Hunter calls for Reid to step down over 'war is lost' remarks

[stephanie]

:clap: :salute:
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Hunter said Wednesday he thinks Sen. Reid should step down as the Senate majority leader.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Duncan Hunter called Wednesday for Sen. Harry Reid to resign his post as Senate majority leader over remarks that the senator made last week that the war in Iraq "is lost" if the United States continues on its current policy.

Hunter, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"In my opinion Sen. Reid, having made that statement, which can only have a demoralizing effect on our troops and an effect of encouragement of the adversary, I think it would be appropriate for Sen. Reid to resign his position as the leader of the United States Senate," he said.

Reid made his remarks Thursday, prompting an angry backlash from Republicans.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/hunter-calls-for-reid-to-step-down-over.html

[glockmail]

For consistency, he needs to call out a long list of Dems, starting with Pelosi.

[Gaffer]

reid definately needs to resign and take comrade pelosi with him.

[loosecannon]

LOL!!!!

Hillarious. Never mind the fact that Hagel, a rep and most of the nation agree. Including just about everybody who is actually informed enough to know, like the Baker Hamilton group.

STAY THE CURSE!!!!

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps we know who Reid has been channeling:


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/g/j/kerry_surrender_flag.jpg

[Samantha]

The President shouldn't step down for lying us into war.

Gonzales shouldn't step down for politicising the Department of Justice and lying about it.

Wolfowitz shouldn't step down for being corrupt.

But Reid should step down for voicing his opinion, the same opinion that many other people have already voiced?

You people are funny!

[avatar4321]

The President shouldn't step down for lying us into war.

The President didn't lie. Simply repeating the same Bull over and over doesnt make it true.


Gonzales shouldn't step down for politicising the Department of Justice and lying about it.

Gonzales didn't lie and did nothing unethical. The President has the power to fire his appointments at will.


Wolfowitz shouldn't step down for being corrupt.

Don't really care about Wolfowitz, but if you think he should step down for being corrupt, shouldnt you be calling for Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Jefferson, and about a dozen other corrupt Democrats resignation?


But Reid should step down for voicing his opinion, the same opinion that many other people have already voiced?

No the man should step down for undermining the troops, corruption, and lying.

[avatar4321]

LOL!!!!

Hillarious. Never mind the fact that Hagel, a rep and most of the nation agree. Including just about everybody who is actually informed enough to know, like the Baker Hamilton group.

STAY THE CURSE!!!!

If we lost, who won?

[Pale Rider]

If we lost, who won?

If we leave we'll lose, and that will be the legacy of the democrats. Hell what am I saying... it's ALWAYS been the legacy of the democrats.

[manu1959]

If we leave we'll lose, and that will be the legacy of the democrats. Hell what am I saying... it's ALWAYS been the legacy of the democrats.

heard this last night over drinks....their point is "you" have already lost.....we are simply pointing out that "you" have lost in fact "you" lost a long time ago and it is time "you" admit it and go home.....

[avatar4321]

heard this last night over drinks....their point is "you" have already lost.....we are simply pointing out that "you" have lost in fact "you" lost a long time ago and it is time "you" admit it and go home.....

Still really doesnt tell us who won. If we are the losers who do the Democrats think have won? And do we really want those groups to win? if so why stop fighting? We havent lost till we stop trying.

[Abbey Marie]

Still really doesnt tell us who won. If we are the losers who do the Democrats think have won? And do we really want those groups to win? if so why stop fighting? We havent lost till we stop trying.

Keep asking, A. So far, all we ever hear back are the crickets.

[gabosaurus]

Wow, a Republican calling a Dem out! How unexpected!
Too bad Reid is telling the truth. The war has been lost for quite some time. The only thing left is recording the rising list of casualties.
The Bush Apologists don't want the war to end because they are enjoying it too much.

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.kinderkorner.com/cricket.gif

[avatar4321]

Wow, a Republican calling a Dem out! How unexpected!
Too bad Reid is telling the truth. The war has been lost for quite some time. The only thing left is recording the rising list of casualties.
The Bush Apologists don't want the war to end because they are enjoying it too much.

Then who won?

[Pale Rider]

Then who won?
:smoke:

[gabosaurus]

There is no winner in Iraq. Only losers.

[-Cp]

There is no winner in Iraq. Only losers.

You idiot... saying there is a "loser" means someone would have to be the winner...

[glockmail]

You idiot... saying there is a "loser" means someone would have to be the winner...
Aside from the fact that the poster's remark was stupid, it is possible to have all losers, or all winners, in a conflict.

[avatar4321]

Aside from the fact that the poster's remark was stupid, it is possible to have all losers, or all winners, in a conflict.

How? When you fight war there is no way all sides can lose and definitely no way all sides can win. Because in order to do either one side has to overcome the other.

[Hagbard Celine]

I love how fast issues get bogged down in semantics on this board. :lol:

[avatar4321]

I love how fast issues get bogged down in semantics on this board. :lol:

Words mean something. If you dont want your words to be misconstrued you have to speak properly.

But its still amazing how no one who thinks we lost can identify which of our enemies have won.

[glockmail]

How? When you fight war there is no way all sides can lose and definitely no way all sides can win. Because in order to do either one side has to overcome the other. There are plenty of win-win situations. I consider the downfall of the Soviet Union a win for the USA and for the people of the former communist state.

[avatar4321]

There are plenty of win-win situations. I consider the downfall of the Soviet Union a win for the USA and for the people of the former communist state.

The soviets lost. The people in Russia might have won, but the Soviets lost. There is always a winner and a loser.

[manu1959]

There is no winner in Iraq. Only losers.

when we live...the winners will be the iranians ....they will get the oli fields ..... the looser wil be anyone that opposes them.....

the difference is .... if the us got it's way iraq would be japan or germany....

[glockmail]

The soviets lost. The people in Russia might have won, but the Soviets lost. There is always a winner and a loser. The soviet politburo lost, of course, but compared to the overall population, they represent an extreme minority.

[loosecannon]

when we live...the winners will be the iranians ....they will get the oli fields ..... the looser wil be anyone that opposes them.....

the difference is .... if the us got it's way iraq would be japan or germany....

Either way we can still buy the oil.

Iraq was as good as it was ever gonna be under Saddam. They were secular, at war with Iran, and they wanted to sell oil. They were even our strong ally.

Thank the Bush's for fucking it up in spades.

[loosecannon]

You idiot... saying there is a "loser" means someone would have to be the winner...

Horseshit

[diuretic]

There are plenty of win-win situations. I consider the downfall of the Soviet Union a win for the USA and for the people of the former communist state.

That wasn't as a result of war. And before you hop in with a revisionist statement all about how Reagan did it, think. Who was it who recognised that communism had failed in the Soviet Union?

[diuretic]

How? When you fight war there is no way all sides can lose and definitely no way all sides can win. Because in order to do either one side has to overcome the other.

What usually happens in a war is that one side sues for peace. The terms of armistice are drawn up. The idea is that the losers should not lose everything. I think the world learned that (well I hope it did) from the Treaty of Versailles.

[glockmail]

That wasn't as a result of war. And before you hop in with a revisionist statement all about how Reagan did it, think. Who was it who recognised that communism had failed in the Soviet Union? Reagan defeated the commies in The Cold War. :slap: