I want answers

[LOVEMYIRISH]

No, leave that to the SUnday morning talk shows. Believe me, someone like McCain who loves the cameras is not going to get over on the press...he proved that. Ware is a reporter not an editorialist or opinionatd commentator. You act like every other politician who allegedly lies gets away w/ it...Ware's no hero.

Actually, as Edward R Morrow proved you can give editorials and still be a journalist.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I thought Yago was very accurate in his post.

If Yago thinks that is what the Dems are like, he also believes in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

If Yago thinks that is what the Dems are like, he also believes in the Tooth Fairy.

Let's see....Who are the leaders of the democrat party (or vocal)?

Howard Dean
Hillary and Bill
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
John Murtha
John Kerry
Chuck Schumer

None of these people are moderates, they are all far-left ideologues (yes-the clintons are also, they are just more politically adept). All of them are putting partisan politics ahead of the the nation's security interests. They talk about supporting the troops by withdrawing them, badmouth the commander in chief in time of war, and only know defeatism. I'd say the 60's did a number on liberals, it defined and shaped them in a way never before seen. Who were democrat leaders before then??? Kennedy, Truman, FDR?? They would never say the kind of rhetoric being thrown about recklessly today. Nor would they throw our troops (our mission) under the bus.

I don't want/expect them to agree with conservatives on many issues, but I do expect them to ACT like American's. Our country was attacked, they voted to go to war, now shut up and support it. Criticism is fine, but should it not be constructive at the least? I don't see that at all. I think that the 60's mentality is present, and the rhetoric thrown around is reminiscent of that era. Therefore, the toothfairy must be real.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Let's see....Who are the leaders of the democrat party (or vocal)?

Howard Dean
Hillary and Bill
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
John Murtha
John Kerry
Chuck Schumer

None of these people are moderates, they are all far-left ideologues (yes-the clintons are also, they are just more politically adept). All of them are putting partisan politics ahead of the the nation's security interests. They talk about supporting the troops by withdrawing them, badmouth the commander in chief in time of war, and only know defeatism. I'd say the 60's did a number on liberals, it defined and shaped them in a way never before seen. Who were democrat leaders before then??? Kennedy, Truman, FDR?? They would never say the kind of rhetoric being thrown about recklessly today. Nor would they throw our troops (our mission) under the bus.

I don't want/expect them to agree with conservatives on many issues, but I do expect them to ACT like American's. Our country was attacked, they voted to go to war, now shut up and support it. Criticism is fine, but should it not be constructive at the least? I don't see that at all. I think that the 60's mentality is present, and the rhetoric thrown around is reminiscent of that era. Therefore, the toothfairy must be real.

Actually, Reid, Murtha, and Clinton are moderates as attested to by their voting records.

Yago was talking to a secretive Socialist agenda...he was not talking only about military voting patterns.

Our country was not attacked by Iraq or it's subordinates...thus saying we were attacked is silly.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Reid, Murtha, and Clinton are not moderates, at least in my opinion. Clinton is voting like one to get elected. Her attempt to transform health care (while not serving in an office) was telling enough for me. Reid is far from moderate. Murtha, I don't care what he is, he is not serving America's interest at all by slamming the troops. They don't like him much either...

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

We were attacked, thus setting forth the doctrine of confronting evil. They did vote for the invasion of Iraq, when it suited them politically. Now it doesn't, so they are abandoning the troops. I think most Americans expect more than that. It will harm them in '08.

 

[marv81s]

Actually, Reid, Murtha, and Clinton are moderates as attested to by their voting records.

Yago was talking to a secretive Socialist agenda...he was not talking only about military voting patterns.

Our country was not attacked by Iraq or it's subordinates...thus saying we were attacked is silly.

If those 3 are moderates, then I am the tooth fairy.

Murtha has taken a turn for the left, like stonebreaker said, hillary's voting record is for election purposes, and Reid is another guy that has taken a turn to the left.

Iraq was/is an extension of the global war on terrorism. they didn't attack us, but the President did lump them into the "axis of evil". He laid it out after 9/11, those countries that harbor and/or support terrorist will be treated no differently than the terrorist themselves.

Did Iraq have a clear cut link to Al Qaeda? Not that we have seen, YET, but Saddam and his reigm did support terrorist activities and terrorist groups.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Reid, Murtha, and Clinton are not moderates, at least in my opinion. Clinton is voting like one to get elected. Her attempt to transform health care (while not serving in an office) was telling enough for me. Reid is far from moderate. Murtha, I don't care what he is, he is not serving America's interest at all by slamming the troops. They don't like him much either...

