The Way Forward in Iraq
Nov 14, 02:43 PM | Harry Reid
Our troops deserve a strategy in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. That is why, for three years, Democrats have pushed the White House to lay out a plan for success.
Unfortunately, the President has rejected our call, and instead, insisted America needs to “stay the course.” With more than 2,050 Americans killed… more than $250 billion spent… and no end in sight after three years of war—“staying the course” is no longer an option.
Together, we can do better. Democrats have developed a very clear path forward. There are three areas we believe need to be addressed:
First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.
Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.
Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis – a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.
Apparently, Republicans have agreed this is the approach we need to take, as they have essentially accepted our amendment.
It cannot be understated that by accepting our amendment, both the Republican leader and the chairman of the Armed Services committee agree that the administration needs to come forward and explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for success and completing the mission.
It’s not easy for the President to admit mistakes. It’s a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies, but political attacks are not going to get the job done. Our troops have done their job. It’s time for the President and this Republican-controlled Congress to do theirs.
UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ ACT
Getting Answers to the American People on the War in Iraq
For too long, the Bush administration has failed to lay out a clear strategy for success in Iraq to the American people. Their rosy statements about the progress of the war are not matched by the conditions on the ground. In their few appearances before the Congress, the Secretaries of Defense and State have failed to answer the most basic questions about our progress in the war or provide even the simplest benchmarks by which the American people could measure our progress. Democrats are offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that holds the Administration accountable for its actions and requires it to present a real plan for success.
DEMOCRATS OFFER THE FOLLOWING ASSESMENT ABOUT THE WAR:
Our troops and their families deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people for their service and sacrifice. The Administration has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down. Democrats believe we should see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006 so that our troops can begin coming home. We also believe the Iraqi people must understand that the U.S. military will not stay in Iraq indefinitely; they must achieve the political stability necessary to defeat the insurgency.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MUST PROVIDE A PLAN:
It is essential that the Bush administration submit an unclassified strategy for success in Iraq to the Congress and the American people specifying how and when our troops can begin coming home.
An Assessment of the Bush Administration’s Actions to Achieve Progress in Iraq. The Bush administration must provide information on its efforts to convince Iraq’s communities to make the necessary compromises for a political settlement; efforts to engage the international community to help stabilize Iraq; efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s government ministries; efforts to accelerate the delivery of basic services; and efforts to train Iraqi security forces so those forces can protect Iraq on their own.
An Assessment of the Compromises Made by the Iraqi People to Achieve the Broad-Based and Sustainable Political Settlement.
An Unclassified Report to Congress and the American People. The Bush administration has classified most significant information about their Iraq war plans and kept that information from the Congress. The President should submit to the Congress and the American people an unclassified plan for success in Iraq. We deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress we are making. This report should also include:
· The number of Iraqi battalions that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations
· The number of Iraqi special police units that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in policing
· The number of regular police that must be trained and equipped
· The ability of Iraq’s Federal ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct and coordinate Iraq’s security forces
The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions.
A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.
Comment
- Dear Mr. Reid,
Please convey to our troops in Iraq that people who oppose the war do not oppose the people who carry it out. We only criticize the people who invented this catastrophe for personal gain and put the troops at risk.
Please tell them from us. Maybe you can organize a holiday message from us: “WE’RE FIGHTING THE BUSH CABAL BECAUSE WE WANT YOU SAFE”
Don’t let Bush lie to the troops about what we are doing.
Kathleen
— Kathleen M. Dickson Nov 14, 03:53 PM # - what is all this talk about Sen Roberts again STONEWALLING the phase 2 report????? what the heck is going on???? you made us proud when you demanded that report be put on the front burner…you had us cheering when you shut the senate doors to duke it out with the gop….we applauded as roberts had to promiose the interim report within TWO WEEKS but i just read that Roberts has absolutely NO intention of actually doing that interim report OR meeting the 2 week deadline…
‘what the heck is going on????
are you rolling over once again?
was the rule 21 event all for show?
has the democratic grassroots be had yet again?
— KnotIookin Nov 14, 04:30 PM # - I agree with what Kathleen says. I have nothing but praise for our men in uniform – while I deeply regret our president having started this conflict. And I’m smart enough to know they (the soldiers) would be suspect of my sincerity in saying that.
But being a veteran of Viet Nam, I can speak with some authority as to being involved in something and being proud to do so and then having the luxury of years to reassess what I did and decide the overall mission was misguided.
JUST BECAUSE we tote the biggest, baddest guns in town, doesn’t justify us using them to start something.
I was (and still am to some degree) behind the the routing of Al Quida from Afghanistan. But Iraq CLEARLY posed NO threat to us and howEVER bad things were in that country, it was NOT our place to go in with shock and awe and build the place from the ground, up.
There are STILL folks walking around in Florida – trying to scare up a bite to eat or the simple decency of a shower and clean clothes. Yet the bugledumbs of DC can’t seem to get those basics to our OWN folks while we’re actively trying to restore and rebuild Iraq.
It’s time we got back to being a nation OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE & FOR the PEOPLE. Not for the elietest warlords who try their best to keep the masses yoked into subservience.
Please. DO give them hell, Harry.
— Bob K. Nov 14, 04:30 PM # - Thanks Harry. I’m with those that praise the troops as you do, and I’m with you on getting something better than the “stay the course” and “we are on the hunt” slogans from Mr. Bush.
— Callahan Nov 14, 04:35 PM # - Senator, why is it that when you summarize the situation in Iraq, you can never bring yourself to mention two successful, nationwide elections? There are numerous other positive advances that you choose to ignore, but these two, at the very least, seem obvious enough to merit your attention.
KnotIoolin asked: “was the rule 21 event all for show?”
Yes, obviously it was, given that it was referred to as a “stunt” by a Senate Minority Leadership staffer:
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?bwd=45&byear=2005#613
Come on, you don’t still expect substance from Congress, do you?
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 05:15 PM # - Sobek when you accept lies and failure from your president you hurt America, our freedom and you let down our troops that were sent to die for a war of lies and empire.
— Jacob Metcalf Nov 14, 05:18 PM # - This is a subject in need of much attention. No one much cares what I think probably but I’m saying it anyway.
Sen. Reid you mentioned looking foward. I think foward is the answer to most of our problems military or otherwise. I pray every night that God will deliver the House and Senate to the Democrats, and that will be a launching pad to move foward on this war that has so foolishly been pushed on us.
We as a nation have at our disposal some great military minds. It’s very sad that they are not being used by our government. I know that we can reEnergize our military and all of it’s options once we change our command from the neocon agenda to a winable construct .
Moving Foward, I love that idea.
GIVE’EM HELL HARRY! I KNOW YOU CAN.
— gary jarvis Nov 14, 05:40 PM # - “Sobek when you accept lies and failure from your president you hurt America, our freedom and you let down our troops that were sent to die for a war of lies and empire.”
Concerning the oft-repeated “empire” meme, if that is the goal, why haven’t we annexed Iraq? If we went there to steal their oil, why am I still paying $2.69 for a gallon?
