AhmedIsolationist Speaks Bullshit
December 15th 2007 11:02
From the words of a Congressman
How misleading, we have been to war in World War 2 and... well yeah, World War 2 showed peace was useless and we needed war.
What lesson? Oh, the bullshit about peace not war. Yeah well better it doesn't learn a bad lesson.
No he didn't, we all know the Presidents objective is to bring world peace and to stabilize Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people. That's quite clear.
Say what? Clearly you are wrong, let me explain:
Tules of engagement are: blow everything up.
Timetable for withdrawal: When the job is done.
Legitimate definiton of victory: When the job is done, how is that not a legitamite definition!?
Contingency plan for mission creep: I dunno what a mission creep is so I'm going to go ahead and say there is because you've been wrong about everything else.
Funding program: Borrow, borrow, borrow and who said we have to pay back what we borrow?
What's vital to national interests: We need to end terrorism damn it, remember 9/11? Helooooo.
Strategic plan for war: Well duh, blow everything up, make a big fuss about how the MSM is not reporting all the good news and go from there.
No plan today: Well I'll give you that, who needs a plan? Gut instincts are a marvelous substitute.
So who made that wonderfully inaccurate statement? Well a Republican, when? During Bill Clintons administration. Why? Cos he's gay and he forgot conservative principles involve not being gay.
I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace.
How misleading, we have been to war in World War 2 and... well yeah, World War 2 showed peace was useless and we needed war.
This administration is just learning that lesson right now.
What lesson? Oh, the bullshit about peace not war. Yeah well better it doesn't learn a bad lesson.
The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions.
A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
Say what? Clearly you are wrong, let me explain:
Tules of engagement are: blow everything up.
Timetable for withdrawal: When the job is done.
Legitimate definiton of victory: When the job is done, how is that not a legitamite definition!?
Contingency plan for mission creep: I dunno what a mission creep is so I'm going to go ahead and say there is because you've been wrong about everything else.
Funding program: Borrow, borrow, borrow and who said we have to pay back what we borrow?
Strategic plan for war: Well duh, blow everything up, make a big fuss about how the MSM is not reporting all the good news and go from there.
No plan today: Well I'll give you that, who needs a plan? Gut instincts are a marvelous substitute.
So who made that wonderfully inaccurate statement? Well a Republican, when? During Bill Clintons administration. Why? Cos he's gay and he forgot conservative principles involve not being gay.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