You know her husband voted the same way she has for his entire 8 years in office.

So you are saying that B.Clinton's 8 years + H.Clinton's 6 years were all a cover for HER Presidential race? hahahahahahaha

Leftists do not get elected from Nevada, plain and simple. Reid is a moderate, always has been...that's why he got the leadership position of the Senate over the true leftists... The DNC wanted someone in there that was better representative of America that someone like Kennedy.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

We were attacked, thus setting forth the doctrine of confronting evil. They did vote for the invasion of Iraq, when it suited them politically. Now it doesn't, so they are abandoning the troops. I think most Americans expect more than that. It will harm them in '08.

"we were attacked"

Ummm...hello, we have been attacked by Muslim extremeists for decades...and suddenly we care? And suddenly this dictates Left from Right? Surreal.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

If those 3 are moderates, then I am the tooth fairy.

Murtha has taken a turn for the left, like stonebreaker said, hillary's voting record is for election purposes, and Reid is another guy that has taken a turn to the left.

How has Murtha taken a turn to the left? I would love to hear this.

Saying Iraq is unwinnable is not leftist...especially gievn the fact that Patreus said you can't beat an insurgency.

Iraq was/is an extension of the global war on terrorism. they didn't attack us, but the President did lump them into the "axis of evil". He laid it out after 9/11, those countries that harbor and/or support terrorist will be treated no differently than the terrorist themselves.

Ah, that's why Pakistan is next on the list right? hahahaha Sure... It was convenient, nothing more.

Did Iraq have a clear cut link to Al Qaeda? Not that we have seen, YET, but Saddam and his reign did support terrorist activities and terrorist groups.

And yet we have left Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taliban who are now harboring Al Qaeda once more.

Iraq is a distraction from the real threat.

Terrorists know no borders, they move where they need to.

Only a coalition of countries who are willing and able to monitor movements across borders and conduct surveillance and attacks on terrorists will stem the tide. Wasting our time invading countries without changing things will make nothing better...in fact, it only creates more enemies.

Had we done the job right in Afghanistan, things would be VERY different right now.

 

[knute]

What I want to know is, what exactly are the leaders of the democratic party going to do if they win the presidency? Leave Iraq for the Iranians to take over? How is N. Korea and Iran going to be dealt with when they act up and continue on the path of constructing nuclear weapons? I don't hear answers, I hear only criticism or talks of withdrawal. If someone knows these answers, please let me know. We all know the UN will do nothing, and most countries don't have the gumption to stand up and become involved unless they are directly effected. So what will happen?

Why wait until 2008? What are we going to do _now_ to address these problems? Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are big messes and they aren't getting better.

Why is everyone so sure that the next president (Republican or Democrat) will do any better than the current one? My guess is that either approach (stay in Iraq or leave) will end up bad for America in the end.

Whether or not Iraq had WMD is pretty irrelevant at this point. It's clear that we can't attack every country that is developing chemical, biological & nuclear weapons and that every time we do, it just ends up with a big mess.

My guess is that the reason the UN does nothing is because it's often the best thing to do.

 

[cuss444]

Quote from "LovemyIrish"

"And yet we have left Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taliban who are now harboring Al Qaeda once more.

Iraq is a distraction from the real threat.

Terrorists know no borders, they move where they need to.

Only a coalition of countries who are willing and able to monitor movements across borders and conduct surveillance and attacks on terrorists will stem the tide. Wasting our time invading countries without changing things will make nothing better...in fact, it only creates more enemies.

Had we done the job right in Afghanistan, things would be VERY different right now"

Why do you keep refering to what is being done as "WE" ??? Are you part of the miltiary ???? Have you been part of OIF or OEF ???? You do have the right as an American citizen to critize, but unless you have been there with boots on the ground, you and everyone else listening shouldn't talk about we. Last time I checked you were a "program manager" no where in your bio does it say, "Troop, Marine, Sailor or Airmen" generally I agree with what you say, however I disagree with the "had WE done the job right in Afghanistan" we wouldn't have this problem.......
You talk about countries and coalitions, hell this country can't get enough men and women with balls to stand up and fight for their own country let alone ask someone else to do the job. I'll be leaving in July for my third tour, not fun but it's the right thing to do.....

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Why wait until 2008? What are we going to do _now_ to address these problems? Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are big messes and they aren't getting better.

Why is everyone so sure that the next president (Republican or Democrat) will do any better than the current one? My guess is that either approach (stay in Iraq or leave) will end up bad for America in the end.