I WANT MY CHEAP OIL, DARN IT!
I tried to think of a less sarcastic response, but you haven’t given me much substance to work with, you know? And on that note, I think I’ll remind you that you once promised not to talk to me. So, you know, it seems you’re no stranger to the occasional lie yourself, right?
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 06:16 PM # - ” I pray every night that God will deliver the House and Senate to the Democrats…”
AMERICAN TALIBAN FASCIST!!!
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 06:17 PM # - The PNAC’s plans for Iraq are not about cheap oil it is about control. The Bush regime is wholly owned and funded by oil monopolies. Because if Iraq was annexed the protections of the American constitution would have to apply there and the pirates and profiteers can’t have that. The first law that Paul Bremer shoved down the Iraqi people throats was striking down the ban on foreign ownership of oilfields.
— Jacob Metcalf Nov 14, 06:27 PM # - Sounds to me that Iraq, thanks to President George W. Bush, is becoming a democracy. This seems to hurt those on the left like Harry Reid, who apparently prefers countries to be Communist or run by dictators. Harry wants us to “Cut and Run” turning Iraq over to the terrorists. Harry, have you considered resigning? You sound more and more like a losing political hack.
— joro Nov 14, 06:45 PM # - “Because if Iraq was annexed the protections of the American constitution would have to apply there and the pirates and profiteers can’t have that.”
You don’t seem to know much about Constitutional law. The Constitution applies extra-territorially in some circumstances—do you know what they are? More to the point, even assuming that the Constitution applied to Iraq in exactly the same way it applies to, say, Maine, in what way do you suppose that would affect your evil cabal of oil barons, pursuant to the Constitution?
“The first law that Paul Bremer shoved down the Iraqi people throats…”
Now that they have their own Constitution, they’re free to change anything Bremer did. Nota bene: that wouldn’t have been true if Saddam were still in power.
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 07:01 PM # - If Saddam was still in power like he was when Regan and Bush were running things the hundreds of thousands of uncounted innocent Iraqis would still be alive unmaimed and unmutilated. George Bush has established a fake puppet government that will lead the Iraqis to ethnic civil war and Islamic law. Actually according to that new constitution Iraq is now an Islamic republic. But that is good enough for Faux news fans.
— Jacob Metcalf Nov 14, 07:08 PM # - joro it is 2005 and dead Joe McCarthy wants is red baiting lines back.
— Jacob Metcalf Nov 14, 07:09 PM # - LOCO JORO
Democracy would be good for any country. Too bad it’s on the ropes here in this one. Along with Bush.
SLOW-BEK
Who or what do you pray to?
— gary jarvis Nov 14, 07:09 PM # - Traitor Turban Durbin made his treasonous speech from the Senate floor on national TV. The minority leader(?) wouldn’t even make him apologize to the nation and would not censure or expel Durbin because with Harry, party comes first. The terrorists repeatedly run the Durbin speech and then the demmies question those who show that Durbin and Reid support the terrorists with their partisan, anti-American rhetoric.
— joro Nov 14, 07:26 PM # - “The terrorists repeatedly run the Durbin speech”
Cite, please.
— No Gibbons Nov 14, 07:32 PM # - Jacob Metcalf said: “If Saddam was still in power like he was when Regan and Bush were running things the hundreds of thousands of uncounted innocent Iraqis would still be alive unmaimed and unmutilated.”
This is a variation on the “if we can depose all evil dictators, we shouldn’t depose any of them” fallacy. Also stated as “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
And the fact of the matter is that we can’t depose all of them, and we couldn’t in the Reagan era, either. So Reagan took the politically expedient of setting Iraq up as a check against Iranian ambitions.
That was 26 years ago. Is it possible that the political expedients of the Cold War Middle East have changed? Or are you so committed to living in the 70s?
“George Bush has established a fake puppet government that will lead the Iraqis to ethnic civil war and Islamic law.”
Well hello Mr. Happy Sunshine.
Civil war has always been a possibility. But what do you prefer? The certainty of mass murder? Great plan.
“Actually according to that new constitution Iraq is now an Islamic republic.”
And that’s a turn for the worse how?
“But that is good enough for Faux news fans.”
Not that I imagine you’ll care, but I don’t watch Fox News. Just for future reference.
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 07:38 PM # - Gary Jarvis asked: “Who or what do you pray to?”
To God, in the name of Christ. I’m sorry if my intent was unclear. When a conservative makes reference to religion, he or she is subject to hysterical outbursts from people calling them, most recently, “American Taliban.” That, in spite of the actual motives of the speaker, or the speaker’s views on the Establishment Clause.
So my post was not a substantive comment on your views, but an attempt at humor by noticing that religious language from the Left doesn’t draw the same ire. For example, Bill Clinton quoted from the Bible in public speeches more often than President Bush does. Please note that I’m not attacking Clinton for doing so, but the Lefty meme that Bush is a Bible-thumper never incorporates that important detail.
So I apologize if you misunderstood my intent, and as I made no comment on the substance of your post, there’s not really anything to which you need to respond.
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 07:44 PM # - We had 350,000 troops there in ‘03 and now it’s 200,000. Our goal was to train
300,000 Iraqi's to protect their own country, that number is now at200,000. As soon as the remaining Iraqi’s are trained and ready we will be bringing our troops home slowly. That HAS been our goal for quite some time.
You folks who say you support the troops but not why we’re there..your full of it. You stand behind cowards who are obstructing the war which really does nothing good for our troops or their morale. You anti-war nuts were like that in my war too. Some things never change.
I guess the Dems wanted the the express 2 yr war. Well that doesn’t work. (yea I know..Bush lied..blah..blah) What do the Dems know about winning a war anyway, in recent history you have never won a war, in fact you cower from foreign confrontation (Clinton & Carter). Let the GOP handle this war..in the mean time you can go recount the ballots in Florida and we’ll let you know when the remaining Iraqi troops are ready.
— Jeff Nov 14, 07:48 PM # - Give ‘Em hell Harry Bumper Sticker
— No Gibbons Nov 14, 07:52 PM # - Where are those bobbleheads so we can see a yes and no vote at the same time?
— Biggie Nov 14, 07:55 PM # - The discussion above is turning critical and destructive. Please keep it civil.
That said, although the earlier entries are more constructive, I feel the need to say this: I’m sick of the term “our troops”. And sure we support them: they’re our kids and our neighbors and our grandchildren. But I’m also sick of the poetry we use to describe them. They’re not our “bravest”, and they’re not “troops”, they’re young folks who have to choose between risking their lives fighting illegal, contrived battles for our criminals in power, and working minimum wage jobs with no health care benefits in a country with the richest doctors in the world. Come on, isn’t anybody else pissed about this? Let’s quit glorifying our “troops” and start working in a direction for our country that doesn’t force kids into killing for a living.
— mary Nov 14, 08:16 PM # - ”...working minimum wage jobs with no health care benefits in a country with the richest doctors in the world. Come on, isn’t anybody else pissed about this?”
I’m sure Karl Marx is spinning in his grave.
