Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Senator Schumer commits treason

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

This guy has gone too far this time. He has blatantly trashed our military.

Watch the video here:

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007...k-schumer.html

Here's the money quote:

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

So not only is Schumer calling the troops incompetent, but he's calling them liars.

Where is the OUTRAGE?

Posted by: MAC1

I think Schumer's little speech discrediting the U.S. military in particular demonstrates how difficult it is for extreme left-wing democrats to think about victory in Iraq. It seems the greater the prospect for victory the more insane left-wing comments become. What's particularly disturbing is the seeming ease by which Schumer is willing and able to discredit the U.S. Military despite the valiant efforts of our soldiers and all involved. If Schumer had direct evidence to present to support his position such as testimony from tribal leaders and military officials then his comments would have more credibility. To the contrary, there is nothing indicating that he went to Iraq and discussed the situation with tribal leaders and others involved with fighting the terrorists. I doubt he has any clue about the efforts the U.S. Military has made to secure tribal leaders cooperation through diplomacy and assurances.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

I think Schumer's little speech discrediting the U.S. military in particular demonstrates how difficult it is for extreme left-wing democrats to think of victory in Iraq. It seems the greater the prospect for victory the more insane left-wing comments become. What's particularly disturbing is the seeming ease by which Schumer is willing and able to discredit the U.S. Military despite the valiant efforts of our soldiers and all involved. If Schumer had direct evidence to present to support his position such as testimony from tribal leaders and military officials then his comments would have more credibility. To the contrary, there is nothing indicating that he went to Iraq and discussed the situation with tribal leaders and others involved with fighting the terrorists. I doubt he has any clue about the efforts the U.S. Military has made to secure tribal leaders cooperation through diplomacy and assurances.

Exactly right. So he is smearing the troops in order to cover his own hind parts. That is disgraceful in the extreme. There are no superlatives to describe what a low level of scum would bash his own country's troops in order to score political points. Murtha's already done it, now a Senator from New York does it. These guys are out for themselves and that's it.

Anybody out there trust these Democrats to protect us from our enemies?

Posted by: Marcus

More from the Boy Who Cried "Treason!". You do realize that the more you throw around these ridiculous accusations, the more you look like a raving lunatic?

If you've got a problem with what Shumer said, then you should also have a problem with what the conservative New Republic says. A couple of excerpts:

Quote:

The most significant local ally of Coalition and Iraqi government in Anbar province — and surely in all of Iraq — is Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, or, more properly, Sheikh Abd al-Sattar, where “Abd” translates into “slave” or “totally subordinated” (to God, of course). Sheikh Abdul Sattar is instrumental in fighting and defeating al Qaeda; the incredibly influential Ramadi man sees al Qaeda as terrorists who seek to destroy his country and who are exploiting and murdering his people, Sunni and Shia alike. Al Qaeda wants him dead more than any other man in Iraq, and they have tried numerous times to kill him.

.......

Since the dramatic shift on the local level in Anbar province — thanks chiefly, though not solely, to the efforts of Sheikh Abdul Sattar and those who have joined him — the number of police recruits in Ramadi has risen to more than 800 per month since at least December. Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Forward and commander of Multinational Force - West in Iraq, said recently, “Last March [the number of recruits] was zero.” And the successful police recruiting in Ramadi continues. This, too, is counterterrorism.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

More from the Boy Who Cried "Treason!". You do realize that the more you throw around these ridiculous accusations, the more you look like a raving lunatic?

The lunatic is you (look in the mirror) and raving moonbats like you that have BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Schumer has become a raging lunatic, joining a large majority of the Democratic Party that has moved to the far left.

You needed to watch the Republican debate last night when another loon, Ron Paul, went off with his anti-war, anti-US rant and Arkansas governor Huckabee went after him.

Luntz, the guy that does the in-show polling had his machine rolling and the moderates and conservatives hooked up to the machine almost went off the chart in emotion when Huckabee was slamming Ron Paul. Most noticeable where the moderates. The majority of people in this country are still patriotic. There are a hell of a lot of people getting fed up with the Dems and what they are saying. Good 'ol fashioned Joe lunchbucket is going to reject the Dem Party come next election.

Do us a favor, go back to Daily Kos and DU where you can stay warm and fuzzy in your derangement and quit mirroring to us the failings of the party you hold so dear.

