaking social nicities for true political belief. You live in a district where a Member of Congress can say "Every lesbian spearchucker is hoping I get defeated", and get re-elected.

BWAHAHAHAHA....totally true. Funny thing is, you drive 20 miles east west or south of here and they'd string someone up for saying that.

OCmike wrote:No, because having been in the military, I have a big picture perspective and I understand that wars are not fought and won at microwave speed.

Let the chickenhawk smack commence.

What, no "seaman/semen" reference? Really, you're slipping. :D

In all seriousness, with the exception of Grenada and Panama, which weren't large scale wars by any stretch, no wars are fought in weeks or months, they're fought in several years...even in the best of circumstances where you're kicking the shit out of the enemy.

A substantial portion of those currently against the war feel the way they do because things have "taken so long". Truthfully, they didn't have realistic expectations going into this thing. Bush said straight out that this wouldn't be over any time soon and these folks just gave a wink and a nod, like Bush was sandbagging or something.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:05 pm**

OCmike wrote:
A substantial portion of those currently against the war feel the way they do because things have "taken so long".

Gee, I wonder how they ever got that idea?

Bush said straight out that this wouldn't be over any time soon...

No, Rumsfeld said the war on terror would not end in our lifetime.
Bush implied the Iraq war was over with "Mission Accomplished". Remember?

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:58 pm**

BSmack wrote:You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?

No, I don't. But then I don't look at this as a one theatre war simply contained within Iraqi borders. It should be a worldwide effort to bitchslap every terrorist friendly country...taken them down in a methodical effort. Call it what you want...that, to me, is the only way to "win" this deal. And there's not going to be a winner..ever. I'd prefer to at least crack a few heads while they're killing us. Of course, we can go back to the pre-9/11 strategery of hiding our heads in the sand (which includes W as well as his predecessors). I think if you could ask the 3000 or so dead from that day, they might say that was a poor strategy. The best defense IMO is to punch them in the mouth. Beats waiting for the next 9/11. And to pull out further strengthens the view in the terrorist world that we're a paper tiger..just slowly bleed them and they'll lose their will. Nut up America.

Don't like it..fine. Vote for Dean. Volunteer to help Saddam. Post as Martyred. Just don't act like a fool and say we're losing. We're not...

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:00 pm**

Mississippi Neck wrote: Don't like it..fine. Vote for Dean. Volunteer to help Saddam. Post as Martyred. Just don't act like a fool and say we're losing. We're not...

We lost the war with Saudia Arabia the moment we elected that fuckstick as our president. They attacked us on 911 and brain dead fucks like you decided to be a traitor to this country by remaining ignorant.

The rest of you fucks who believe that a "label" is responsible for ruining this country are sheep. All they have to do is label something terrorist, liberal, Democrat, Republican and you uneducated dipshits immediately don't need an explanation why you should hate them.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:39 pm**

OCmike wrote:Agree with Bush? I thought we were talking about the war. Stop play "Fun with Engrish", BSmack-san.

Here's the thing... I think that many people, like yourself were originally against the war for whatever reason. Many others followed suit when there were no WMDs found. 99% of the rest who now claim that they are against the war were given their opinion by the nightly news brainwashing and the constant near daily bombardment by pollsters asking them slanted questions like "Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake?" When those lemmings say they're against the war, I take it with a grain of salt. If the major networks started airing all positive stories about Iraq tomorrow ....seriously, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...okay, I'm better now...those same sheep would be all for the war in Iraq and you know it. So how about we settle this pre-civil war-style and go for a 3/5's compromise on at least 50% of those who claim to be against the war? :D

I swear I remember a time when you used to make sense.

Must have been the drugs.