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 08:23 PM # - I guess the word Democrat is synonomous with coward or big yellow stripe. You people should find another country to live in, because right now your living in a make believe world of of milk and honey. I suppose that most of you are probably strung out on drugs of some sort and trying to find Woodstock in your volkswaggon bus. It pains me to think that we have to have people like all of you in my country. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see everyone of you wiped off the face of the planet. We might even get back to common sense and morality in this country then. Most of you protesting pieces of crap don’t contribute anything to society except for imorrality. Especially Harry Ried up on Capitol Hill spreading lies about George Bush.
— Scott Nov 14, 08:25 PM # - Oh yes, and I almost forgot. Give ‘em hell Harry! Nice to see politicians who have the guts to speak truth to power.
— mary Nov 14, 08:32 PM # - So Senator Lieberman, who’s “PROUD” (11-14-05) to have co-sponsored the Iraqi War Resolution (as he loudly declares he would do it all over AGAIN today) is desperate to prevent us from leaving Iraq, because as even he now recognizes, we have obviously FAILED in our “mission”—and CHAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST will therefore ensue if we leave now, having removed that “dictator” Hussein and found NO WMD (that everyone KNEW were there)... Oh, Poor, Poor Israel, what WILL they do now that his brilliant scheme has FAILED!!
TOUGH CHEESE, Lieberman: CARRY ISRAEL’S LIKUD WATER (and Mr. Buckley’s hidden agenda) FOR YOURSELF and on your OWN FROM HERE ON OUT. You’ve long-since LOST the support of THIS taxpayer’s dollars and the license to further abuse our U.S. Troops and innocent Iraqi Arabs.
WHAT A CLOSE-MINDED, IDEALOGUE, NEO-CON OF A DOMESTIC ENEMY FIFTH COLUMNER MASQUERADING AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR Joseph Lieberman is.
What A MASTERFUL liar and manipulator INDEED you are Mr. Lieberman. The MOST pro-Iraq-occupation Senator out there, bar none.
It’s as long as ISRAEL needs us, Sen. Levin: don’t you get IT??? That’s ALL Lieberman cares about. We should NEVER leave Iraq in his (not-for-public-consumption) opinion.
Senator Carl Levin is doing YEOMAN’s work in the Senate these days. He has gutted (with Sen. Kyl) Graham’s horrific amendment of last week, charming the pants off Graham in the process, and saving a little honor for our country, and then we hear this BLASPHEMY from Lieberman, DISGUISED as “support” for our troops.
Sen. Levin: keep it on the front burner: we ARE leaving Iraq, despite all the best laid plans of the Neocons. All honest Americans are on your side. And I SALUTE you for your dogged, detailed Senatorial efforts of late, and don’t know how you manage to keep such a calm outlook toward those sabotaging you (or trying to) at every turn. MICHIGAN, you should be busting with pride about your Senior U.S. Senator.
— Let's Get Real Nov 14, 08:34 PM # - “Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see everyone of you wiped off the face of the planet. We might even get back to common sense and morality in this country”
Anyone else see the irony of hoping for the mass extermination of people for their politics in the name of common sense and morality?
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 08:38 PM # - Let’s Get Real,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious: IT’S THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!
— SobekPundit Nov 14, 08:41 PM # - To agitator SobekPundit:
It is absolutely NOT: “The Jews” – as you put it with such despicable insinuation. NOR is it “The Arabs” as the American military seems to suggest by referring to their “enemy” as “sand niggers.”
It IS the Likud Party of Israel’s support for the twisted NEOCON agenda, aimed specifically at dominating perceived threats from Arabic countries throughout the Middle East, via their influence on the foreign policy of the United States through handmaidens like Joseph Lieberman (and I’m sure I don’t know the half of it).
I just witnessed the most APPALLING speech on the floor of the United States Senate via C-Span2, in terms of its FACADE of saying one thing, while clearly MEANING another. There’s a reason Joe Lieberman has been lying low lately, hoping no one will run against him in the Primary next year. But a hawkish “Republican” (Sen. Warner) proposed something, so it’s okay now for Joe to come out in favor of it, ‘cause he’s “just” being “bipartisan” about it all. WRONG. This is double-dealing Joe’s FAVORITE game: SAY one thing, MEAN another.
BIG votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate tomorrow morning, everyone: Take notes: this is about War, and the whole enchilada with regard to the actual “doing” of supporting (or not) those we’ve sent into harm’s way in Iraq.
— Let's Get Real Nov 14, 09:55 PM # - ”...dominating perceived threats…”
Yeah, because we all know there aren’t any REAL threats in the Middle East.
“This is double-dealing Joe’s FAVORITE game: SAY one thing, MEAN another.”
Sounds like standard politics to me. You expected differently?
— Sobek Nov 14, 10:34 PM # - The second biggest mistake the Dems made was to allow Bush et.al. to call the POWs detainees. If this is REALLY A WAR, and it is, then captured enemies are REALLY POWS. The term “detainee” allows torture and should also allow them access to some legal recourse in our courts. A few Democrats just crossed the aisle on the military budget bill and made sure the detainee rider got passed (so they won’t have access to our courts). I don’t particularly want them to have legal recourse, but I don’t want them tortured either. Calling a POW a POW would solve both those issues. As a POW, the “detainees” would be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.
By the way, is there anyone that believes the highest ranking person involved in Abu Ghraib was an enlisted person? What a fucking sham!
The first and biggest mistake was giving Bush permission to loose the dogs of war in Iraq.
— Poordaddy Nov 14, 11:26 PM # - Senator,
With all due respect, I find it sad that the Democrats have waited until now to attack the bush administration for their manipulation of intelligence to sell the Iraq war. Many in your party, including you Senator, voted to give this ill-equipped president the authority to foist his own personal war on the American people. Where were you all when it was so obvious to many of us “average Joes” that we were being dragged to war by men motivated by vengeance and greed.
Fie. Your protestations come far too late for the 2,000 plus Americans who have given their lives for nothing.
— Beagle Nov 15, 12:03 AM # - Oh, those poor beheaders..my heart bleeds
— Biggie Nov 15, 12:29 AM # - No one would have had their heads chopped off for them, if Bush and his cabal had not optimized the intelligence and in fact committed treason.
Try to think about all the soldiers who now have to live without limbs or their sight. For no good reason.
