Monday, June 19, 2006

David "I tried to raper her" Wu: Let's surrender

Oregon Congressman Gives Statement On Iraq War Debate
I have listened to our generals about their view of the future. General Casey has personally said to me that he needs until the summer of 2007 to fully train Iraqi forces. I am willing to allow General Casey the time to complete this task, but we should begin an immediate redeployment of troops.

Oh thank goodness that Wu is "willing to allow" the general the time needed to win the war. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Sorry Wu, you aren't in charge here. Your party is not in charge here. You are just one member of congress who still managed to get elected even after it came out that you are an attempted rapist.

Liberal translation: redeployment = surrender/cut and run


Bryan Saxton said...

Daniel, do you realize what you just said (and it is very true too)? "Your party is not in charge?" Don't you think it is somewhat worrysome when a political party is in charge as opposed to the government as a collective?

Kaelri said...

Wu is "willing to allow" the time for training in the same sense that I am "willing to allow" a Democrat to take office in 2008. Neither of us can do anything about it alone, but given a majority in either group of people "willing to allow" either action, it tends to be allowed.

"You are just one member of congress who still managed to get elected even after it came out that you are an attempted rapist."

Daniel, I will not invoke your own criminal history unless it manifests as hypocrisy on your part. To my knowledge, you both committed offenses for which you both received disciplinary justice. That does not deny you the right to ridicule Wu for his attempts, but in doing so, you relinquish your defense against equivalent mockery.

Daniel said...


Anonymous said...

Daniel "I was arrested for felony possession of a controlled substance and firearm" Miglavs, you make a good point, but who really give a flying "f".

Anonymous said...

I do not have a criminal history, and I also see rape and molestation to be different than other crimes.
It takes a sick individual to over power and violate another human in a sexual way.
It is an illness, a mental defect.
To use drugs and be part of a gang is lack of self respect or moral conviction.
Pedophiles and rapists have been proven to be incurable and repeat offenders.
Gang members and thieves have been rehabilitated.
Wu has a record of immoral actions.
Wu repeatedly votes against the will of Oregonians and Americans.
Tell me Wu doesn’t have a mental defect.
Explain to me how Demon-crats can re-elect this criminal.

Anonymous said...

If Wu's ex wife ever spills the beans on his conduct with her he's toast.

Scottiebill said...

Wu is merely following the Dumocrat party line espoused by clowns like Kerry, Kennedrunk, Murtha and all the other cut-and-runners the Dumocrats bow down and give obeisance to.

All we need ask of these cut-and-runners, Kaelri included, is this: After we cut and run from Iraq, what are your intentions toward Iran after they invade and take over Iraq and the rest of the middle east, keeping their threat of nukes when they get them? And they will get them in spite of the UN and their useless sanctions. When they take control of the middle east, they will have control of all the middle east oil, which, like it or not, this country and all the other countries of the world cannot do without. And don't come back and say we can use alternative fuels, because, while that may be possible in the future, it will not happen over night.

Also, Iran's buddies, the North Koreans, will try to control their side of the Asian continent, as well as the Pacific Rim countries at bay.

Do you really want to cut and run?

Bryan Saxton said...

Haha, Scottiebill employs the slippery slope argument. In any case, I think "cutting and running" is much more honorable than continuing an illegal war that murders and oppresses Iraqi citizens (and I'm not talking about Iraqi militants, but their treatment by us has been just as unfair as ours on them).

The reason your slippery slope argument is flawed, Scottie, is because Iran's controll of oil will be forever limited because of the ungodly amount of power OPEC wields behind itself. Also, our president has a suspicious interest in oil prices (any one else besides me notice Mr Former Oil Tycoon's oil stocks going up?) which would lead me to beleive that an (unjust) invasion of Iran would occour much sooner than Iran would invade Iraq. Besides, Iran has had the chance to invade Iraq numerous times in the past, a country that it has been significantly more powerful than for quite some time. And North Korea? Against China? or Japan? All I have to say is Are you serious?

Scottiebill said...

Saxton: Perhaps my argument is of the "slippery slope" kind. But, the fact remains that if we do actually cut and run, as the Dumocrats are advocating, Iran will very likely take over Iraq, using the threat of nukes, which they are developing in spite of their empty assertions to the contrary.

You then say that OPEC has an ungodly amount of control over the middle east oil - and you are right. However, once Iran gets control of the middle east and it's oil, they will dominate OPEC, again using their threat of nukes. And I do not think they will be above using them on their neighbors.

You are implying that I favor invading Iran at some point in the future. I am not. What I am implying here is that the Dumocrat's cut-and-run strategy, if you can call it "strategy", is far worse than than any slippery slope. It is a jump-off-the-cliff-into-an-abyss sort of strategy.

As far as your argument that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and fattening, nevertheless the Congress voted to go ahead and enter Iraq. Whether it was right or not, legal or not, immoral or not, is something that historians, pundits, self-proclaimed experts, and just plain dolts, such as John Murtha and Teddy Kennedrunk, will be debating for years after we have left Iraq, whether that departure is honorably done or dishonorably done by cutting and running.

One other thing: You mention that "Mr. Former Oil Tycoon" has a "suspicious" interest in oil prices. Everyone who uses oil products and by-products, should have an interest in the price of oil. After all, we all use oil in one form or another and the price isn't coming down significantly, at all. Perhaps you don't use oil products daily, or maybe you really just don't care how high the price of oil goes, as long as that price per barrel makes our President and Vice-President look bad. That seems to be your focus and intent here.

Bryan Saxton said...

Scotty, I hardly know where to begin. I wish you had taken an International Relations class, either at a community college or otherwise, you would understand how improbible Iran would be to use the threat of nukes against Iraq (mutual destruction policy, an unofficial policy every nuclear state employs). Also, Iran, who is significantly more powerful than Iraq and has been for a long time, hasn't invaded Iraq yet. As I have explained above, nukes will not change that. Anyway, I never meant to imply that you advocated the invasion of Iran.

Whether or not the war in Iraq is not debatable. We defied international law and the Geneva convention (our president is the first to do any of these... somewhat humerous he does both at once) when we engaged in the war. There is strong evidence to suggest that our president both had plans for invading Iraq before 9-11-2001 and was already aware that Iraq had no WMDs. We mistreat (Guantanamo Bay prison, 90% of prisoners haven't been charged with any prison) and kill (Carpet bombings, some of which exceed 2,000 civilian deaths) their citizens.

As far as our president being an oil tycoon, don't you find it outrageous that our President is DIRECTLY PROFITING off of the deaths of Iraqis and our soldiers?

Just so I understand, you say, Scottie, that it is okay that our president has screwed over both American citizens and Iraqis (militants and citizens alike) all for the sake of a dollar? That's what this war is.

Scottiebill said...

I will comment no further on this subject, Saxton. It is clear that neither of us is going to back down in our arguments pro and con. I have only this - You apparently were and are OK with Saddam Hussein killing some 400,000 of his own people, hundreds at a time, just because they dared to diagree with his policies.