Maybe it is because the Dems I know are well educated reasonable people. But I don't know a single person who thinks Bush is fucking up who also thinks the war was a good idea. Those ideas pretty much walk hand in hand. So if you want to show me something that dispels common sense, feel free. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:Never mind that you are probably mistaking social nicities for true political belief. You live in a district where a Member of Congress can say "Every lesbian spearchucker is hoping I get defeated", and get re-elected.
BWAHAHAHAHA....totally true. Funny thing is, you drive 20 miles east west or south of here and they'd string someone up for saying that.

Just the same, you ain't exactly surrounded by a bunch of flaming libs. The only way you could get rid of B1 Bob was to find a Republican to switch parties.

OCmike wrote:No, because having been in the military, I have a big picture perspective and I understand that wars are not fought and won at microwave speed.

What, no "seaman/semen" reference? Really, you're slipping. :D

You must have missed Detard's diatribes against claiming millitary experience when determining one's fitness to evaluate millitary operations. How ironic that he's not here to properly chastize you.

In all seriousness, with the exception of Grenada and Panama, which weren't large scale wars by any stretch, no wars are fought in weeks or months, they're fought in several years...even in the best of circumstances where you're kicking the shit out of the enemy.

A substantial portion of those currently against the war feel the way they do because things have "taken so long". Truthfully, they didn't have realistic expectations going into this thing. Bush said straight out that this wouldn't be over any time soon and these folks just gave a wink and a nod, like Bush was sandbagging or something.

Tell me, did Rummy say they would greet us with roses or not?

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:21 pm**

Mississippi Neck wrote:
BSmack wrote:You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?
No, I don't. But then I don't look at this as a one theatre war simply contained within Iraqi borders. It should be a worldwide effort to bitchslap every terrorist friendly country...taken them down in a methodical effort. Call it what you want...that, to me, is the only way to "win" this deal. And there's not going to be a winner..ever. I'd prefer to at least crack a few heads while they're killing us. Of course, we can go back to the pre-9/11 strategery of hiding our heads in the sand (which includes W as well as his predecessors). I think if you could ask the 3000 or so dead from that day, they might say that was a poor strategy. The best defense IMO is to punch them in the mouth. Beats waiting for the next 9/11. And to pull out further strengthens the view in the terrorist world that we're a paper tiger..just slowly bleed them and they'll lose their will. Nut up America.

Don't like it..fine. Vote for Dean. Volunteer to help Saddam. Post as Martyred. Just don't act like a fool and say we're losing. We're not...

's

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:12 pm**

Mississippi Neck wrote:
BSmack wrote:You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?
No, I don't. But then I don't look at this as a one theatre war simply contained within Iraqi borders. It should be a worldwide effort to bitchslap every terrorist friendly country...taken them down in a methodical effort. Call it what you want...that, to me, is the only way to "win" this deal. And there's not going to be a winner..ever. I'd prefer to at least crack a few heads while they're killing us. Of course, we can go back to the pre-9/11 strategery of hiding our heads in the sand (which includes W as well as his predecessors). I think if you could ask the 3000 or so dead from that day, they might say that was a poor strategy. The best defense IMO is to punch them in the mouth. Beats waiting for the next 9/11. And to pull out further strengthens the view in the terrorist world that we're a paper tiger..just slowly bleed them and they'll lose their will. Nut up America.

Don't like it..fine. Vote for Dean. Volunteer to help Saddam. Post as Martyred. Just don't act like a fool and say we're losing. We're not...

Sounds great. We wage war at an unseen enemy until the end of time.

Tell me, when you got that talking point, did the GOP hack you got it from have the common courtesy to include a 20 sack and a bong?

