Loyalty — that is the only reason Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) can imagine supporting President Obama’s Syria resolution.
“If [Obama] gets saved at all, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,”...
Democrats Don't Want to See Obama "Shamed and Humiliated on the National Stage
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.
They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.
Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.
The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.
Demokrats...
Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?
WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.
They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.
Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.
The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.
Demokrats...
Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?
WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.
They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.
Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.
The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.
Demokrats...
Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?
WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?
Aside from your BS claim that it is something only dems do, I have to agree it is a pretty bad reason to vote for war and I would certainly look to a primary challenge for her position because of such idiocy.
Unfortunately we have partisan hypocrites on both sides, again, still, same old same old. But Zim, the questions you ask of congress are irrelevant considering lack of support from their constituents, the fact that (don't know how many times this must be said) an attack on Syria would be a direct violation of our constitution, a violation of international law, a violation of logic, really people, is it really so difficult?
Obama didn't set a red line ... humanity set a red line - Nancy Pelosi, 9/3/2013
... and the very next day damage control goes international ...
View attachment 67153090
How bad is that?
Show me where Republicans have sent troops to war and then stabbed them in the back when they were on the battlefield. You can't. We don't do that treasonous crap. It's the Demokrats special, and vile niche.
I understand it's hard to swallow... but tough darts. You folks did it... man up. Admit it, own up to what everyone that was over 12-years old knows as fact... for you were so proud and full of yourselves when you were smashing our men and women on the battlefield. And for what? To tear down a popular president.
Where is Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore these days, and why isn't the press camping on their doorsteps?
I find it interesting that you want to see the President of the United States shamed. That just doesn't seem normal.
He painted himself into a corner.
Now he's gone to Congress after all his jaw boning, and has done so for political purposes. To cover his ass and to set it up to use as a weapon for 2014. I listened to some in the US media and they were flabbergasted by his little I'm going to Congress about face.
He's played this so badly I can't see him being able to do what he and his party intend, but then... he's got one hell of a loyal propaganda machine.
Now this crap. The leaders of the world look at this clown and think what a moron. They also realize he's a snake. He must think these leaders are as stupid as much of the American electorate.
Obama is a liar, and he's made it known in the most public of ways. In Europe nobody knows of his lies and deceits concerning Benghazi, but they sure have gotten a good whiff of the Obama Administration latrine this time round.
At home, I hope Republicans in Congress realize WTF's up.
Obama didn't set a red line ... humanity set a red line - Nancy Pelosi, 9/3/2013
... and the very next day damage control goes international ...
View attachment 67153090
How bad is that?
Over the last 5 years, the Republican party have included some of the most unpatriotic people you could ever find.I find it interesting that you want to see the President of the United States shamed. That just doesn't seem normal.
Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?
WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?
What's funny about your picture is the fact you use the word "us" when condemning him for saying it was an international red line. The word "us" could conceivably include the international community.
You would think with the incredible amount of experience Republicans have with removing context to dishonestly slam the President, they could at least recognize when removing context works against you. Apparently not.
Over the last 5 years, the Republican party have included some of the most unpatriotic people you could ever find.
He's not my "guy". And I agree the context works against Obama, that was my point. Stripping the context, in this case, made YOU look silly because "us" could include the international community and the context surrounding the quote indicates that was not Obama's original meaning. In other words, your picture is a giant fail. I would think people like you, with such experience in stripping context to criticize would understand when stripping context would work against you, but you clearly do not.Except the context worked against your guy.
You want context? Go ahead and add the entire quote ... it doesn't help you ... try it ... you'll see.
He was NOT indicating it was an international red line. NOT.
Don't denigrate yourself by trying to promote that party line like Pelosi & Kerry.
I didn't use the entire quote because it was an image.
He's not my "guy". And I agree the context works against Obama, that was my point. Stripping the context, in this case, made YOU look silly because "us" could include the international community and the context surrounding the quote indicates that was not Obama's original meaning. In other words, your picture is a giant fail. I would think people like you, with such experience in stripping context to criticize would understand when stripping context would work against you, but you clearly do not.
Was my point really that difficult for you to understand? I could write it slower for you next time, if you think that may help. Oh, and you couldn't fit the entire thing on the picture? Here's an idea...don't use the picture. Free advice, you're welcome.
The Demokrats
openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.
Where were the Rightists asking these questions about Iraq? All of a sudden somebody uses WMD, someone cut from the same cloth as Saddam, and NOW it's a bad idea?
Of course Democrats don't want to see their guy look bad. Is that really a surprise?
You don't seem to be getting it. That's okay, I'm not really surprised. I'll explain it one last time for you, and I promise I'll type slower.Yeah ... write it slower next time ... take all the time you need to explain why professional cartoonists don't reproduce entire speeches in their work ... this should be fascinating ... coming from experts like you, I mean.
See you in the Basement.
You don't seem to be getting it. That's okay, I'm not really surprised. I'll explain it one last time for you, and I promise I'll type slower.
It is a bad idea to strip context from something when stripping said context makes you look foolish, rather than the person you are attacking. You posted a picture which stripped the necessary context to support your point and instead posted something which actually could be seen as supporting what Obama said. In other words, the picture was stupid and you should not have posted it because it worked against the point you made.
.I don't think I could type it any slower than that
My words were actually worth quite a bit, especially had you taken my advice. I was actually advising you on how to properly criticize and when not to strip context.Here's an idea for you to consider ... don't type anything at all if it ain't WORTH anything at all.
There ... we're done now.
What you point to is perpetual partisan politics that keep America doing the wrong thing. Every strong partisan on this board is more concerned about their party saving face than they are about our country or the next country in our crosshairs.
I agree, but I don't think you can look at "Demokrats" playing partisan politics without looking at the "Republikans" who do the same thing. The same people who ran around screaming about Saddam having WMDs are now saying we shouldn't do anything about Saddam's buddy Assad. How much of that had to do with not embarrassing THEIR guy?
I was against Iraq, and I am against involvement in Syria. Personally, I think staying out is the best thing to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?