Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 118

• 0%

  Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago

  A "symbolic rejection." Now, that's getting tough. I am sure Dubbya is shaking in his boots.

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    populist1 year, 6 months ago

    right. the so-called "anti-war" dems are part of the problem. not only do they NOT bring up debate on the war itself, they can only come up with a non-binding resolution on the troop surge.

    anyone who thought they were opposing war by voting for the democrats should start seeing the light now. they're BOTH war parties!

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 100%

      Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago

      Exactly. Welcome to America, home of the Republicratic one-party system. You get to vote for an ass or his identical twin, and that's an important choice.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 100%

        IcCaRus1 year, 6 months ago

        i'm about ready to vote for anybody, any party that doesn't think inauguration equals coronation. is there anybody out there anymore, of either party, that still thinks that they have to work as equals with congress in governing the country?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          SirChasm1 year, 6 months ago

          And when will they start thinking of the country as equals intsead of third rate voters for which to pander?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            IcCaRus1 year, 6 months ago

            amen brothah!

            Reply
• 0%

  nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago

  The Democrats have put themselves in an untenable position. They promised to end the war while campaigning. The only way they have to actually end the war is to cut off funds.

  Does anyone really believe that the public would support cutting off funds?

  The Democrats may be reading more of a mandate into the last election results than was actually there

  nonbinding resoltions are meaningless. It's a ruse to make their supporters believe they are following through on campaign promises

  Will be interesting to see the spin from both sides on this

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    JustCallMeV1 year, 6 months ago

    Yes, I am beginning to believe the struggle in Washington may be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. I will be a sight to see when the fog clears.

    -V-

    Reply
  • 0%

    ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

    NOSTALGIA WROTE:

    "The Democrats have put themselves in an untenable position. They promised to end the war while campaigning."

    I don't remember any Democratic Party leaders specifically promising to end the war. I only remember them promising oversight and accountability in the new Congress, which is what they are trying to do now.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/us/politics/02po

      Apparently that is not what the New York Times thought the voters understood.

      " A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress"

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

        Sure, there's a better chance we'll see a troop redeployment or phased withdrawal with Democratic-controlled Congress, but when did the Democratic party leadership actually promise it?

        As far as I know, they only promised oversight and accountability.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago

          That will come as a surprise to many Democrats

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pelosi/bri

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

            Again, where specifically does it say that the Democratic Party leadership promised to end the war? You keep referencing that this is what the constituents are hoping for, while dodging my request for a link quoting the Democratic Party Leadership actually making this promise.

            Where is it?

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago

              Pelosi wrote the article!

              After her party's victory then House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wrote an article entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker".

              Reply
            • 0%

              badnootka1 year, 3 months ago

              Promises need not be specifically expressed to be reality. If the American voter felt that he/she was voting to end the war in Iraq then that is the impression given by the candidates. The view of the voter and why he voted the way he did is infinitely more important than the semantics of the platform of the candidate.

              Reply
• 0%

  nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago

  LOL $1 isn't enough. They all go to Starbucks!

  Reply
• 100%

  david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago

  Think of the resolution as a first volley. In political terms, this symbolic act determines who is on their side and if they would have enough votes to:

  A) Break a filibuster in the House,

  B) Override a presidential veto

  C) stop GW from sending troops to other countries.

  The Democrats are not pro-war as some here would suggest. I would offer that they are instead taking the first of many steps to bring down GW.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 100%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    They are modern day copperheads....or correctly...they allways have been...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Allee1 year, 6 months ago

      Looks like the demorat 'copperheads' wanted to destroy Lincoln, just like the modern day demorats want to destroy Bush. They are getting their wish, by making the nation lose so they can 'win'.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago

        What in the world does that mean? Democrats do not want to see us "lose." In this case, the war was never intended to be "won." Our intent was like in most wars, to maim and kill the enemy. GW et al. put the US in this idiotic war without sufficient planning, strategy, and ill-conceived notions about how quickly it would be over. They were wrong on all counts and yet, they continue to stay the course. Only a daft idiot would stay the course. Sort of like a psychotic horse running into a burning barn. Why would anyone do that to his own people? What did Iraq do to us to threaten our security?