Whether or not Iraq had WMD is pretty irrelevant at this point. It's clear that we can't attack every country that is developing chemical, biological & nuclear weapons and that every time we do, it just ends up with a big mess.

My guess is that the reason the UN does nothing is because it's often the best thing to do.

Good points.

Although, inaction is still action. So even though I disagree with HOW Bush went about it...he did try. He honestly did. He has NOT sat on his hands (for good or for ill).

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Why do you keep refering to what is being done as "WE" ??? Are you part of the miltiary ???? Have you been part of OIF or OEF ???? You do have the right as an American citizen to critize, but unless you have been there with boots on the ground, you and everyone else listening shouldn't talk about we. Last time I checked you were a "program manager" no where in your bio does it say, "Troop, Marine, Sailor or Airmen" generally I agree with what you say, however I disagree with the "had WE done the job right in Afghanistan" we wouldn't have this problem.......

"We", as in USA.

It's not the soldiers that dropped the ball in Afghanistan it was political leadership who did not want to get too involved in a messy country.

If the military had been given free reign they would have done differently.

Being part of the military is irrelevant when looking at how operations are conducted, be they military, diplomatic, or economic.

You talk about countries and coalitions, hell this country can't get enough men and women with balls to stand up and fight for their own country let alone ask someone else to do the job. I'll be leaving in July for my third tour, not fun but it's the right thing to do.....

Countries and coalitions work. In fact, a great deal of the arrests were are seeing of guys planning terrorist activities are being done BECAUSE of coalitions.

While I think Bush has failed in SOME areas of diplomacy, he has gotten a great number of countries to play together and pass info around on dangerous people. There have been a great deal of arrests and foiled plots all because Britain, France, Germany, and the USA are at the center of a coalition.

Good luck with your tour, I am friends with a number of people who just finished their 2nd tours. Most are officiers (O-4 to O-6 ranks) in Reserves...a couple are Regular Army...and all of them are extremely unhappy with the way this whole thing has been handled and would have choice words for the former SecDef. The military's attempts to plan were consistently discounted by the ex-SecDef and his cronies. Thus the reason people are headed back for a 3rd tour when many should be rotated out more often and for longer periods of time.

My hope is that the current fellows can sort out the mess.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

You know her husband voted the same way she has for his entire 8 years in office.

So you are saying that B.Clinton's 8 years + H.Clinton's 6 years were all a cover for HER Presidential race? hahahahahahaha

Leftists do not get elected from Nevada, plain and simple. Reid is a moderate, always has been...that's why he got the leadership position of the Senate over the true leftists... The DNC wanted someone in there that was better representative of America that someone like Kennedy.

What Clinton did militarily, and to our military, would not make him a moderate. In addition to a number of other things. I love how you attack other people's opinions.
Laughing at others who you disagree with is belittling. Something we would expect a liberal to do.

Murtha and Reid, don't sound moderate at all. Murtha sounds like a traitor, and Reid criticises Bush on everything he does. The real moderates are not bashing the troops, the mission, or Bush on EVERYTHING.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

"we were attacked"

Ummm...hello, we have been attacked by Muslim extremeists for decades...and suddenly we care? And suddenly this dictates Left from Right? Surreal.

Yes 9-11 brought it home to many people in the US, and actually woke some of us up. As far and left vs. right goes, those on the right want to confront evil and those that will do us harm, those on the left have zero interest (aside from afghanistan).

 

[Yago]

The following is a News & Commentary from the Conservative Voice:

Democrat Party and Code Pink Join Forces to Sabotage Military Recruitment
July 23, 2006 06:24 PM EST

While Americans hear leaders within the Democrat Party insist that they support the troops but not the mission, The Conservative Voice received a revealing document that appears to question the Democrats claimed support of the men and women in the US military.
Below is a schedule of an event from earlier this year. It's an extraordinarily educational document circulated by a county Democrat Party headquarters:
______________________________________
Wake County Democratic Party
220 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919-828-5656
______________________________________
New Events:
SAT 2/18. 2-5pm. Resisting Recruitment
ACRe (Action for Community in Raleigh), 822
Chamberlain St., Raleigh

For the last two years dedicated activists and groups in NC have been focusing on Counter- Recruiting, such as Code Pink, F.I.S.T. and the Campus Greens at NCSU. We offer this afternoon meeting as an opportunity to share experience and strategies about counter-recruiting work, but also to forge deeper relationships and communication to better further our goals. Contact Elena at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for more info.
_______________________________________
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 18. 2-5 PM
For the last two years dedicated activists and groups in NC have been focusing on Counter-Recruiting work, both to expose the racist practices and lies of the recruiters, and as a practical step toward ending U.S. wars by cutting off the flow of youth into the military machine. From the recent training camp sponsored by Not Your Soldier, to the important work Code Pink has done fighting the recruiting clause of the No Child Left Behind Act, Raleigh F.I.S.T.'s direct picketing of recruiting stations, and the work by the Campus Greens at NCSU with F.I.S.T. to drive recruiters off State's campus, many folks have made important, but too often isolated contributions.