Schumer is a Piece of Sh!t. You know it, I know it and the American people will eventually hear of it and reject him and his Dem loons too.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Do us a favor, go back to Daily Kos and DU where you can stay warm and fuzzy in your derangement and quit mirroring to us the failings of the party you hold so dear.

Schumer is a Piece of Sh!t. You know it, I know it and the American people will eventually hear of it and reject him and his Dem loons too.

I'd rather stay here and torment you wack-jobs. If you don't like it, you can either ban me, or you can go back to FReeperland.com or blowjobsforbush.org.

And since we're lowering the bar, let me say that Bush is a Piece of Sh!t and the American people have already rejected him.

P.S. You need to add a smiley giving the bird. I'm sure it would be used often.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

And since we're lowering the bar, let me say that Bush is a Piece of Sh!t and the American people have already rejected him.

Yep. They rejected him in 2000 and again in 2004.

Stop projecting your own views onto the American people when the only polls that matter on that issue (presidential elections) tell the truth.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

It's funny how I ALWAYS hear you bashing Bush for destroying the Bill of Rights, but I NEVER hear you bashing Schumer for the damage HE'S done. The guy is a walking 2nd Amendment destroyer. What an absolute raving hypocrite you are. Intellectual honesty is an oxymoron to you, you have neither.

Must be miserable to be you, waking up every day mad at the world and hating everything your country stands for. You sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in, say, China? Surely you must think you have more freedoms there.

What a name-calling, blubbering fool. I used to think you were semi-intelligent. Turns out you are no better than Phil. What a waste of salt and dust.

There are about a hundred things Suck Chumer could have said about the surge, but he didn't have to bash the troops and call them incompetent. He could have praised the troops. He could have said we're winning the war. He could have said the Iraqis are finally able to work together thanks to the extra security our boys are providing. He could have acknowledged that the violence has decreased. All of those things are true. What he said was despicable. He found the absolute worst way to say something and he's now backtracking from it.

Hey TommyB, if what he said was so damned accurate, why is he backtracking? Excuse me, he's not backtracking, he's FALSIFYING the transcript of his actual remarks on his website! What an absolute COWARD.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

There are about a hundred things Suck Chumer could have said about the surge, but he didn't have to bash the troops and call them incompetent. He could have praised the troops. He could have said we're winning the war. He could have said the Iraqis are finally able to work together thanks to the extra security our boys are providing. He could have acknowledged that the violence has decreased. All of those things are true. What he said was despicable. He found the absolute worst way to say something and he's now backtracking from it.

Notice Schumer’s lack of restraint and utter indifference towards the efforts put forth by our troops and military leadership. Even if he didn’t want to say we’re winning the war, he could have easily shown more respect for the hard work and dedication that our soldiers have put forth. He could have easily chosen a more respectful and subdued tone. His lack of restraint is typical of what we have seen from the left-wing democrats including Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, and Kennedy. These are individuals fighting a war against republicans, so Schumer’s disgusting outburst is nothing surprising. His unwillingness to give the military and the Bush administration credit for anything done well in Iraq is patently clear. This is an individual who’s only interest is to see the heroic efforts of the United States military fail in Iraq. Indeed, recent comments by a couple of democrats demonstrate that they literally fear a victory in Iraq because it will empower the Republican Party and will increase republican chances of winning the presidency in 2008.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I don't recall defending him. I was just pointing out that he's not the only one who thinks that decreasing violence in Anbar isn't due to the surge. Could he have worded it differently to more clearly put the blame on the strategy and not the troops themselves? Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Must be miserable to be you, waking up every day mad at the world and hating everything your country stands for. You sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in, say, China? Surely you must think you have more freedoms there.

Actually, what I hate is that this administration is systematically destroying what this country stands for. As for moving to China, I'm not going anywhere. It's you and your ilk who would be much more at home there. Public criticism of the government is a criminal offense. Hell, it's even illegal to burn the flag! I'm tellin' ya man, it's right up your alley!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

What a name-calling, blubbering fool. I used to think you were semi-intelligent. Turns out you are no better than Phil. What a waste of salt and dust.