        Reply
  • 0%

    populist1 year, 6 months ago

    i would absolutely say that the dems are pro-war, and if you haven't found that out yet, hopefully you will someday.

    so far, the democrats have overwhelmingly approved the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, oh, plus serbia and sanctions on iraq that killed over 1.4 MILLION in the 1990's.

    and now, in regards to Iran - they're not totally OPPOSED to the war, they just want to make sure that bush gets their approval.

    both side are FOR war - the only battle is over who's in charge.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

      More correctly...the Dems are pro death...From abortion to assisted suicide...

      Just dont kill anyone in self defense...

      Reply
  • 0%

    badnootka1 year, 3 months ago

    The dems were not elected opn the platform of "bringing Bush down. THat is the purview of the voter. That will happen in 2008. THe dems should get on with attempting to improve the lot of americans and get over the partisan politics that they are playing It serves no one and does nothing for the populace. Just do what is the best for the country without engaging in non-binding BS that has no hope of coming tofruition. THis appears to be nothing mor than posturing for the 2008 elections. Again nothing there for the voter.

    Reply
• 0%

  Phatman1 year, 6 months ago

  The anti-war nutjobs who put the democrats in power got played bigtime. The Dems are hanging on to power by their fingernails and terrified to actually DO anything. Except demoralize the troops already serving this country in Iraq

  Reply
• 100%

  slate1 year, 6 months ago

  GAWD politicians sure love to push atoms around when they listen to themeslves talk tough. Non Binding is for sissies, show your convictions and deny funding

  Reply
• 100%

  firstofficer1 year, 6 months ago

  Only the President can end the war.

  For everything else you have Visa, Mastercard and American Express.

  Reply
• 0%

  marufio1 year, 6 months ago

  No one is cutting off funding for the troops but what they saying to the President is get the job done with what you have or get out. NO more.

  Reply

  22 Replies

  • 0%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    This was only a first step...no matter how you try and spin it...

    '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."

    - John Murtha

    Copperhead and traitor.

    Reply

    21 Replies

    • 100%

      slate1 year, 6 months ago

      Amen...

      I think we need a trial for treason for many of the turn coats

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

        Nah...just throw a few of them in jail like lincoln did...even quote lincoln when you do it...

        See if Hussein obama still wants to quote lincoln..

        assbags

        Reply
    • 0%

      zootallures1 year, 6 months ago

      you you give a blank check and free reign to the very people who lied their way into a fabricated war? who are the traitors again?

      Reply

      18 Replies

      • 0%

        Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

        *holds up mirror*

        Reply
      • 0%

        slate1 year, 6 months ago

        Lied?

        How many times does a Monkey have to tell you leftist Humans that are supposed to be more evolved than I?

        Bush believed the same things that Clinton did with the information given

        The same information was there for every single Congress and Senate member to review info then hey they voted for it.

        Yeah what sorry liar Bush was to use the same flawed reasoning that Clinton did to Bomb WMD facilities,,,, yeah I think you may be on to something there HUMAN

        -xyZ-

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 0%

          ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

          Yes, lied.

          The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton recognized there was not enough conclusive physical evidence to conduct a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, however, ignored these uncertainties/dissenting opinions, distorted the intelligence, gave undue weight to spurious sources (like "Curveball"), and even established a Defense Agency (Office of Special Plans) that distributed faulty intelligence (against CIA conclusions).