We offer this afternoon meeting as an opportunity to share experience and strategies about counter-recruiting work, but also to forge deeper relationships and communication to offer a more disciplined and concerted fight-back against this face of imperialism.

(Here are suggested questions Code Pink distributes to parents of potential recruits to ask those in-charge of Junior Reserve Office Training Corps programs):

"Ask your JROTC instructor tough questions, such as "Do you enjoy dropping bombs on people you don't know?" or "How many people have you killed?" or "What is the difference between murder and what our military is doing in Baghdad?" or "Why does the military use chemical weapons in Fallujah and torture people in prison camps?" Write down if he treats you badly, insults, or yells at you because of your questions. Today's youth need great teachers not lying recruiters."

(The organizers suggested these tactics, as well.)

"'Life-sized coffin with idea that potential recruits can "try out" their future/post-service home? "Real military benefits include this oak box?"'
___________________________________________

Remember, the above is not some radical Marxist group's position on military recruitment. It's supposedly a mainstream county Democrat Party meeting notice.
---------
This is not a fairytale. Flame away!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

What Clinton did militarily, and to our military, would not make him a moderate. In addition to a number of other things. I love how you attack other people's opinions.
Laughing at others who you disagree with is belittling. Something we would expect a liberal to do.

If you truly believe that BOTH people voted they way they did for 14 years straight...then a good laugh is in order.

If you don't believe that, fine. But to think that B.Clinton pushed moderate opinions for 8 years so his wife could be elected in 2008...that's a serious stretch of fantasy.

Murtha and Reid, don't sound moderate at all. Murtha sounds like a traitor, and Reid criticises Bush on everything he does. The real moderates are not bashing the troops, the mission, or Bush on EVERYTHING.

Of course Reid will criticize Bush...Bush rarely does anything moderate. (except on Foreign Trade agreements, I think he's done a decent job there) Also, Reid is the head of the opposition party...just as Gingrich did with Clinton, Reid uses Bush as his foil.

Murtha's desire to pull out of Iraq in no way makes him liberal. Those two issues are not connected. Murtha was known by all in the military as a true friend and supporter of the military. Then one day he says "it's time to bring them home, this whole thing is screwed up." In no way does that change his position. He believes that the best thing to do for the troops is to bring them home. His 30+ year record with the military supports his views and is in no way "liberal". It is a differing viewpoint though. And if he were a Republican he would not be catching hell.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Yes 9-11 brought it home to many people in the US, and actually woke some of us up. As far and left vs. right goes, those on the right want to confront evil and those that will do us harm, those on the left have zero interest (aside from afghanistan).

Those on the Left would love to fight terrorism. They were calling for it since the 80's.

The situation in Iraq is not part of the war on terror. So the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[marv81s]

to me, murtha threw out his military credibility when he went on TV and called the marines murdurers before there was even a hearing or an investigation, and when stated that he would be in favor of cutting off funds for the war in Iraq as a way to bring them home.

He may be moderate on all his other views, but his views on the war are left of center. So maybe I mistaken in saying he is not a moderate in the overall aspect, but his statements on the military are less than moderate. Him and Durbin should be more careful in how they talk about the military. As a guy that was in the marines, I would say I would love to put my fist through murtha's face.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Remember, the above is not some radical Marxist group's position on military recruitment. It's supposedly a mainstream county Democrat Party meeting notice.
---------
This is not a fairytale. Flame away!

Mainstream in what way? This is the "Wake County Democratic Party". Who the hell are they? There are local yahoos everywhere.

Also, this is the only guy who seems to have gotten a copy of it...weird huh?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

to me, murtha threw out his military credibility when he went on TV and called the marines murdurers before there was even a hearing or an investigation, and when stated that he would be in favor of cutting off funds for the war in Iraq as a way to bring them home.

I agree one should ALWAYS wait until legal proceedings take place. You should never judge the accused guilty unless they are proven to be in a court of law (military or civil).