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:33 pm**

dean? i could use some love-------

leiberman

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:37 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Mississippi Neck wrote:
BSmack wrote:You seriously do not understand that we have already lost?
No, I don't. But then I don't look at this as a one theatre war simply contained within Iraqi borders. It should be a worldwide effort to bitchslap every terrorist friendly country...taken them down in a methodical effort. Call it what you want...that, to me, is the only way to "win" this deal. And there's not going to be a winner..ever. I'd prefer to at least crack a few heads while they're killing us. Of course, we can go back to the pre-9/11 strategery of hiding our heads in the sand (which includes W as well as his predecessors). I think if you could ask the 3000 or so dead from that day, they might say that was a poor strategy. The best defense IMO is to punch them in the mouth. Beats waiting for the next 9/11. And to pull out further strengthens the view in the terrorist world that we're a paper tiger..just slowly bleed them and they'll lose their will. Nut up America.

Don't like it..fine. Vote for Dean. Volunteer to help Saddam. Post as Martyred. Just don't act like a fool and say we're losing. We're not...
Sounds great. We wage war at an unseen enemy until the end of time.

Tell me, when you got that talking point, did the GOP hack you got it from have the common courtesy to include a 20 sack and a bong?

you will never fully get rid of terrorism.

tell me how long your plan will take to get everyone in the world holding hands and singing kumbaya?

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:42 pm**

titlover wrote:
BSmack wrote:Sounds great. We wage war at an unseen enemy until the end of time.

Tell me, when you got that talking point, did the GOP hack you got it from have the common courtesy to include a 20 sack and a bong?

you will never fully get rid of terrorism.

tell me how long your plan will take to get everyone in the world holding hands and singing kumbaya?

I missed the part where Iraq was somehow relevant to the "war of terror" that we are fighting but can never (by your own admission) possibly win.

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I missed the part where Iraq was somehow relevant to the "war of terror"
That's because you're a dumbfuck. Who do you think we're fighting there, dipshit?

When I see logic like that, I am reminded of a classic Bill Hicks routine.

I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:23 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I missed the part where Iraq was somehow relevant to the "war of terror"
That's because you're a dumbfuck. Who do you think we're fighting there, dipshit?
When I see logic like that, I am reminded of a classic Bill Hicks routine.

I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

yeah, that's close to the same thing.

great analogy!

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:42 pm**

I swear I remember a time when you used to make sense.

No, you remember a time when I used to agree with you on a variety of topics.

Must have been the drugs.

I admit, considering I'm going on my 3rd surgery in 2 years on my brittle twigs, I've had more than my share of Demorol, Percocet, Vicodin and Darvocet recently. :D

Maybe it is because the Dems I know are well educated reasonable people. But I don't know a single person who thinks Bush is fucking up who also thinks the war was a good idea.

Maybe so, but they are not one and the same. I kept bringing the point up, because every time I'd talk about one subject, you'd keep trying to flip things to the other.

Those ideas pretty much walk hand in hand. So if you want to show me something that dispels common sense, feel free. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They're not synonymous, as is evidenced here by Detroit, mvscal and just about anyone else that you'd characterize as a Republican, who have been openly critical of Bush, but are in favor of the war.

Just the same, you ain't exactly surrounded by a bunch of flaming libs.

SoCals, with the exception of San Diego County, the ultra-rich areas like Malibu, and OC are waaaaay to the left of the spectrum.

You must have missed Detard's diatribes against claiming millitary experience when determining one's fitness to evaluate millitary operations. How ironic that he's not here to properly chastize you.

You using Detroit as a barometer now?!

In general, I'd say that the posters on T1B who have served in the military are exceptionally well qualified to comment on military operations. Although I like to think I know what I'm talking about, I don't include myself in that...that's for others to decide.

Tell me, did Rummy say they would greet us with roses or not?

Yes, he said it. They were going to have 1-800-flowers fly in 10 million roses for Iraqis to pass out to US soldiers, but they knew people like you would whine about it being a no-bid contract.

BTW, continually trying to use Rummy's hyperbole as some sort of "a-HA!" against Bush and co is really fucking stupid. Get some new material, douche.

T1B

Fellow Dem. tells Dean..SHUT UP

Fellow Dem. tells Dean..SHUT UP

Re: Fellow Dem. tells Dean..SHUT UP