          "In the case of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the IC, which was consistently dubious of such a connection."

          http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/20

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737

          http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3

          Reply

          13 Replies

          • 0%

            ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

            Clinton was pursuing a strategy of regime change through containment: sanctions, UN inspections, enforcement of a no-fly zone, etc. It is similar to the longstanding United States policy of non-militaristic regime change in Cuba. And intelligence collected on the ground seems to suggest that it was effective, for the most part. While it's true that Iraqis suffered under these sanctions, it cannot be blamed on Clinton alone. Don't forget that it was Bush Sr. who allowed Saddam to remain in power following the 1st Gulf War. It was Bush Sr. who abandoned the Shiite and Kurds, leading to their massacre as Saddam quelled the Shiite and Kurd uprising. It was Bush Sr. who agreed to the peace treaty and UN Resolution 687 following the 1st Gulf War. Clinton was simply following pre-existing international agreements.

            http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/59

            Reply
          • 0%

            slate1 year, 6 months ago

            Actually it was Edmund that first said that, but it's still true and Slick Willie needs to be brought to justice for killing 2 times as many people as Bush.

            Reply
          • 0%

            slate1 year, 6 months ago

            BS vbdogsct

            He read the political tea leaves like he always did and made the expedient choice.

            One thing I can say is Clinton is the ultimate narcissistic politician that only thinks about himself,,,, he was wise to pass the buck in a purely POLITICAL sense but BUSH was wise enough to know that what needed to be done , needed to be done EVEN when it meant a heavy political cost in the end. That in a nutshell is what separates Bush and Clinton,,,,

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              SLATE WROTE:

              "He read the political tea leaves like he always did and made the expedient choice."

              And I suppose you have documentation from a nonpartisan source to support this allegation.

              SLATE WROTE:

              "BUSH was wise enough to know that what needed to be done"

              And exactly what did need to be done? It has been demonstrated that there were no operational ties between Osama and Saddam and that Iraq had no active WMD program.

              http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-3

              It has been demonstrated that sanctions, no-fly zones, and UN inspections were largely effective. Now, we're left with a conflict that is being used as a "cause celebre" to swell their ranks. Instead of decreasing the number of terrorists, Bush swelled their ranks. Instead of exploiting Saddam' as a check to Iranian influence, Bush just did Iran and Osama a favor.

              http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/doc

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              You foolishly claim that Bush is good for national security. Then why has:

              1) Bush not executed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to improve security at ports and harbors?

              http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

              2) Bush diverted manpower, firepower, and attention from the war against the Taliban?

              http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ

              3) Bush allowed Pakistan to strike a truce with pro-Taliban tribes that has provided a "sanctuary" for Taliban forces from which to launch crossborder attacks?

              "U.S. Troops on Afghanistan's eastern border have seen a threefold increase in attacks since the recent truce between Pakistani troops and pro-Taliban tribesmen that was supposed to have stopped militants making crossborder rais, a U.S. military official said."

              http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/27/asia/AS_

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              4) Why is Bush distracting Americans from finding Osama bin Laden--the one truly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

              "Bush: 'So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...I truly am not that concerned about him [bin Laden].'"

              http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20

              2004 Debate:

              "KERRY: When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

              BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

              http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.t

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              5) Why do Republicans continue to claim that debating the Iraq war demoralizes our troops when even Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified that debate does NOT demoralize our troops and that our troops recognize that debate, even in a time of war, is a sign of a healthy democracy?

              "Congressional debate over President Bush's new plan for Iraq will not undercut troop morale, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

              Joint Chiefs Chairman General Pace: 'There's no doubt in my mind that the dialog here in Washington strenghens our democracy. Period.'"

              http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              6) Bush dismiss the advice of Generals Powell and Shinseki, when they recommended 300,000-400,000 troops for the invasion and peacekeeping force? Why did Bush persist in allowing Rumsfeld to direct war strategy even after the Army Times, Marine Times, Air Force Times, and Navy Times ran an article calling for Rumsfeld's resignation? Why did Bush let Rumsfeld stay even after the the Army Times, Marine Times, Air Force Times, and Navy Times took a poll that showed that of its 2985 readers, 1,889 (63.28%) believed that the "U.S. war effort is grounds for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign."

              http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Majority_in_Army

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              7) Bush allow low-level officers to take the blame for the Abu Ghraib?