That being said, his committee saw the reports and photographic evidence at that point. So I can understand WHY he said it. But I agree you should let the courts decide.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2013939&page=1

He may be moderate on all his other views, but his views on the war are left of center. So maybe I mistaken in saying he is not a moderate in the overall aspect, but his statements on the military are less than moderate.

Why is saying troops should be brought home left of center? He did not opposed the war, but he has stated that he believes it's a no win situation...and they should come home. That's not left or right, that's just an informed decision and opinion. It's no more right or left that the views of others.

Back in 2000 I can remember vividly one cadidate who said:

Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. [y opponent] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places.

Those are pretty liberal words...whew!!!

 

[marv81s]

anybody that aligns themselves with Code Pink isn't playing with a fulldeck and has no credibility, and zero common sense.

Even people like Pelosi aren't that stupid, well, maybe Pelosi would, but other than that, not anyone else in DC

That was my attempt at a joke, don't take the shot at Pelosi too serious.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

anybody that aligns themselves with Code Pink isn't playing with a fulldeck and has no credibility, and zero common sense.

Even people like Pelosi aren't that stupid, well, maybe Pelosi would, but other than that, not anyone else in DC

That was my attempt at a joke, don't take the shot at Pelosi too serious.

LOL...no worries. I can't stand Code Pink...they are ignoring the harsh reality of the situation.

Pelosi is from the Bay Area...I am surprised she has not pseudo-aligned herself.

If she TRULY supported her district she would give no ground on cutting off funding completely as well as a public timetable. However, she never really worked hard to cut off funding...

Her constituents are that dumb, no doubt about that.

 

[marv81s]

Murtha's way of bringing the troops home is wrong, that is what I am basing my view of him being left of center on, when he says that he will cut off funding as a way to bring home the troops, i have an issue with that, when his plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

to me, that is wrong and not the way to go about leaving Iraq. Your going to get more american soldiers killed going about it that way.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Murtha's way of bringing the troops home is wrong, that is what I am basing my view of him being left of center on, when he says that he will cut off funding as a way to bring home the troops, i have an issue with that, when his plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

to me, that is wrong and not the way to go about leaving Iraq. Your going to get more american soldiers killed going about it that way.

I understand completely what you are saying. Just to be clear: I don't agree with cutting off the funding.

However, any Constitution 101 class will show that the ONLY way for Congress to bring troops home over a President's objections is to cut off the funding. They have no other power. Which is good and bad.

If a President were truly waging an EVIL war...(which Bush is not doing)then the only way Congress can stop him is to cut off funding. Which honestly, is a sucky way to deal with it. The Founders kind of left us in a hole on that one. That being said, if he were TRULY donig something EVIL then he could be impeached.

The people's will is vested through their elected representatives...and the President may be on an electoral losing end. But he really holds all the cards here. If he leaves them there and funding gets cut...well...he will most likely cause a Constitutional crisis...or just a major incident internally.

This really just shows that Congress has two options:
1) Do nothing
2) "Drop the bomb" (so to speak)

They have no middle ground. That makes the whole debate ugly as hell.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Murtha's way of bringing the troops home is wrong, that is what I am basing my view of him being left of center on, when he says that he will cut off funding as a way to bring home the troops, i have an issue with that, when his plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

to me, that is wrong and not the way to go about leaving Iraq. Your going to get more american soldiers killed going about it that way.

According to the Founders that was Congress' only option...so technically his plan would work in the sense that Bush would be forced to bring the troops home rather than leave them stranded.

Bringing them home would not cause more deaths. Bush leaving them there UNFUNDED would.

It's shitty option though (to retract funding).

Basically, Congress has no real options here except "do nothing" or "do something extreme".

 

[Yago]

More local Yahoos!

 

[Yago]

The “Shadow Party” was a term devised by journalists to describe 527 political committees promoting Democratic Party agendas. It is specifically refered to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources – money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives – to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party further left. A well known Internet fund-raising operation MoveOn.org is a key component. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left.

Hillary Clinton

Zack Exley

Gina Glantz

Morton Halperin

Harold Ickes

Ellen Malcolm


John Podesta

Carl Pope

Wade Rathke

Cecile Richards

Steven Rosenthal

George Soros

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The “Shadow Party” was a term devised by journalists to describe 527 political committees promoting Democratic Party agendas. It is specifically refered to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources – money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives – to elect Democratic candidates ...

Boy, those Democrats are sure evil for trying to get their people elected!!!

Heaven forbid they should actually TRY to win an election!!! It must be a conspiracy!!!