About: Bush wants the surge now, armored vehicles later.

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Bush wants the surge now, armored vehicles later. Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

by user Sockmonkey This is from my co blogger at . She is always more polite than me. The troops that President Bush wants to surge now won't be getting their armored vehicles until the summer. We've been in Iraq four years and the debate on the floor of the House is the first. In four years. And the Republicans would like to have the debate without actually talking about Iraq. Perhaps a non-binding resolution stating that they prefer creamy peanut butter would be more to their liking. Let's rebut __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Bush wants the surge now, armored vehicles later.
rdfs:comment	by user Sockmonkey This is from my co blogger at . She is always more polite than me. The troops that President Bush wants to surge now won't be getting their armored vehicles until the summer. We've been in Iraq four years and the debate on the floor of the House is the first. In four years. And the Republicans would like to have the debate without actually talking about Iraq. Perhaps a non-binding resolution stating that they prefer creamy peanut butter would be more to their liking. Let's rebut __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
dcterms:subject	Opinions dbkwik:resource/KU0fwuf-ABALvvewya4OEw== dbkwik:resource/GqVXKdZVm8rf0-1Y7InNRQ==
dbkwik:opinion/pro...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/u-jz-Av2mHR2nunt676rtQ==
abstract	by user Sockmonkey This is from my co blogger at . She is always more polite than me. The troops that President Bush wants to surge now won't be getting their armored vehicles until the summer. We've been in Iraq four years and the debate on the floor of the House is the first. In four years. And the Republicans would like to have the debate without actually talking about Iraq. Perhaps a non-binding resolution stating that they prefer creamy peanut butter would be more to their liking. Our Republican friends are blasting democrats for a. not having a plan for Iraq now that they are in the driver's seat; b. not supporting the troops by debating the Iraq war; c. it's non-binding so "toothless". Let's rebut A. You were in the "driver's seat" for four years and you never had a debate on Iraq at least we're doing something. B. Claiming that someone else doesn't support the troops while you introduce a measure to cut funding for veteran's benefits seems somewhat, I don't know, hypocritical. I was going to go with the argument that everyone supports the troops but now I have to say YOU don't. You are willing to send them into harms way without adequate body armor, armored vehicles and you want to screw them when they come home. C. It's toothless. Perhaps it is. But when your colleagues in the Senate wouldn't even allow a toothless measure to get to the floor (including the person who wrote the resolution) is it really toothless? Or is it a way to get the ball rolling? Which we need desperately since every day more of our troops die. It's insulting that the Republicans just keep spinning instead of actually dealing with the "facts on the ground." And the other lie that frosts me like a cake is that Iran is the problem in Iraq. Who is supporting the Sunnis? It's not Iran. Rest of the post here: __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software