              "Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib...The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, 'Great job,' they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote."

              http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040

              http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/11/10/ka

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_an

              8) Bush disregarded the advice from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report?

              http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps76748/iraq_stud

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              8) Bush undercut America's intelligence agencies by allowing Rumsfeld to appoint Douglas Feith to head the new Office of Special Plans? Feith is now under investigation for supplying faulty information.

              "In the case of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the IC, which was consistently dubious of such a connection...The non-IC or "alternative" intelligence analysis conducted by the DOD neatly fit the Administration's desire to build a strong case for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime, particularly given the fact that the usual source of intelligence analysis, the IC, was skeptical about the existence of a close or cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

              http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/20

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              9) Bush continue to ignore the advice of Generals Abizaid, Casey, and Dempsey--all of whom oppose the troop escalation:

              "ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together.

              And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?

              And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

              http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Press Briefings/Nov 15 06 - Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Current Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.htm

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              10) Bush continue to ignore our troops--many of whom have been clamoring for life-saving body armor that has not been provided to them.

              "John Soltz: We are the troops. We're sitting next to Leader Pelosi because they [the Republicans] don't support the troops. If y'all want to talk about not supporting the troops go over to the Republican side and ask them why they voted against body armor in the Senate, not once, but twice in 2003. That's not supporting the troops. If you support escalation, then you don't support the troops. 20,000 more troops in Baghdad is a backdoor timeline--it is like spitting in the ocean. We need a new strategy in Iraq."

              http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story

              http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=269346

              http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26

              http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html

              Reply
            • 88%

              ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

              11) Bush continue with a war strategy in Iraq that has not eliminated or even decreased the number of terrorists in the middle east, but instead has actually swelled their ranks as terrorist recruiters use Iraq as a "cause celebre" to rally disgruntled Middle Easterners.

              http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/doc

              Reply
      • 0%

        Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

        LIES!......DAMN LIES!

        *snicker*

        Reply
      • 0%

        ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago

        CHIN2FAT WROTE:

        "they were all screaming about Saddams WMD and even got a law passed making his removal the law of the land...."

        But the Iraq Liberation Act did NOT specify regime change through military force, but rather through supporting rebellious elements within Iraq who were struggling for democracy. It is also longstanding U.S. policy to seek regime change in Cuba. By your logic, Bush should have invaded Cuba before invading Iraq.

        http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation

        CHIN2FAT WROTE:

        "so I guess that the Dems are the real liars who led us itno war"

        Right. The Democrats have been in power for all of 1.5 months. Before the November elections, Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government: the White House (6 years), both houses of Congress (12 years), and the Supreme Court. Yet somehow, the Iraq quagmire is the Democrats' fault? Why am I not surprised by this ideologically-driven argument?

        Reply
• 100%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  If republicans are serious about sending a message to the terrorists; why don't they make the focus of therir rebuttle an explanation of how wonderful our system of free speech works. What terrorists don't understand (and neocons apparently), is that we don't just rubber stamp our leaders wishes, we voice our opinion with a free exchange of ideas. We welcome open debate as we search for the best path. We don't torture people for their opinions right or wrong. We even welcome peaceful Muslims. As Churchill said, "America will always do what's right... after we try everything else." Neocons are acting like dictators not leaders of a free democratic republic?

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    Allee1 year, 6 months ago

    Huh?? What are you trying to say???

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

      Duh...he's saying he's a copperhead...

      Reply
• 0%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Can't understand? Anybody else get it? Neocons are claiming dems are embolding the enemy rather than doing their duty as members of a democratic republic. Explain they're wrong somehow, but don't tell the terrorists they should be emboldened.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    Here...read this...

    It will put these actions into context for you...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics

    Reply
  • 0%

    slate1 year, 6 months ago

    Nope My Fellow Monkey I too don't get it,,, be a bit more concise please

    Reply
• 50%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Copperhead? I never implied in the least that we should make an immediate peace settlement. Neocons almost never undersrtand any one elses point of view. They just define everyone and everything from their narrowminded POV in extreme black & white. You can't see reality staring at your own navel. I dont suppose I could get you to find out what Socratic Ignorance is... all you need is your Bible, Aristotle, Levi Strauss and your prejudicises?

