Meowwwwwwwwww! Catttyyyyyy. lol. I said I was wrong...pull in the claws.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman). Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything. Talk about calling the kettle black. He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her? She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever. He's going to have a hard time explaining that one.

Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people. He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women. I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.

She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything. Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him. His ego is taking over and its going to sink him. He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water. Never mind her radical christian viewpoints. Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that. How could he have gotten it so wrong? Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick.

Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate. Hello President Obama.

It looks like they are getting very serious about doing this. They aren't alone in this kind of talk. I think Texas and North or South Carolina have been talking this way, too.

Sorry libs...I know that's a disappoinment to you, but if Hillary is elected, and I still think it's a big IF, sounds like she's going to "stay the course".

I know that's got to be a big disappointment to those who think she's going to undo all of Bush's decisions.

You better watch her very closely, because what you see may not be what you get.

British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.

Not with the Senator who absolves the priests of blame and instead blames the Liberals.

No. Instead something is definitely wrong with ME for my outrage that a Republican Senator can make such an outlandish, IRRESPONSIBLE statement, instead of trying to SAVE these children and condemning what the priests are doing. Unfortunately, this is typical of the Republican party these days. Typical of the "We are perfect and make no mistakes" mentality that's prevalent in this country. They couldn't be honest if their lives depended on it.

Not everyone is a liar. Only the ones who have done it on this board before and don't deserve to be trusted or believed again.

What posts are you talking about? Either I wasn't here then or you're wrong. I've read through most of the posts but don't remember seeing that. Prove it.

I corrected myself. I admitted to my mistakes. I always admit to my mistakes, and believe me, I make a lot of them. I'm even harsher on me than the neocons are.

If the neocons could just admit to theirs, the dialogue might be more productive.

If you're right then I'm wrong. However, I find dealing in knowns a better way to logistically deal with any scenario. You can what if yourself all day long and never get anywhere.

Despite the UN ruling that Israel completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon (UN, June 18, 2000), Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel still holds Lebanese territory in eastern Mount Dov, a 100-square-mile, largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its activities against Israel. Thus, after kidnapping three Israeli soldiers in that area, it announced that they were captured on Lebanese soil. Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic hilltops in the area, maintains that the land was captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported Hizballah's claim. According to the Washington Post, the controversy benefits each of the Arab parties. For Syria, it means Hizballah can still be used to keep the Israelis off balance; for Lebanon, it provides a way to apply pressure over issues, like the return of Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails. For Hezbollah, it is a reason to keep its militia armed and active, providing a ready new goal for a resistance movement that otherwise had nothing left to resist. In January 2005, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning violence along the Israel-Lebanon border and reasserted that the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions.

I never said this person was sent to SHUT DOWN down the board, as I was accused of saying by the rude, rabid person you're defending.

I said this person was sent to crash the board (as in INVADE the board, as in someone who would CRASH A PARTY).

Yes, I made the mistake of posting on the other board twice before I read further and realized the nature of these boards. I haven't repeated that mistake since.

I suppose I can expect 3,869 more posts from you to make us even for my two posts.

After reading some posts by you on your board (such as Prophecy certainly is being fulfilled. So much of the world has turned their back on Israel.), I can totally understand your blind, unquestioning loyalty to Israel. You obviously believe the end times are near, and if you don't support Israel, you won't get to spend eternity with people like Ann Coulter. People like you scare me because I believe you will do anything it takes to self-fulfill that prophecy. That is yet another reason why religion and politics don't mix; I can't help but wonder if God told Bush to bring the end times about, which he seems to be intent on doing with his bomb first, ask questions later tactics. After all, God told Bush to go to war with Iraq, and Bush obeyed that order.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice, with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55�45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50�50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

So....even though he was not convicted and not told to step down from office....he was still impeached. Only one president has been impeached and told to step down and that was President Andrew Johnson...I do believe. President Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached.

It is not that the Soup Nazi didn't have any soup, it is just that he was free to deny soup to anyone he felt was not deserving of it. The same goes for us. We are not obligated to respond to your demands for documentation if we feel you are not deserving of it. Therefore, no soup for you!