Your opinion of me has never been a concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I agree that he chose the worst way to say what he said. He's an idiot. But that doesn't make him a traitor. You ramp up the hyperbole too often, to the point where it diminishes the impact. Every time a Democrat opens his mouth, you're waiting with a firing squad.

I'm sick to death of any criticism of the strategy or even the war itself being considered pissing on the troops. It's clearly the leadership that is being criticized, not the troops, who are just doing what they're told to do. Any imbecile realizes that the troops can't be blamed for inept leadership.

Hypothetical question: Is there no war or battle, past, present or future, that you can imagine would ever justify questioning the leadership? Should we always support the president and his military policies no matter how badly things are going or how hopeless the outcome appears to be?

After all, I can train a chimpanzee to run around waving an American flag and slap a sticker on his back that says "Support the Troops". That doesn't make him a patriot.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Hypothetical question: Is there no war or battle, past, present or future, that you can imagine would ever justify questioning the leadership? Should we always support the president and his military policies no matter how badly things are going or how hopeless the outcome appears to be?

Pretty lame questions.
1. We should always support the President DURING a conflict, especially since our boys are following his orders and criticism of the war actually ENCOURAGES the enemy. Are you so banal that you don't understand the concept of morale? Jeez. Furthermore, can you name ONE SINGLE WAR the United States has ever actually LOST where we didn't actually just give up and go home? Hmm? I didn't think so. So why should we give up, just because things aren't going perfectly? You and YOUR ILK are nothing but a bunch of cowards.

2. Tell me, why does the outcome look hopeless to you? Even in the midst of trashing our troops, Sucky admitted tacitly that there is progress. So your FACTUAL basis for believing things are hopeless is...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

I'm sick to death of any criticism of the strategy or even the war itself being considered pissing on the troops. It's clearly the leadership that is being criticized, not the troops, who are just doing what they're told to do. Any imbecile realizes that the troops can't be blamed for inept leadership.

Your blind denial must be either willful or pathological. What part of "THE INABILITY OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO PROTECT THESE TRIBES FROM AL QAEDA" do you not understand?

You, sir, are completely intellectually dishonest to the point of being deranged. Keep those blinders on, it'll help you later when you have to start praying in the direction of Mecca.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Keep those blinders on, it'll help you later when you have to start praying in the direction of Mecca.

I am secretly working with several groups to put together a 'rally' for these left-wingers. You know they love to 'rally' so we are going to help them 'rally'.

We hope to get together about 500,000 of them.

Then, as an olive branch offer from the Bush administration to al-qaeda, we'll allow al-qaeda a 'free shot' at us as long as they pinpoint target one area of the U.S. Happily and coincidentally, this will be the same area that our left-wing loonies will be rallying in.

As a twist though, we'll give the loons a last second warning so they can try to peacefully negotiate and convince al-qaeda not to attack.

Should be some good entertainment watching these people hold hands and sing 'give peace a chance'.

POOOOF!
I'm sorry, I just woke up and had the most wonderful dream.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You, sir, are completely intellectually dishonest to the point of being deranged.

Ya got to admit Fossten, I did a pretty good job of drawing him out.

I've actually gotten pretty good at it.

I call it my 7th sense. My moonbat detector is almost perfected.

Posted by: Joeychgo

I watched the video, and was LOOKING for him to do what you accuse. I was all set to join you in your criticisms. I havent even read the whole thread yet.

The closest I heard him say was that the tribes in Anbar starting fighting because of the americans have been unable to effect a change. "The inability of American troops to protect these tribes from Al Qaida" is the quote I suspect your relying on.

In short, your characterization is offbase IMO. I dont think he was putting down the troops. The context of the speech is that we put out a fire in one place, then go someplace else to put out another fire, and the first one rekindles. This is why I said all along, we dont have enough troops there.

I dont believe he was putting down the troops, but instead putting down the strategy.

Its exactly what I have been saying from day one. In order to win, we need MANY more troops there. We need to clamp down on the whole contry, not just one province or another. IN 1991 we used 500k troops to eject Iraq from Kuwait. This time, we use 150k troops to control the whole country? It just makes no sense to me.