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 67%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    You may not have personally...but the modern "peace democrats" sure have...

    Reply
  • 0%

    Allee1 year, 6 months ago

    At least my navel is in the open. How in the world can libs see anything staring into the deep dark recesses of you know where??

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

      LMAO...they are not staring "in"...they are staring "out"...

      *grin*

      Reply
  • 50%

    slate1 year, 6 months ago

    LOL

    Well I tell you something that isn't too shabby company to believe in,,,, beats Marx and the like.

    Some Christians are a bit more progressive than you claim. Some believe in Creation and Evolution coexisting,,,, the left is just a narrow as they claim the right is and you proved it there,,,,, then you have the audacity to claim the other side is unthinking when you can't grasp the idea of maybe thinking about what the other side has to say and believe

    Reply
• 0%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Again, you only see extremes. There are a multitude of different points of view in the democratic party. There's even more than one in the republican party though with their excessive use of talking points it's hard to see. Even Baptists dissagree with each other. A lot of the neocons you think agree with everything you think don't even believe the Bible is the unerring word of God. Karl Rove & Cheney don't just lie to us, he's lying to you too.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    eh?

    *reaches for universal translator*

    Reply
• 0%

  simonsez1 year, 6 months ago

  It represents a shameful act by Americans in power because it sends the wrong message to the world.

  Everyone hates this war and wants it resolved as quickly as possible, but this action does nothing to help; in fact, probably adds to the conflict.

  They have now put themselves in the position of hoping it fails! And they call themselves leaders.

  Reply
• 100%

  trachys1 year, 6 months ago

  ooh, a non-binding resolution .. ooh, those Democrats are so bold, so virile .. ooh, i'm getting hard just thinking about them ..

  Reply
• 100%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  It's as bold and beautiful as they've been in a long time. Gotta start somewhere. It aint all black & white, but I'd be the first to admit dems have let the country down for 28 years or so by being so timid. Dems have almost as much trouble getting really good people elected as repubs do, but then that's due to the apathetic ignorance of all of us isn't it?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    Finnally...and honest opinion...

    Embrace the copperhead in you...invest in defeat...

    '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."

    - John Murtha

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      simonsez1 year, 6 months ago

      Zeitgeist.

      Great post. Can you believe an American would say this in a time of war?? I say again, shameful!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

        Simon...I couldnt believe that northern democrats would work against the union during the American civil war...

        I couldnt believe that A democratic Congress would cut off funding and undermine the ability a south vietnam to defend itself from the communists...

        I couldnt believe that democrats would work with the soviets during the cold war to undermine Reagan...

        I couldnt believe that "some" democrats would oppose diposing the Taliban after 9/11...

        And I couldnt believe that Democrats would invest in defeat of the US military in Iraq...and perhaps even Afganistan...

        But I must admit when I am wrong...

        The democrats proved me wrong....and I admit that...

        Reply
• 0%

  weyland-smith1 year, 6 months ago

  It's a terrible situation, yes. It's a war. Right now it's still too soon to tell if the surge will accomplish what it should. But we should give it a chance. The alternatives are mostly unthinkable.

  Reply
• 50%

  not2needy1 year, 6 months ago

  This is just stressful, disheartening, and getting to be too much to deal with on a daily basis.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    oh boo hoo....

    Reply
• 0%

  Allee1 year, 6 months ago

  I know what we can do.....Rant and Rave as the dems do, like;

  Impeach pelosi, Impeach murtha, Impeach reid

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    slate1 year, 6 months ago

    Let's get it started

    Reply
• 0%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Relax. I've been stressing for 25 years. I voted for Reagan. Realized something was wrong about two years into that. We need more moderate Libertarians like Spector and Ron Paul. We'll be allright. Our system works better than we think.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    "I've been stressing for 25 years"

    That is obvious...

    Reply
  • 0%

    slate1 year, 6 months ago

    Are you saying that those that disagree are non thinking?

    Reply
• 100%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  I'll try to ease your stress a bit. Relax, our system works better than you think. We'll be allright as long as nuclear weapons aren't used. We're amazingly strong and resilient even though our apathetic ignorance causes us to swing way to far to left and right before we swing back.

  Reply
• 100%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Come on Allee,

  Surely you know (somewhere down deep) that it was the repubs taht actually went beserk over Impeach Clinton in the 90s? Don't you see dems are not impeaching as drastically as repubs with far more reason to do so?

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 100%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    When Bush commits perjury under oath over adultery and sexual harrassment get back to us would ya...

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      Amazing11 year, 6 months ago

      What Bush and his regent, Shotgun Dickie have done to the Constitution of the United States is far worse. Bush has lied to the American People. Set it up to delete habeas corpus. His signing statements have virtually negated the power of Congress. What Clinton did was no doubt reprehensible, but it didn't kill over 3000 soldiers.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

        And Bush didnt kill 3000 soldiers either...jihadists did...but you hate Bush more than the jihadists that killed the soldiers...

        The diagnosis?

        "Bush derangment syndrome"

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 100%

          Amazing11 year, 6 months ago

          But Bush sent the troops into harms way by invading a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had no WMD, but did have OIL.

          Reply
    • 100%

      slate1 year, 6 months ago

      If Bush if proven Guilty for any of said accusations I'll be right there wanting Justice,,,,, that is what separates the Dems and Repubs,,,,, the right will roast their own if justified the left never will

      Reply
  • 0%

    slate1 year, 6 months ago

    Yes that's true and it wasn't a wise thing,,,,, but ya know when you lie to a Jury you should get spanked Especially if you hold the highest office in the nation

    Reply
• 100%

  Chevellian19881 year, 6 months ago

  You know, if we would stop worrying about who is right or who is wrong and just think about how we could stop this war from lasting another 5 or 10 years for the sake of those american solders dying every day, then we would realize that there are only 2 reasonable solutions: 1. we should not send 20,000 troops, but we should send about 500,000 troops, 2. we pull everyone out. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT TO WIN THE WAR, AND TOO MUCH TO END IT.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Chevellian19881 year, 6 months ago

    your right, i wish we could but we have to do the best with the situations we are put in today. i agree that the liberals

    are definitely not the best at handling wars, but dont get me started on the liberals numerous problems.

    Reply
• 33%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  If we were truthfully set on nation building, as Bush II said he wasn't in debate (neocon paper proposed opposite in 1990s), we should also have had an overwheming reconstruction force dedicated to getting the plumbing electricity etc. up and running ASAP, but they may have blown it up anyway?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

    Oh yeah...we havent rebuilt a damn thing over there...nope...

    Reply
  • 60%

    Allee1 year, 6 months ago

    The servicemen I know that have come back home and the ones that are going to do another tour have said there is a LOT of rebuilding done such as schools, water, and yes, electricity up and running but the lib-press reports only the more sensational stuff like the bombings in Baghdad. They believe in what they are doing...and they don't look at the polls.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 83%

      Zeitgeist1 year, 6 months ago

      LIES...DAMN LIES!

      (I just wanted to beat apeman to the punch)

      *snicker*

      Reply
• 0%

  HolyApe1 year, 6 months ago

  Is what the Bildeberg conference really decided to do was start a civil war so the terrorists would kill each other over there and use up all the weapons we sent them so we could sell them more later? :-) And, we can destroy Irans nuclear plans as well? :-) Did neocons really believe we could set up a democracy there?

  Reply
• 0%

  vitriol1 year, 6 months ago

  Neither party's members are happy with the way the country is running. Lots of anger and mud slinging going on. The two party system isn't working. I't time to look at improving this democracy using amendments to the Constitution. How can the People's sentiment be better represented? Modify the Executive Branch by allowing five leaders; one each from the five largest political groups. Each leader from these parties would be represnted in the White House. There would be five Presidents, so that all major party's views could be considered in decisions. Nearly all of the electorate would be represented this way. Better representation has long been needed in the oval office. With a 30% approval rating, Bush is only representing 30% of the people.

  Reply