— Kathleen M. Dickson Nov 15, 03:35 AM # - Take back the Senate – nail the freakin Dinos – I am sick and tired of them.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM PULLS A FAST ONE TO ABORT HABEAS CORPUS
With virtually no advance notice the Republican majority in the Senate (with the shameful complicity of Democrats Conrad, Landrieu, Lieberman, [Ben] Nelson, and Wyden) approved a last minute amendment to the Defense Authorization Act to deny U.S. courts jurisdiction to examine the legality of detainee detention in Guantanamo and elsewhere. They did this in defiance of the not yet completely packed Supreme Court (another reason to reject Alito), whose authority they would annul. This is all despite the well-known FACT that many scooped up into these hell holes of torture are not terrorists at all, some even having been sold for bounty. Senator Bingaman immediately responded with a proposed corrective amendment (S.AMDT.2517) to restore jurisdiction.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.trotm.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)
ACTION PAGE: http://www.trotm.com/no_conservative.htm (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O’Connor)
Is our government telling us that there is no possible way any of those people can be convicted of a crime, by even an American jury, if they were to have a fair trial? We also know that our own military attorneys were fired for protesting because the tribunals already established were such miscarriages of justice. If there is nobody in detention who can be convicted of anything without special kangaroo courts, then the real terrorists have indeed won, for we will then have abdicated all moral authority. Please contact your senators at once to tell them to support the Bingaman amendment.
or to get no more simply email to no_more@trotm.com
— dkmich Nov 15, 06:22 AM # - Harry,
What are you doing to oppose Sen Graham’s habeas legislation? Talk about disrupting precedence! That flies in the face of centuries of international law, especially laws of a democracy.
— Stella Nov 15, 08:29 AM # - Poordaddy said: “If this is REALLY A WAR, and it is, then captured enemies are REALLY POWS.”
Classic obfuscation, although I’m pleasantly surprised to see someone concede that there really is a war going on. The problem is the suggestion that during a war, everyone who tries to kill falls under the Geneva Convention. Not so. The terrorists are not regular troops, they do not wear uniforms or insignia that distinguish them as soldiers, and they are not covered by that document.
At a conference two years ago, I listened to a debate between two law professors about law and the War on Terror. The conservative argued that the Convention does not apply to the detainees. The liberal DID NOT DISAGREE. He agued that the Convention should apply, because positive benefits would arise from such a situation, but he could not in good faith argue that, by its own terms, it applies.
Biggie said: “Oh, those poor beheaders..my heart bleeds”
Precisely.
Kathleen M. Dickson said: “No one would have had their heads chopped off for them, if Bush and his cabal had not optimized the intelligence and in fact committed treason.”
Other than some Kurds, but who the heck cares about them anyway? It’s their own fault for being Kurds.
dkmich said: “Is our government telling us that there is no possible way any of those people can be convicted of a crime, by even an American jury, if they were to have a fair trial?”
The problem is with the “fair trial” part. A fair trial involves witnesses, yes? As in, the Constitutional right to be confronted with your accuser? In a time of war, that’s not feasible, because soldiers are still in the field, acting as soldiers. The military cannot wage war effectively if it is forced to pull it’s troops every month for a full investigation and trial, and it cannot wage war effectively if it must release all detainees periodically simply because it doesn’t have the resources to pull its troops.
In a time of war, the rules change, and for good reason. This is what America has always done. We did not pull American forces out of Germany to stand witness in trials for ever captured German—not because we wanted to torture the Germans, but because there was no other way.
Stella said: “Talk about disrupting precedence!”
The Constitution expressly allows the Congress to define the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Are you familiar with that document?
“That flies in the face of centuries of international law, especially laws of a democracy.”
If you don’t know the facts, I guess you may as well make crap up. First, international law does not trump the U.S. Constitution. Second, where are you getting this assumption about what “centuries of international law” have to say about habeas corpus law? For example, what does Germany’s Constitution have to say about habeas relief? Or France’s? Do you even know?
— Sobek Nov 15, 10:47 AM # - Give em Hell Harry! It’s morning in America again! This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine…......SHINE ON, HARRY! Let the light of truth scatter the cockroaches back to the shadows and then call the exterminator! Take back America from the lying, theiving scum.
— Kat Nov 15, 10:55 AM # - How is that people like “Joro” read comments like the one Senator Ried made…
“Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis – a plan for success to Congress and the American people.”
...and then say that Ried is for “cutting and running”??? You will never win arugments with people that are afraid to listen. They are so brainwashed and of such low intellect that they should be banned from voting.
Has anyone noticed that Republicans always spew the same canned information? It’s as though when you hear them speak you want to check to see if you can see Bill O’Rielly’s lips move. I watch FoxNews to see what the right has to say. Have you also noticed that when you speak to Republicans they always want to tell you what the left has said that is wrong. When you ask where they get their information, what left wing channel they watch or paper they read, they seem to always say things like, “I’ll never give that damned Micheal Moore a dime of my money! Or, I’d never read any of those rags!” They seem to be happy to get all their news “Fair and Balanced” from Rupert Murdock.
I don’t mind, and in fact welcome thoughtful debate, that is one of the strengths of this country, but let’s engage intelligent people that want to make positive difference. This type of stupidtiy is unfortunately not limited to the folks on the right side of the aisle.
Let’s have a decent debate and push forward well thought out information and points of view. I don’t want to sensor anyone but these types of bottom dweller’s sure muddy the waters.
— PCruz Nov 15, 11:12 AM # - Sobek,
Well, let’s see here…
“centuries of international law”
King Edward the I used habeas in the 14th Century..there’s the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679..uh..
from the Paquete Habana case in 1900 in the U.S. district
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts
sounds like precedence to me.
Criticism is healthy and appreciated, however, perhaps your critique would accomplish more if it were accurate and constructive.
This site is set to be “A place where you can be a part of taking back your Senate”, not mindless flaming because you may be intimidated to do so outside of the computer lab.
— Stella Nov 15, 11:20 AM # - Harry;
I laughed out loud when I read Sobeck’ offensive defense,
“if you don’t know the facts, you may as well make crap up.” I’m still chuckling at the irony of it.
You might think he was talking about Cheney’s WMD claims! Or Condi’s smoking gun, or maybe W’s mushroom cloud. Or Collin’s little vial of white powder. Thanks for the perfect line, Sobeck, from now on my opinion about the Bush administration has a simple catch phraze, provided by one of their own hired trolls.
Because that is exactly why this investigation started in the first place, what line better fits the White House’s agenda of deception than “if you don’t know the facts you may as well make crap up.”
Maybe we should say “if you don’t LIKE the facts, you may as well make crap up.” that fits Cheney even better.
Harry, you have really drawn the flies with this blog. The debate is beginning to remind me of the Dean blog in its infancy. When the rest of the pack saw how well it worked, they set hired trolls to work, argueing every obscure point into irrelevancy, repeating the patent brainwashed mantras, basically trying to gum up the open-source works and dampen the unbridled enthusiasm of the early Dean campaign.
As soon as the media trashed Dean in Iowa with the engineered “scream,” the pro trolls quit getting paid for their anti-blogging, so they disappeared from the screen.
Harry, the fact that they are so intent on doing the same thing to this blog gives me encouragement that you are having a much greater influence on public opinion than they can deal with.
With this investigation and “un-cover-up” process you have started, you have opened the proverbial can of worms, or at least exposed them to public scrutiny.
When the trolls are as diligent as these pro’s seem to be, it means you have them scared, just like Dean did. And since you are already in office, and they can’t use their media puppies to keep you out of power, they have to depend on puppets like Sobek to do their dirty work.
Sobek’s professional legal knowledge and his use of it in convoluted references the same way they do to justify acts like torture, is one good example of their deceptive tricks, and proof they are afraid of this blog.