Im not debating whether we should have gone to war, im not talking about the lack of WMD found or any of that. We're there already. But we're there in a half assed way. THAT is the biggest mistake of them all and the one that is the worst IMO. We scared other countries in 1991 because we came down HARD and overwhelmed them with manpower, technology and brilliant strategy. We came off as a country not to be tangled with. I dont think we look like that now. I dont blame the troops for that, I blame GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld for that. I dont think Senator Schumer is blaming the troops either, and I think accusing him of that is simply twsting his words out of the context of the speech.

BTW - How many have seen this video: Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire Can someone tell me how this prediction hasnt come true?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I dont think Senator Schumer is blaming the troops either, and I think accusing him of that is simply twsting his words out of the context of the speech.

Classic state of denial. Schumer never mentioned the strategy, and that's because he would have had to admit that the strategy, which he ADVOCATED LAST YEAR, is working, to wit: Get the Iraqis to band together and fight Al Qaeda. VOILA! But he didn't say that, DID HE, JOEY? Nope. He said "the inability of the TROOPS." And there is no way to take that out of context because he began the sentence with "LET ME BE CLEAR." That means, Joey, (Do you live in Rio Linda, California?) that he is saying EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS. This is even worse than John Kerry's (who served in Vietnam) "botched joke."

And you again are ignoring the FACT that he has EDITED those words on his website. If he didn't say anything wrong, then why did he falsify his own transcript? DUH.

From Roget's Thesaurus Online:

Main Entry: inability
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: without skill
Synonyms: disability, disqualification, failure, frailty, impotence, inadequacy, inaptitude, incapability, incapacitation, incapacity, incompetence, ineffectiveness, ineffectualness, inefficacy, inefficiency, ineptitude, ineptness, insufficiency, inutility, lack, necessity, powerlessness, shortcoming, unfitness, weakness

Posted by: Joeychgo

I took the statement as to mean the inability of us to get the job done as things stand with current strategies. If he was condemning the tropps as being incompetant there would have been alot more said on that specific subject. There wasnt. He's saying the tribes are standing up only because we're not getting the job done.

The whole first half of the speech was about the strategy. Your taking one sentence and twisting it around to mean something that I dont believe it meant. No state of denial. Your twisting things out of context and out of the meaning intended by the author.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I took the statement as to mean the inability of us to get the job done as things stand with current strategies. If he was condemning the tropps as being incompetant there would have been alot more said on that specific subject. There wasnt. He's saying the tribes are standing up only because we're not getting the job done.

The whole first half of the speech was about the strategy. Your taking one sentence and twisting it around to mean something that I dont believe it meant. No state of denial. Your twisting things out of context and out of the meaning intended by the author.

Then WHY DID HE FALSIFY HIS OWN TRANSCRIPT?

LOL Joey your denial is hilarious.

Say whatever you want, he knows he screwed up, that's why he's trying to cover his own a$$. You're nothing but a sycophant for the Democrat Party.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

IThe whole first half of the speech was about the strategy. Your taking one sentence and twisting it around to mean something that I dont believe it meant. No state of denial. Your twisting things out of context and out of the meaning intended by the author.

Speaking of twisting facts, Schumer's many assertions throughout his speech that President Bush's Iraq strategy centers around tribal leaders fighting terrorists is a total fabrication. While it was and is hoped that tribal leaders and ordinary citizens will stand up to the terrorists, the various strategies were never dependent upon tribal leaders fighting terrorists. Accordingly, it becomes clear what Schumer is really thinking (and/or wants Americans to believe), which is that the U.S. Military is incapable of fighting terrorists in Iraq. However, in order to bolster this position he has to blatantly mischaracterize Iraq strategy. So Schumer begins with a false premise and then goes on to use it as a backdrop to discredit President Bush and the U.S. Military. While he has no problem giving credit to tribal leaders for bringing security, he nevertheless can’t bring himself to recognize the valiant efforts the U.S. Military. Recent polling in Iraq shows that citizens want the U.S. to remain for the time being as Iraqis recognize that the U.S. Military is integral to overall security and protecting them from the terrorists. Likewise, the government (as dysfunctional as it is) also wants the U.S. to remain, as it understands the heavy consequences that would befall Iraq should the U.S. pull out prematurely. Thus, these facts beg the question as to why Schumer is unable to see the big picture. It's obvious the answer is because he is primarily motivated by a political agenda, namely, democratic victories in 2008. He sees his war with the Republican Party as being more important than the War in Iraq.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

LOL Joey your denial is hilarious.

