YEAH! that's gonna happen. LOL.

The 'Dems' Deamnd Straight Talk????? NOW???
Shut Up !!
You should have been demanding straight talk 5 yrs ago, 4 yrs ago , 3 yrs ago, .....
You should have gotten US out When we gave you the Chance in '06- but nothing
go blow smoke Up your Inc Cohorts asses - We have no interest in your Staged Dissent. We are not even interested in your EXCUSES. go ahead Reveal the Crowns YOU have already handed out to Hil and Mac. WE ahve our Own Agenda. To kick every 'Dem' & Repug out of Gov't . You've tipped your hands- Corproationists!

Cave Adsum!!!!

.

How can we expect to get straight talk about the war when the republicans believe their own lies?

A few days ago, Bush said, "Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened " with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq"s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.

Raw Story's Eric Brewer asked Press Secretary Dana Perino: "So the Iraqis would let a foreign terrorist organization take over their oil?" His question was right on the mark.

Annoyed, Perino dodged the question, saying that reporter was "missing the point".

What point? The conclusion from Bush's statement is that Al Queda would be able to sell oil on the global market and use that revenue to do evil.

I suppose it's true that Al Queda would have to be more successful in the oil business than he was - anyone who can't make money in the oil busniess in Texas has to be a complete fool, but Al Queda? I didn't know that they possessed that much business acumen.

Perhaps Bush is thinking they could prevail where we haven't based on how Hezbollah had Beirut rebuilt quickly while he allows people in New Orleans to still suffer.

.

Straight talk--is this a joke. If lies, deceit and chicanery has worked for the past five years why would the neocon fascists change their rhetoric. And if the "straight talk" should by some magic occur, what would the insipid, cowardly democrats do with it. They demand "straight talk". Here it is. The republicans were in power when we were attacked and the nation witnessed gross negligence become criminal negligence by the Bush administration, Then a phony, never ending war created genocide of Iraqi citizens, killed, wounded and maimed thousands of our soldiers and marines and squandered hundreds of billions of our dollars needed at home, leading to our nation sorely divided . The facts surrounding the mess we are enduring at home and abroad has been self evident for the past five years and the time for talk of any kind is over. Action on the part of the democrats is what is needed but they will never get enough courage to act in the best interests and welfare of the American people because they will always demand "straight talk" rather than confront Bush and his enablers even though the majority of the country want action to end this war.

We Can't win a WAR CRIME!

Why is Menendez raising this now? Oh yeah, his name sounds more hispanic than "Richardson," who is backing the other candidate. Oops did I say that out loud

It's pretty telling when we hear stories about Iraqi's REFUSING to protect their OWN NATION and NEIGHBORHOODS because the U.S. isn't paying them to do so.

Just one more reason for us to get out. They will only STAND UP as Bush says, when FORCED TO.

The media and the collaboratoring Democrats have already made up the "straight talk" already. If we leave quickly, "Al Qaeda will win, we will lose" (even though two weeks ago al Qaeda was all but destroyed.) If we leave quickly, "there will be a calamity of biblical proportions."

The same people who lied us into the war have now developed a set of lies to keep us there.

As for the success of the surge -- the inability of McCain to go to the same market he went to last year --the one that was safe if you had had on a flack jacket, had 100 US soldiers armed to the teeth and 4 or 5 helicopters capable of reigining down death and destruction overhead -- shows what's actually happened. According to the media, that market is under al Sadr's militia's control and is evidently unsafe now even if you have a flack jacket, 100 US troops armed to the teeth and 4 well armed helicopters overhead. So what's actually happened is that we have bought some of the Sunni insurgents for the time being and given control of other parts of the country to Iranian supported Shia militia like Sadr's. And then we've claimed it all a success, so long as we bankrupt the United States and sustain trillions of dollars of debt into the undefined future -- 100 years if you listen to McCain and Bush -- no one knows how long if you listen to Obama and Clinton.

Immediate, safe withdrawal is the only to save the lives and limbs of our troops and our economy. There is no result that is worth the costs in lives and limbs and in the negative effect on our economy.

Just believe your lying eyes instead of the media and the always-war-collaborating Democratic leadership. Last year Mr. Straight Talk lied about the safety of the market. This year it was so unsafe, and under control of hostile militia, that he couldn't even go. That says more about the truth than anything these liars say.

Out now.

As voters, we should be demanding that the candidates tell us, in precise terms, what the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq will be.

The continual allusion to the fall of Saigon and "dire consequences", especially given the current humanitarian crisis and our unwillingness to accept Iraqi refugees, smacks of fear mongering. Worse, given that none of the candidates can offer an exit strategy radically different from any other, the lack of specificity should be provoking a greater skepticism from the public, and that skepticism is not in evidence, anywhere, left or right.