Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Pre-election Democratic talking point: "Bush has farked up Iraq; we can do better." Post-election: "Iraq is Bush's war and Bush's problem, not ours"   (conservative.org) divider line
115
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

385 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Dec 2006 at 5:33 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



115 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
nickyhopkins
2006-12-01 2:17:14 PM  
Um. It's always been Bush's war?
 
GaryPDX
2006-12-01 2:23:18 PM  
That sounds consistent.
 
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them
2006-12-01 2:27:05 PM  
The dems need the war to help them in 2008. Don't expect anything to change.
 
keylock71
2006-12-01 2:27:17 PM  
[image from conservative.org too old to be available]


"Trust me, I really saw this exchange happen..."
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-12-01 2:29:42 PM  
Good to see they've stuck by their principles.
 
Mordant
2006-12-01 2:38:37 PM  
The best way to reconcile two seemingly different statements is to look for something that is common to both. I hope your day is a Glorious One, submitter.
 
ratboy
2006-12-01 2:50:15 PM  
Iraq is Dems' tar-baby

Dems tar-babies is takin' all de white wimmins.
 
mediaho
2006-12-01 3:26:16 PM  
What are they going to do, declare an end to the war they never declared? The President is still the Commander in Chief.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 3:35:18 PM  
mediaho: What are they going to do, declare an end to the war they never declared? The President is still the Commander in Chief.

ahhhhh, how about cut the funding for it?

/just saying
 
MrWhipee
2006-12-01 3:40:42 PM  
This war is Bush's legacy. When people look back on his Presidency in the future, his name and the Iraq war will be permanently linked.

/as it should be
 
mediaho
2006-12-01 3:41:08 PM  
DAR: ahhhhh, how about cut the funding for it?

I don't see that happening, but if there's some kind of oversight as to who is getting the billions that keep disappearing, I think that's a good thing.
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-12-01 3:54:09 PM  
Really? The Dems largely ran on the platform that the war was bad and illegal and that it was Bush's fault. As a group they didn't have any solution to the mess at the time. They still don't have a solution. It seems that most of the aren't stupid enough to think that a withdrawal will help anything. They just want to use the war to help win elections.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 3:57:56 PM  
mediaho: who is getting the billions that keep disappearing

True, but the new bunch of crooks will just alt-route the money to their own rich buddies and the cycle of Wash DC corruption will continue as it always has.

It all about power and money, always has been and always will be.

Stock Market Hint:

1) Find out which defense industry companies the Democrat's kinfolk (wife's, brothers, cousins, etc), have stocks in.
2) Invest in those companies.
3) Profit!!!

Its how the game works. There's lots of money to made in Washington DC.
 
HumbleGod
2006-12-01 4:01:45 PM  
DAR: ahhhhh, how about cut the funding for it?

Wouldn't happen. No one will risk being tarred by the opposition as "cutting funds to our troops." Funding won't be reduced significantly until we pull out.

Ultimately, the only thing Democrats CAN do about this war is begin oversight investigations. The idea that "the new bunch of crooks will just alt-route the money to their own rich buddies" is certainly no excuse for continuing the rubber-stamping lack of oversight that was the hallmark of the 108th and 109th Republican-controlled Congresses.
 
Tabatha Static
2006-12-01 4:31:52 PM  
[image from i27.photobucket.com too old to be available]

This is a surprise? Anyone who thinks that the Democratic Party is "anti-war" is as dumb as pillowcase full of doorknobs.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-12-01 4:43:36 PM  
I think both parties are "anti-war."

The Dems are just anti-defense too, which is a bit of a problem.
 
PatMcCroch
2006-12-01 4:49:47 PM  
This war of choice was bushs and the dems shouldn't have to clean up the mess of repugs even tho thats what usually happens.

>> Tabatha Static

Love that pic, it reminds me of what kind of trash we have serving these days. Its nowonder we can't defeat a bunch of rock throwing rag-heads with the quality of troops we have.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-12-01 4:59:12 PM  
But you still support the troops right?

Somehow I think your way of thinking is not uncommon with our new leadership in Washington.
 
Giblet
2006-12-01 5:02:52 PM  
PatMcCroch: Its nowonder we can't defeat a bunch of rock throwing rag-heads with the quality of troops we have.

DIAF.

Do better, then whine about how someone else doesn't cut it.

How many tanks have you driven? Right.

Punk.
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2006-12-01 5:03:49 PM  
PatMcCroch: Love that pic, it reminds me of what kind of trash we have serving these days. Its nowonder we can't defeat a bunch of rock throwing rag-heads with the quality of troops we have.