Say whatever you want, he knows he screwed up, that's why he's trying to cover his own a$$. You're nothing but a sycophant for the Democrat Party.

Its not a denial - I just dont agree that he commited treason and I believe people such as yourself are trying to twist his words to make him look bad.

Its the same thing as my saying Bush LIED about WMD to get us into the war or saying he was mistaken by faulty intelligence. Would you like me to list a few thousand times GW said somthing that could be taken another way? here is a nice group of such statments here: 'I want to know the truth,' president tells reporters ---

"I want to know the truth," --- But then later the story changes to "it wasnt classified because GW declassified it." Oh, ok. Then he knew the truth. SO he lied to the american public.

Dont bother defending him because I know that you'll just twist everything to justify his words. And you call me names. HA. I think those of you who call people bush haters need to look in the mirror and examine the people you hate.

Posted by: shagdrum

Those of us who realize all your slander against Bush is based purely on hatred ("bush haters") are just frustrated by the lack of rationality and intellectual honesty

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Well you obviously (stupidly) didn't watch the video, Joey, because you missed his emphasis and tonality, which I will re-create for you here, since I'm sure you don't have the balls to watch it:

"The inability of [emphasizes with pointed finger off to the side]American [pause for effect] soldiers [pause] to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda..."

He clearly emphasizes the word American in a make-no-mistake-about-it manner, right after saying "Let me be clear."

He's a liar, anyway. Al Qaeda is getting their asses reamed by our boys right now, and they are being humiliated across the Arab world. So he's full of crap. And people like you swallow his s*m*n whole.

You are a sheeple.

Back to the pasture, now.

Edit:

Democratic pattern of support for the troops since the war started:

Schumer: “Troops are incompetent”
Kerry: “Troops are illiterate dopes”
Reid: “Troops have failed with surge”
Pelosi: “Troops are losing the war, bring them home”
Kennedy: “Defund the troops”
Murtha: “Troops are cold-blooded killers”
Durbin: “Troops use Gestapo tactics”

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I took the statement as to mean the inability of us to get the job done as things stand with current strategies.

Should we agree to call it a parapraxis moment then?

(For those of you in Rio Linda, that would be a Freudian Slip?)

It seems all too common to see the hatred of Bush and current American policy manifest itself in 'mis-speaks' of the Democrat jargon.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Kerry: “Troops are illiterate dopes”

Um, Mr. Fossten, you missed a couple choice ones....

We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children.
John F. Kerry

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.
John F. Kerry

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.
John F. Kerry

The consequences of a crime should not be out of proportion to the crime itself.
John F. Kerry

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer - and Iraq is better - because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.
John F. Kerry

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
John F. Kerry

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
John F. Kerry

"there is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs. ... Iraqis should be doing that."
John F. Kerry

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

My moonbat detector is almost perfected.

Takes one to know one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

BTW - How many have seen this video: Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire Can someone tell me how this prediction hasnt come true?

Talk about a flip flopper. The only logical explanation for Cheney's change of heart is his new opportunity as VP to propigate a "perpetual state of war" which the neo-cons want to help ensure their claim to power. Too bad for them that us Americans are not as gullible as they think and (eventually) wise up.

On Schumer, I'm not going to defend him, but I do believe it was not his intention to insult the troops, but rather the strategy. As is typical though, the thread starter has pounced on a string of words and twisted it out of context to exagerate it into something it is clearly not. This is not suprizing though given his reputation of applying double standards, attacking one guy for SAYING something bad and attempting to retract it, while defending another (Craig) who actually DID something bad and admitted his guilt to boot.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

On Schumer, I'm not going to defend him, but I do believe it was not his intention to insult the troops, but rather the strategy.

Why am I not surprised? For liberals, it is always the 'intent' that should be measured, not the 'results'.

The lefties will never cease to amaze me.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Why am I not surprised? For liberals, it is always the 'intent' that should be measured, not the 'results'.

The lefties will never cease to amaze me.

You shouldn't be amazed at their antics. What should amaze you is the absolute BLINDNESS of half the country that continues to vote for these lowlife socialist haters. Case in point, Johnny will virtually admit that Schumer was wrong to say what he said, but he would still vote for him and all those like him, despite the harm they cause.

The country is truly insane.