People of America, Harry Reid and his crew are heroes, there is no other way history will look back upon this event. Hired-gun legal experts and professional debators and anyone else who suggests otherwise is part of the “big lie” whether through their ideological ignorance or their willing complicity.
As for W calling me and the rest of his critics irresponsible and unpatriotic, I humbly ask God to determine who was responsible for what.
As I see it, it is my patriotic responsibility to state my opinion when I disagree with our administration. My silence would be irresponsible.
For many of our elected officials, their silence is tantamount to treason.
When the Truth is labeled a “mixed message,” then the liars rule.
JEP
— John Patterson Nov 15, 11:34 AM # - Thanks again Harry. I think it also needs to be emphasized that the Republican Congress is taking credit for the Democrats’ ideas once again. If we don’t stress this point, the “Dems are the party of no ideas” lie will keep being used against us.
— Thomas Allen Nov 15, 12:11 PM # - PCruz, when Harry writes ”...’staying the course’ is no longer an option,” reasonable people might read that and think he means that staying the course is no longer an option.
Stella, thank you for pleasantly surprising me by actually citing facts, including Paqete Habana. I’ll be even more pleasantly surprised if your next comment actually cites something relevant, but you’re off to a much better start than many here.
Your reference to King Edward I misses the point because it only proves that habeas corpus has been used for centuries—it ignores the question of when and under what circumstances habeas relief may be suspended. Without describing the contours of the law, you miss the point.
Let me help you out a bit: you might refer to Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, which states in part that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” You might then observe that the clause does not appear to refer to foreign military conflicts, and therefore the pending legislation is improper. That is a reasoned argument, relying on text that is undeniably applicable.
Of course the response is that Article III, section 2 provides an Exceptions clause to federal jurisdiction. Which of these two clauses should prevail? There’s an argument to be had there, and it should be made.
And your citation to Paqete Habana states that international law is part of our law, but does not explain the content of that international law. What are its sources? When is international law superceded by U.S. law? How is new international law adopted? I agree with you as to the content of the Paqete Habana case, but it does not determine the question of habeas relief for enemy combatants.
“Criticism is healthy and appreciated…”
I agree, and I hope our discussion can remain constructive and accurate. And I apologize in advance if my tone gets too combatative.
John Patterson said: “You might think he was talking about Cheney’s WMD claims!”
Actually I was talking about international law. But you know, whatever.
“Because that is exactly why this investigation started in the first place, what line better fits the White House’s agenda of deception than ‘if you don’t know the facts you may as well make crap up.’”
So all the concurring statements by Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Albright, et al would be … what, exactly? Why is it that Democrats could state unequivocally that Saddam had WMD and garner no criticism from you, but when Bush says the exact same thing it’s an impeachable offense?
”...they set hired trolls to work…”
Nice as it would be to get paid for this, do you really think someone is sending me a check? I just want to know what my Senator is up to, plain and simple. And I want to call him on his double standards, lest he think his misrepresentations will be ignored.
”...argueing every obscure point into irrelevancy…”
Yeah, Madeline Albright’s statements about Saddam’s WMD program sure are obscure.
”...and dampen the unbridled enthusiasm of the early Dean campaign.”
John, I assure you with all the sincerity of my soul that I want the Democrats to maintain the “unbridled enthusiasm” that Dean so tactfully displayed. Nothing would please me more.
“As soon as the media trashed Dean in Iowa with the engineered ‘scream’...”
Engineered? Darn that Karl Rove and his mind control device!!!
“Sobek’s professional legal knowledge and his use of it in convoluted references the same way they do to justify acts like torture, is one good example of their deceptive tricks, and proof they are afraid of this blog.”
I have no professional knowledge of torture whatsoever—everything I know about the Geneva Convention and military law is my hobby, not my job (but if you want to litigate a contract, give me a call). That said, the “torture” issue is a classic liberal strawman. Liberals know they can’t look soft on defense, so they approve of “coercive techniques” that don’t amount to torture, but never explain what the dividing line is between torture and coercion. Until liberals are willing to explain what, specifically, is allowed, you’ve got no credibility, because as a practical matter, asking a terrorist to “pretty please” rat out their compatriots is not likely to prove effective.
So you tell me: is it “torture” to smear fake menstrual blood on a Muslim captive? Is it “torture” to make them sleep on the ground? Is it torture to deny them a Koran? And if those things amount to torture, then what would you approve, specifically, that would be both a) kind and gentle, and b) effective at saving American lives.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 12:34 PM # - No Kathy Augustine Up or Down Vote?
Nevada GOP chief urges impeached official to forget politics
KRNV-RENO: Nevada Controller Kathy Augustine, the only state official ever impeached and convicted, has been urged by state Republican Party Chairman Paul Adams to not embarrass the party by seeking another elective office next year.
How come republican conservatives preach about “up or down vote” but fail to give the same right to Harriet Miers and now Kathy Augustine?
— No Gibbons Nov 15, 12:34 PM # - Fred Kaplan has a great piece on the Slate website that dissects W’s latest twist and spin…
http://www.slate.com
— John Patterson Nov 15, 12:35 PM # - Sobek;
Load your copy of the Dean scream onto Soundforge and take a look at the wave signature.
And as for torture, I can’t speak exclusively, I’ve never been there but maybe someone like John McCain is the better authority. Am I wrong in noting that he is one of the major sponsors of this new restrictive language? And that Cheney has actively campaigned for the very kind of torture that McCain knows is wrong? Has Cheney ever been tortured?
Darn that Carl Rove, I forgot that McCain was renderd unstable because of that torture.
Wasn’t that Carl’s strategy after New Hampshire 2000?
JEP
— John Patterson Nov 15, 12:47 PM # - Sobek,
I am positive you would not accept any such nonsense in your peronal life. If you were to take your car into be repaired and when you asked the mechanic how long it was going to take and how much it would cost, would you be fine with, “It’ll take as long as it takes and cost as much as it costs, you just need to stay the course”???
I think maybe you’d want a progress report and some sort of estimate so that you could make up your mind if the car were worth saving.
And again your simplistic remark is off point. A progress report on a quarterly basis is hardly “cutting and running” I’d like to hear your comment on that. I know that Sean Hannity has not prepared you with a statement but try and put something together on your own, just for kicks.
— PCruz Nov 15, 12:48 PM # - To Stella & John Patterson
Thanks for your last two posts. Sobek is probably a neo-con “plant” on this site.
I’ve been trying to formulate a response to him, and I must admit, he does dazzle one with bullshit. I know very little about law, international or otherwise. What I do know in my gut and in my conscience is that when we torture “detainees”, we become small and murderous like the terrorists we rail against.
Whether they wear uniforms or not seems to be the ultimate “obfuscation”. What a lame excuse for stripping human beings of their right to be human in the name of bringing “democracy” to Iraq. Sobek, your posts are classic examples of how we have lost the moral high ground in the last few years. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not this war is right or justified, but only irrational idealogues can justify torture.
This is a war and the “detainees” are prisoners of this war. Uniforms or not, they are POWs.
— Poordaddy Nov 15, 12:53 PM # - John Patterson said: “Load your copy of the Dean scream onto Soundforge and take a look at the wave signature.”
I don’t have a copy, or Soundforge, and I wouldn’t understand the wave signature if I saw it, so I would appreciate it if you would just tell me what I might find.
“And as for torture, I can’t speak exclusively, I’ve never been there but maybe someone like John McCain is the better authority. Am I wrong in noting that he is one of the major sponsors of this new restrictive language?”
To my knowledge, you are correct that McCain is a sponsor of the bill in question. The problem with the McCain bill is that it doesn’t specify anything, either. It makes reference to the International Convention on Torture, which also doesn’t specify anything. Numerous international conventions, as well as foreign constitutions based on those conventions (for example, South Africa’s borrowings from the ICCPR) ban “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” but that language is obviously vague. McCain’s bill, therefore, could subject American military personnel to criminal prosecution without explaining what, specifically, they aren’t supposed to be doing.
Look, if you’re trying to convince me that Americans shouldn’t be using torture, don’t waste your energy; I already agree with you. The question is, what is torture? No politician will ever have the spine to actually state in public which acts are allowed, because there is no better way of giving you political opponents a weapon against you. So that leaves us with McCain’s unworkable proposal, a military forever in jeopardy of unclear laws, and bitter partisan battles lacking solid definitions.
PCruz said: “If you were to take your car into be repaired and when you asked the mechanic how long it was going to take and how much it would cost, would you be fine with, ‘It’ll take as long as it takes and cost as much as it costs, you just need to stay the course’???”
Of course I wouldn’t be fine with that. And if a country were like a car, then I would find your analogy apt. And if history showed that enemy nations can be turned into friends (e.g. Japan, Germany, England, France, Spain, Mexico) according to a certain timetable, with a fixed dollar cost, then I, too, might clamor for a timetable. And if America had no responsibilities towards the Iraqi people, then I, too, might call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops.
And if the sky fell, it might kill all the birds.
“And again your simplistic remark is off point. A progress report on a quarterly basis is hardly ‘cutting and running’ I’d like to hear your comment on that.”
Harry Reid (remember, it’s his statement we’re discussing) specifically said that “staying the course is no longer an option.” As I see it, that leaves only two options on the table: cutting and running, or increased military presence. I’ve seen no indication that he favors the latter, so simple deduction leaves me with the “cutting and running” plan.
“I know that Sean Hannity has not prepared you with a statement…”
So soon after I was chided for ignoring the Republican talking points. In case you care, I quit listening to Hannity after he became skull-numbingly repetitive, and thoroughly demonstrated that he has no debating skills.
Poordaddy said: “What I do know in my gut and in my conscience…”
Way to reinforce the old liberal stereotype.
”...is that when we torture ‘detainees’, we become small and murderous like the terrorists we rail against.”
Which is why I asked for a definition of torture, so we can have some kind of substantive discussion. And as I have already agreed that torture (e.g. maiming) is unacceptable, I don’t know that we really disagree, as far as that goes.
The question is not “should America torture its enemies,” but rather “what actions may America take to coerce its enemies, that will not reduce us to the level of the terrorists, but which will still prove effective.” I’d love to see a substantive discussion of that question. I’d love it even more to see it from an elected official.
“This is a war and the ‘detainees’ are prisoners of this war. Uniforms or not, they are POWs.”
Not according to the Geneva Convention, they aren’t. Regardless of what your gut tells you.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 01:21 PM # - Why can’t we just say, in a simple way, that we should not torture “prisoners” of any kind?
And really, aren’t they prisoners of the war on terror? If they are not prisoners of war, what would you call them? What legal jurisdiction covers them?
They are being held, basically, in a state of lawlessness.
As soon as you identify them, by any set of laws, then you are required to give them certain rights, at least according to “the rule of law”.
Sobek, I suggest that, the circular logic you use in referring to the Geneva Convention and the most narrow interpretation you can find in it, that says they are not prisoners of war, suggests in the same circular way that we aren’t fighting the war on terror.
If the prisoners we take in our war on terror aren’t prisoners of war, then we shouldn’t call it a war, lets call it a “detainee drive”. Or maybe an “evildoer roundup,” yup, that sounds about right!
But do not call them prisoners of war. Then they have human rights.
What are they prisoners of, if not the war on terrorism?
JEP
— John Patterson Nov 15, 01:57 PM # - Sobek
We agree on two points.
You said “In case you care, I quit listening to Hannity after he became skull-numbingly repetitive, and thoroughly demonstrated that he has no debating skills.”
I would only add IMHO, he’s a self-righteous dipshit.
Secondly, a clear and concise definition of torture should be a part of any bill addressing the treatment of “detainees”.
I still stand by my first post. If the “detainees” were called POWs from the gate, this discussion would arguably not be necessary. I’m not talking about Koran denial and sleeping on the ground. I’m talking broom handle sodomy, water immersion just short of drowning and dog bites.
Sounds like torture to me.
— Poordaddy Nov 15, 02:15 PM # - This is a public and heartfelt
THANK YOU
To Senator Mary LANDRIEU of LA
for her TWO YEA votes today, in support of the YEOMAN work of Senator Levin, and for upholding the honor of our country in its treatment of detainees under our own, and international, laws.
Both the Bingaman amendment, and the unedited Democratic Levin amendment to hold Bush accountable on the war, DESERVED ON THE MERITS to pass, and every Democrat who voted against those deserves a Primary opponent, in my opinion. Mary Landrieu supported them both. I hope this means she has new and better staff advice on some of these measures and their implications to the founding priniciples of our country.
Remember Senators: EVERY PENNY you vote to spend in excess of last year’s budget IS BORROWING YET MORE FROM THE FUTURE, WITH INTEREST, because our federal budget IS IN THE RED. And the Iraq War is costing us about $2 BILLION a WEEK. This ISN’T a game.
As for Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut: FIND THEM OPPONENTS IN THEIR PRIMARIES. Better yet, Harry Reid: FORCE them out of the Democratic Caucus, and thus into the Republican Party, where they will both immediately take up residence in the far rightwing, and finally be forced to stop flying under false colors.
— Let's Get Real Nov 15, 02:26 PM # - John Patterson said: “Why can’t we just say, in a simple way, that we should not torture ‘prisoners’ of any kind?”
I’m okay with that, but we still need a definition of “torture” for that agreement to have any meaning. Tell me, is it permissible to use psychotropic drugs that leave no lasting damage? is it permissible to use water-boarding, whereby the prisoner is made to think he is drowning (but which, again, has no lasting effects)? is it permissible to smear fake menstrual blood on a Muslim male? Or do these three things count as “torture,” in your view?
Poordaddy, I’m glad to see we agree that the bill needs a clear and concise definition. It doesn’t even need to be a list, so long as it provides enough direction that a soldier can know what is allowed and what is not. Such a definition, I submit, is politically impossible. That is regrettable, but I don’t see any way around it.
“I’m not talking about Koran denial and sleeping on the ground.”
Agreed. The problem is that while these two are not very invasive, they also aren’t likely to induce a recalcitrant prisoner to talk.
“I’m talking broom handle sodomy, water immersion just short of drowning and dog bites.”
I’ll agree on the broom handle and the dog bites. I disagree on the water-boarding, as it does not lasting physical damage.
Let’s Get Real: I absolutely agree with you that we need a balanced budget.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 02:34 PM # - It’s been two weeks, Senator Reid.
Was that just a grandstanding play on your part or are you going to grow a set now and go to executive session a second time?
Did you need me to show you how to run a party, sir?
— actor212 Nov 15, 02:38 PM # - Get Real;
Your first suggestion in your last paragraph was spot-on, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Your second suggestion would make Harry look like a Republican bully, that is how Republican dissenters have been treated over the past 5 years; bullied out of power and authority if they did not agree 100 percent with the neocon game plan.
Just ask all the early K-Street victims about it, now there’s a piece of history that helps prove what a bunch of rogues we are dealing with. Talk about Cheney’s bullies manipulating the market! Those disenfranchised lobbyists can really tell some tales!
So before we eject anyone from membership in our minority, we should find a way to appeal to the voters in Ben and Joe’s districts to flood them with emails and letters. If they knew the true sentiment of the public they claim to represent, they might just come back across the aisle with their votes.
If they pay no heed to their own constituents, I say “throw the bums out.”
But we shouldn’t look like the neocon Republicans when we do it.
JEP
— John Patterson Nov 15, 02:51 PM # - Does anyone here know when and under what circumstances comment sections get closed? Is it when a certain amount of time has elapsed? Thanks in advance.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 02:57 PM # - Nice work with the website, and the tools that make it simple to have our voices heard.
-dan mccomb
http://www.biznik.com
— Dan McComb Nov 15, 03:28 PM # - Thanks Senator Reid for “Givin Them Hell.” But I don’t think you give them enough hell. Senator, you’re a smart, well informed legislator and there are probably very few things that I know about politics that you don’t. So I know that you and virtually every serious American politician knows about the Project for the New American Century at http://www.newamericancentury.org/. You know that they were urging a fight with Iraq even before George Jr. took office. You know that they urged Bill Clinton to invade Iraq. You also know that George Jr’s inner circle is comprised of the founders of the Project; Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney, Don Rumsfield, Bolton, Wolfie, etc., etc. etc. You know that these so called neo-cons have been wishing for this fight and they finally found someone in George Jr., who was naive enough to bring it. You know that Bill Kristol has had interviews about the Project and has proudly said that George Jr. adopted their position and took us to war. You know all these things and the average American doesn’t but yet neither you nor your esteemed colleagues ever mention it. Why?
— Emmett Robinson Nov 15, 03:56 PM # - Senator Reid: Weak-kneed burble about “significant transitions” in 2006 and “benchmarks” and “progress reports will not cut it. Speaking as one person I will support no Democrat for national office who does not support a call for withdrawal of our troops starting immediately and completed within one calendar year. How many more people, Iraqui and American, must die or be maimed while waiting for “significant transitions.” We had no business invading Iraq and the best thing that can now happen for both the Iraqui and American peoples is our speedy exit. Democrats who don’t see this will lose and will deserve to lose.
— Bernard Weisberger Nov 15, 04:26 PM # - The repubs have been in charge for 5 years , the amount of bad administratingin this time span is staggering , let alone the lies and just plane crimes perpetrated against the American public. Senator you should have ammunition for the next ten years to attack this crime family called the republican executve branch.
— enoughalready Nov 15, 04:32 PM # - Thanks for your comments, John Patterson.
My comments about removing Ben Nelson and Joseph Lieberman from the Democratic Caucus are not made lightly. As I said in an earlier post, I believe Lieberman is the MOST pro-Iraq-occupation Senator, bar none, based on his recent extremely disingenuous statements on the Senate floor. And that means pro-occupation at this moment AND for the indefinite future (though he knows damn well he can’t say that publicly).
Is that okay with the Caucus? Can they overlook that reality, and the fact that Ben Nelson can be COUNTED ON to OPPOSE EVERY important Democratic “value” vote?? I’d like to know what Democratic “value” that has been up for a CLOSE vote, Sen. Ben Nelson sided with the DEMOCRATS on. I can’t think of one.
It is a “fifth column” phenomenon. We NEED to have a reasonable idea of who can be counted on to SIDE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE on critical votes about our principles and values as a nation. Otherwise, Harry Reid and the Democrats are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. I want the Democrats to SERIOUSLY consider this option. Because if so-called Democrats are ON THE FACE OF IT, in fact Republicans, let’s “get real” and call a spade a spade. No one would be telling them how to vote: they’d simply be saying, Ben, ole boy, why don’t you adopt the flag that represents your voting history, and stop confusing the gullible American people about who you really are, and tainting the rest of the Democrats in the process…
In other words, the Democratic Party ‘brand’ has to actually MEAN something—and if you can’t and won’t and don’t vote to support the core values of the Democratic Party when the chips are down, you need to wear some other brand.
— Let's Get Real Nov 15, 04:34 PM # - “In other words, the Democratic Party ‘brand’ has to actually MEAN something—and if you can’t and won’t and don’t vote to support the core values of the Democratic Party when the chips are down, you need to wear some other brand.”
One thing I’ve learned by reading both conservative and liberal sites is that both groups love to complain about their INOs (DINO or RINO, as the case may be). I won’t pretend I’ve never done such a thing, but such complaints strike me as the most sure-fire way of increasing the polarization that everyone is complaining about these days.
Every time I read a liberal complaining about the Democrats who won’t stand up for themselves in Congress, I have to chuckle a bit, because it’s the exact same thing the conservatives are saying about the Republicans.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 05:02 PM # - Did you need me to show you how to run a party, sir? Posted By: actor212
Senator Reid doesn’t need any lip from you, Sir.
He knows exactly what he’s doing.
— No Gibbons Nov 15, 05:02 PM # - Reid doesn’t run the party, he’s the Senate Minority Leader. Dean “runs” the party. When he isn’t telling the press how much he hates Republicans, that is.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 05:06 PM # - Get Real;
You are right, on every count, I can not argue with your logic or your resolve. The Democrats need to heed your advice, both as a party and as individuals. We need to stand together, and define our aspirations clearly, and hold the Bens and Joes accountable when they lean too far to the other side.
Some questions that come to mind about their loyalties;
What do you suppose the particulars are about both of them, and who might they be beholden to, that they would vote against their own party?
Like most associations, theirs are probably more transparent than they realize.
Why do they vote against the Democtratic party line? Who are they appeasing?
Who donated to their campaigns who also supported mostly Republicans?
And how do the small to medium-size farmers look at Ben now? Was he on their side when the farm bill axe dropped? He may be facing a tough election next time around, I don’t know the particulars, but it seems to me the ag community has a pretty good idea of who their real friends “aren’t.”