Thanks for checking in Charlie.

Maybe you should sign up and show them how it's done.
 
Wraithbane
2006-12-01 5:03:52 PM  
HumbleGod
no excuse for continuing the rubber-stamping lack of oversight that was the hallmark of the 108th and 109th Republican-controlled Congresses.

Why not? It worked so well all the way up till then....
 
flavor of the month
2006-12-01 5:42:54 PM  
Pre-election republican talking point: democrats dont have a unified message and that means they shouldnt be in charge

post-election republican talking point: the well oiled message machine of the democratic party has a sole, unified message that nobody in the party deviates from
 
CHAZZZ
2006-12-01 5:44:54 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: But you still support the troops right?

Somehow I think have faith your way of thinking is not uncommon with our new leadership in Washington because I'm a partisan

Fixed.
 
The Why Not Guy
2006-12-01 5:45:11 PM  
It's mildly amusing watching our Republican friends trying to blame Democrats for the failure - yes, I said it - in Iraq. But when I remember how much is at stake, and how much we've lost because of a poorly conceived and poorly executed war, sudddenly it's not so amusing anymore.

The Bush administration screwed up, and big. Funny how more than a few Farkers who supported this administration and helped make Iraq what it is today are trying to point the finger of blame somewhere else. Point all you want... it won't change history.
 
AntiNerd
2006-12-01 5:47:52 PM  
Reading the anti-Dem posts here, starting with submitter, it is obvious that no set of facts or circumstances will change their worldview where Bush is wise, just, noble, honorable, and a genius, where all Democrats are stupid, cheaters, corrupt, lying and total dysfunctional losers.

Why bother with facts when your world is already made up?

And please spare us the followup about how some "liberals" are already culpable. Sure they are, but a majority of the country finally came to the realization of what a complete set of f**ckups the Bushies are. Pout and deny it all you want.
 
Bill_Wick's_Friend
2006-12-01 5:50:23 PM  
It's mildly amusing watching our Republican friends trying to blame Democrats for the failure - yes, I said it - in Iraq.

...especially since five weeks ago there was NO failure in Iraq. Any talk of "failure" was just propaganda from the 'liberal media'. Iraq was a growing success, and they all knew it to be true because Fox News said so, not to mention that there's a guy who lives next door who has a brother who is serving and HE says that it's not as bad as ya see on CNN!

Today? Iraq's a failure. Total debacle. Quagmire. Problem that the Democrats better fix pronto or it will prove how they are weak and ineffective and how unfit they are to govern.
 
FlashLV
2006-12-01 5:50:57 PM  
nickyhopkins


Um. It's always been Bush's war?

O'Rly, I thought congress aproved it.\


Guess I was wrong.
 
Shut........UP
2006-12-01 5:52:13 PM  
"It's mildly amusing watching our Republican friends trying to blame Democrats for the failure"

Ummm, no they're not blaming the Dems for what's going on in Iraq they're pointing out that the dems said things before the election and are now appear to be trying to back pedal from it.

This and the threads yesterday involving deciding to not keep the 9/11 commission campaign promises.
 
FlashLV
2006-12-01 6:02:36 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend

Today? Iraq's a failure. Total debacle. Quagmire. Problem that the Democrats better fix pronto or it will prove how they are weak and ineffective and how unfit they are to govern.

Just shows it works both ways. Remember the day you take over is the day it counts. So if by day one nothing changed it's their fault, it's the same BS put on Bush the day he took office.
 
Harry Pooter
2006-12-01 6:05:57 PM  
Realistically, what can the Democrats do from the Congress besides provide oversight on the spending? PotUS commands the military. It seems the two statements in the headline are mutually compatible.

I fully expect to see lots of Republicans turn on the war and start screaming about how bad it is once the Democrats take office, though.
 
PatMcCroch
2006-12-01 6:06:16 PM  
>>TheConvincingSavant

No, I don't support them. Look at some polls that have been taken 90% support bush and the war so I say fark them. BTW they havn't done anything that has been worth supporting since WWII
 
Harry Pooter
2006-12-01 6:10:02 PM  
No, I don't support them. Look at some polls that have been taken 90% support bush and the war so I say fark them. BTW they havn't done anything that has been worth supporting since WWII


STOP POSTING
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2006-12-01 6:10:23 PM  
Shut........UP: they're pointing out that the dems said things before the election and are now appear to be trying to back pedal from it.


Unpossible!
 
sacrileg
2006-12-01 6:14:24 PM  
FlashLV
Who presented the case for the Iraq War to the American people?
Who set the date for invasion?
Who said the troops would be greated as liberators?
Who used to few troups?
Who forgot about Osama?
Who didn't plan for after the invasion?
 
Soup4Bonnie
2006-12-01 6:14:56 PM  
I think we should take away whidbey's sponsorship privileges.
 
Uppercut Sonata
2006-12-01 6:17:02 PM  
Same shiat, different stink.
 
Neeek
2006-12-01 6:18:37 PM  
PatMcCroch, please stop agreeing with me. You make my side look ridiculous.
 
FlashLV
2006-12-01 6:19:01 PM  
sacrileg

Who presented the case for the Iraq War to the American people?
More than GWB

Who set the date for invasion?
That matters why?

Who said the troops would be greated as liberators?
Saddams out, new government in.

Who used to few troups?
According to many people, there were enough troops

Who forgot about Osama?
No one? Not sure what you mean, has anyone seen him?

Who didn't plan for after the invasion?
Don't know, do you have some secret clearance that gives you this knowledge of classified things?
 
mastethom
2006-12-01 6:19:11 PM  
Iraq is and has always been Bush's war and the pooch has certainly been utterly screwed by his fingers-in-the-ears, "LALALALALALA TELL ME SOMETHING THAT SAYS I'M RIGHT LALALALALALA!" style of leadership.

It is, however, our problem. Everyone. We've done our part by swapping out the serial fellators in Congress for people who, while not being terribly useful otherwise, ought to at least be reliable enough to tell Bush "NO!" and to smack him on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper now and then. Checks and balances, you know?

Of course, whatever they decide to do is directly related to how much any given course of action will benefit their "team" and their own careers. Hopefully, our interests as a nation and a citizenry, including cleaning up the President's mess, might occasionally coincide with a power grab and we'll be all set. Sort of.
 
Spiffjiggins
2006-12-01 6:19:25 PM  
[image from comic-mint.com too old to be available]

Oh! This should be sweet!!
 
fuhfuhfuh
2006-12-01 6:19:33 PM  
All of these pundits seem to be wasting their gifts. I mean, if they can see so easily into the future, shouldn't they be using that power to prevent atrocities or at least pick winning lottery numbers?
 
Korovyov
2006-12-01 6:19:34 PM  
Harry Pooter --
Yes, command lies with the President.


That said, this fact does not prevent others, including Congressmen, from offering suggestions -- publicly, privately or a mix -- about what should be done. They're also responsible for oversight; if that means using subpoena power to elicit testimony (and closed hearings as appropriate), they should.


It's also notable that the conduct of the Iraqi situation is probably not the only thing on the President's agenda. Provided he is interested in improving his expected legacy, it's almost certain that he'll need Congressional cooperation for at least some aspects of that. That gives them leverage.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-12-01 6:23:16 PM  
FlashLV: sacrileg

Who presented the case for the Iraq War to the American people?
More than GWB

Who set the date for invasion?
That matters why?

Who said the troops would be greated as liberators?
Saddams out, new government in.

Who used to few troups?
According to many people, there were enough troops

Who forgot about Osama?
No one? Not sure what you mean, has anyone seen him?

Who didn't plan for after the invasion?
Don't know, do you have some secret clearance that gives you this knowledge of classified things?

It must be tough being one of the only apologists left.
 
Tourney3p0
2006-12-01 6:26:45 PM  
It's not so much a "talking point" as it is a "single politician exchanging in completely informal talk with an old friend".

But then again, extrapolation has never been a strength of the dimwitted.
 
RecliningBuddha
2006-12-01 6:29:03 PM  
*sob*

[image from i20.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
sacrileg
2006-12-01 6:31:52 PM  
FlashLV

Instead of who set the date for invasion, who decided to invade?


Who didn't plan for after the invasion?
The knowledge is out there, you choose to ignore it though.
linky
 
ZangTT
2006-12-01 6:34:01 PM  
Congress != Commander in Chief

Wait till 2008 for this arguement
 
Saiga410
2006-12-01 6:34:33 PM  
I just cannot wait for the stuff going on in Iraq to be called a civil war. Then we can have all the dems scrambling to get troops there.

/Darfur anyone?

We need to stick in there and guarantee a stable government or else america is nothing but a douche.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-12-01 6:35:52 PM  
RecliningBuddha,


I love that picture.
 
TheOther
2006-12-01 6:36:04 PM  
Bush before the election: They don't have a plan.

Bush after the election: What's your plan?

You farked it up, you fix it.

And balance the farking budget while you're still in office, because that aint getting done by a Democrat president this time, either.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.