Looks like Pelosi's third-string...

[Yonivore]

...Intelligence Chair just bought himself a trip to the showers. How dare him.

‘We Can’t Afford to Leave’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/)

Can't wait to see how Nancy reconciles this with the new "cut and run" policy of the incoming Congress.

[clambake]

Link no workee, but Yoni approves of something from msnbc. Pigs now fly.

[ChumpDumper]

I got no problem with sending more troops. We never sent enough in the first place.

[Yonivore]

I got no problem with sending more troops. We never sent enough in the first place.
Who gives a fuck with what you do or do not have a problem. From all outward expressions, the Pelosi-Murtha cut-n-run cabal DO have a problem with it.

You rag on the President appointing Gates as Defense Secretary because the media misreports his statement to the Confirmation Committee but you've got no problem with the fucked up appointments Pelosi is making on the incoming committee assignments?

[Bob Lanier]

What I don't get is why you have such a problem with Pelosi, other than the fact that she represents your team's rivals. She's not particularly leftist (and frankly well to the right of the city she represents) and is nearly as much a liberal interventionist as Bush himself. She hates China with a fervor that would make the furthest-right American xenophobe blush, and never misses an opportunity to bitch about "human rights" and whine about Tiananmen Square.

And if she's indeed fucking up so much, one would think her opponents would treat her Speakership with more approval than, well, concern.

[ChumpDumper]

Who gives a fuck with what you do or do not have a problem.You, obviously.
You rag on the President appointing Gates as Defense SecretaryNo, that's a decent enough appointment. His yes-man intel slanting was bothersome, but now there's no Soviet Union to fear or charismatic president to suck up to.
but you've got no problem with the fucked up appointments Pelosi is making on the incoming committee assignments?I've got no problem with sending more troops. We never sent enough in the first place.

You are an idiot.

[Yonivore]

You, obviously.
Nope, I checked...my original post doesn't indicate that I was awaiting your opinion on the matter.


No, that's a decent enough appointment. His yes-man intel slanting was bothersome, but now there's no Soviet Union to fear or charismatic president to suck up to.
'scuse me, you "ragged on" about the fact that he appointed someone who the media misreported as having stated we were losing in Iraq while the president maintained we are winning.

Again, I could care less if you think the appointment was decent or not; I was commenting on your apparent hypocrisy in addressing this vs. Pelosi appointments.


I've got no problem with sending more troops. We never sent enough in the first place.

You are an idiot.
Okay, now you're repeating yourself. Go take an alzheimer's test.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, I checked...my original post doesn't indicate that I was awaiting your opinion on the matter.Yet you reply to every one of my posts. You care, Yoni.
'scuse me, you "ragged on" about the fact that he appointed someone who the media misreported as having stated we were losing in Iraq while the president maintained we are winning.I said he contradicted the president, who said we were winning, by saying we are not winning. You are the one who changed the subject by whining about misreporting. I said exactly what Gates said, and pointed out that Bush said the opposite. You did nothing to reduce the disconnect in the two statements except say that Gates said we weren't losing after a break.

Fine.

Bushie said we are winning.

Gates said we are not winning.

There is a difference in the two statements.

Period.
Okay, now you're repeating yourself.I did because you didn't have someone there to read it for you the first time.

[Yonivore]

Yet you reply to every one of my posts. You care, Yoni.
It's a forum, that's what you do. Seriously, if I could put you on ignore, I would. I can't and, so, the idiocy you spew just begs retort. It's entertaining.


I said he contradicted the president, who said we were winning, by saying we are not winning. You are the one who changed the subject by whining about misreporting. I said exactly what Gates said, and pointed out that Bush said the opposite. You did nothing to reduce the disconnect in the two statements except say that Gates said we weren't losing after a break.
Then, of course, there was the "at this time," ending to his statement. And, given the political situation in this country, I think that's a fair characterization. The outcome in Iraq is largely dependent on whether or not the Left, in this country, is successful in breaking our will to win in Iraq.

So, at this time, Robert Gates has a fairly reasonable assessment, we're neither winning nor losing in Iraq, at this time. We in a crucial period where we'll decide whether the cut-'n-runners or the stay-the-coursers will prevail.

Fine.

Bushie said we are winning.

Gates said we are not winning.

There is a difference in the two statements.[/quote]
When taken out of context, sure. Try putting them back into context of the entirety of the statements from which they came and you'll find Secretary Gates and President Bush are not far apart -- if at all -- on the Iraq question and that Gates was responding to a fundamentally different question than was the President.


Period.
End quote.

[ChumpDumper]

When taken out of context, sure. Try putting them back into context of the entirety of the statements from which they came and you'll find Secretary Gates and President Bush are not far apart -- if at all -- on the Iraq question and that Gates was responding to a fundamentally different question than was the President.:lmao

The question was "are we winning in Iraq?"

[Yonivore]

:lmao

The question was "are we winning in Iraq?"
And, I believe his response was, "we are neither winning or losing, at this time." Or words to that effect.

Not exactly a direct refutation of the President's assessment.

[ChumpDumper]

Not exactly a direct refutation of the President's assessment.Yeah, in Yoniworld is a rousing reinforcement. Complete agreement.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, in Yoniworld is a rousing reinforcement. Complete agreement.
No, in "Yoniworld," both statements are taken out of context and paraded around in typical Leftie-fashion; as if the greater body of the dialog being had by both President Bush and Secretary Gates had no relevance or bearing on the sound-bite snippets you cart out to demonstrate some conflict between the two.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

It ceratinly is significant. One has to figure that there are differences in between Gates and Bushie simply because Gates was hired to formulate a different approach to Iraq than Bushie followed the past three years.

[clambake]

You don't think it's interesting that he went to lunch, came back from lunch, and was somehow compelled to alter his original statement?

[PixelPusher]

You don't think it's interesting that he went to lunch, came back from lunch, and was somehow compelled to alter his original statement?
Original Statement:

Sen. Levin: Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?

Gates: No, sir.

Sen. Levin: Prime Minister Maliki said...(continues with different question)

Video - WMP (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Gates-Hearing-Levin-Iraq-12-05-06.wmv)

[clambake]

I couldn't find it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And, I believe his response was, "we are neither winning or losing, at this time." Or words to that effect.

Not exactly a direct refutation of the President's assessment.

Dude, put down the shovel and quit digging. You're making yourself look bad.

I think it's pretty clear that Gates doesn't agree with how Rummy ran the war, which is an indirect criticism of how Bush was running it as he's the one who had the right to dictate the direction.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni is having trouble reacting to my approval of a Bush appointee.

[exstatic]

Dude, put down the shovel and quit digging. You're making yourself look bad.

I think it's pretty clear that Gates doesn't agree with how Rummy ran the war, which is an indirect criticism of how Bush was running it as he's the one who had the right to dictate the direction.
Dude, you're chastising a web-bot. :clap

[Nbadan]

Gates is a defacto Bush43 appointee. You can't tell me Condi, Dick, or Dubya came up with this choice.