JEP
— John Patterson Nov 15, 05:06 PM # - Emmett;
I’m glad to see someone else out there concerned about PNAC and the vipers who started it and keep it financed and in charge of ‘our’ government.
Why is this such obsure knowledge? Every American should know about them. I wonder, too, why there is not more outcry regarding the Patriot Act, the frightening club wielding over us all. Amazing . . .
Torture by any other name is still torture and is IMO a hideous practice. With few exceptions, most ‘detainees’ have no knowledge of anything of value to our military.
— hateskoolaid Nov 15, 06:04 PM # - “Torture by any other name is still torture and is IMO a hideous practice.”
By that same token, acts which are not torture, even though called torture, are not necessarily hideous.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 06:15 PM # - Emmett….
You are dead on! PNAC has never gotten any serious kind of media or legislative coverage at all. All Dem Senators and Congressmen should be screaming PNAC from the rooftops in Washington and naming names. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Cristol to name a few. Anyone who hasn’t heard of PNAC, do yourself a favor and do a search on it. 9/11 or no 9/11, we were going into Iraq. If we aren’t planning on staying there, why are we building a dozen or so permanent bases there?
— Poordaddy Nov 15, 06:22 PM # - Sobek,
Once again you miss the point. You are stuck on the comment about “staying the course.” Ried has been very clear that we need a timetable. Look, the Bush administration has said that they do NOT want to occupy Iraq. They say they want to only stay as long as it takes to train enough Iraqi troops so as to keep law and order. IF you believe that (and you wouldn’t have a problem believing it if they offered a timetable) then the solution from that point is simple math.
Lets say the top brass indictes that 200,000 troops are what is needed to secure the country. Let’s also say they indicate that they can train 50,000 troops every six months. Well then we can leave in four years right? Of course some sort of huge destabilizing event could change that so the plan would need to be flexible.
The problem for the administration is that these numbers are probably not all that unrealistic except they probably can’t train that many soldiers in that short a time and most American citizens aren’t up for that kind of commitment. I believe that is the real reason they don’t want to give a timetable.
I’d like some input as to what “staying the course” really means.
Also, perhaps you could tell me what the enemy would do with a logical timetable such as that I have mentioned. What harm would it do to tell them that there will be enough trained Iraqi troops to keep them in line at a certain time? As long as we are still there as back up until those troops are trained, the enemy can’t do anything more sinster to us than they could today. A logical plan simply ISN’T volatile. The Administration is using this as one of their “you aren’t patriotic” BS lines.
By the way, I would like to thank Sobek for particpating. I admire you for giving constructive answers. I don’t agree with them for the most part but they show that you have thought them through.
Kudos.
— PCruz Nov 15, 06:27 PM # - “Ried has been very clear that we need a timetable.”
Why on earth would he think we need to send a clear signal to the terrorists so they can bide their time with a specific day in mind? What possible benefit would there be to shooting ourselves in the foot (and the Iraqis in the back) like that?
“The problem for the administration is that these numbers are probably not all that unrealistic except they probably can’t train that many soldiers in that short a time and most American citizens aren’t up for that kind of commitment. I believe that is the real reason they don’t want to give a timetable.”
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Never underestimate the power of the American public to lose interest in something important.
“As long as we are still there as back up until those troops are trained, the enemy can’t do anything more sinster to us than they could today.”
Not to us, no. And I actually think a timetable could possibly save American lives, because the terrorists would use that information to decide to stop attacking the vastly superior American forces, in favor of waiting and attacking Iraqis later on. But while this plan could save American lives, it increases the likelihood that post-withdrawal attacks will undermine the new Constitutional government, leading to civil war and the complete dissolution of everything Americans have fought and died for.
On a slightly different topic, I work with a fellow who supports having troops in Iraq if and only if they are eventually used to attack Iran. (This is a guy who hates GWB, and has stated he’s the worst human being alive, so please don’t assume he’s another Bushie neocon). I have no idea whether its a sound theory—that Bush is in Iraq as a staging area for Iran—but note that Iran’s exposure to the Indian Ocean, combined with U.S. naval superiority, diminish the relative need for another staging area.
At any rate, one possibility to consider is that an unspoken (for diplomatic purposes) justification for keeping troops in Iraq is because their neighbor to the east is making so much noise about nukes.
Something else to consider is that U.S. forces remained Germany until what, last year? Early this year? I don’t remember exactly. And we still have troops in South Korea. In both cases, it was for staging purposes (against the Soviets and the Norks, respectively).
“I admire you for giving constructive answers. I don’t agree with them for the most part but they show that you have thought them through.”
The same to you. Somehow I get addicted to political (and other) debates, and the more fiery, the greater the itch to respond. But I try to keep things as civil as possible, because nastiness will never convince anyone.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 06:46 PM # - Sobek,
Your theory is even more scary than I had imagined! In your scenario we can NEVER leave! This whole mess is predicated on the belief that regime change and the installation of a democratic, self-sustaining government will encourage others in the region to follow suit, preferably without our intervention. If the Iraqi government can’t control the terrorists two years (and many dead terrorists) from now, what are we doing there???
We are all hoping that some day the Iraqis will step up to the plate and defend themselves. If you are suggesting that they never will, then by all means I retract my suggestion that we stay until enough troops are trained and instead leave NOW.
I understand your theory of staging areas, god knows we could have used Turkey’s help in allowing us to use their bases as staging areas. However, our very presence in Iraq is destabilizing. Terror attacks are on the rise due to our involvement in Iraq. If the world sees that this is our intention, global jihad is just around the corner. That doesn’t sound all that safe to me.
— PCruz Nov 15, 07:16 PM # - “Your theory is even more scary than I had imagined!”
Not my theory, per se, just food for thought.
Yes, it involves a long-term committment, but perhaps it isn’t as scary as that might sound at first blush. While we were in Germany for over 50 years, we weren’t getting shot at the whole time. And while Americans are in South Korea, they aren’t getting shot at (thank goodness).
“If you are suggesting that they never will, then by all means I retract my suggestion that we stay until enough troops are trained and instead leave NOW. ”
If that were my suggestion, I would agree with you completely. I see no point in risking American lives for an exercise in futility. But I’m hoping it won’t be futile, and recent events there give me grounds for my hopes: increased Iraqi military combat roles, two national elections, Sunnis approving the charter, and the upcoming Saddam trial.
“However, our very presence in Iraq is destabilizing. Terror attacks are on the rise due to our involvement in Iraq.”
Maybe, maybe not. Sure, U.S. military in Iraq is a thorn in the side of a lot of people, but terror attacks were with us before 9/11, and an argument can be made that it was non-responsiveness that brought us 9/11 in the first place. I imagine that an eventual troop withdrawal will bring some benefits, in addition to burdens, in that Iraqis will work harder to preserve their nation when they know they are on their own.
— SobekPundit Nov 15, 07:41 PM # - 55 years ago, I took two prisoners. It was a pain in the ass handling them, but soldiers always are encouraged to take prisoners as a source of intelligence, the mother’s milk of battlefield success.
If you cannot interrogate prisoners they are not worth the trouble of taking them. The consequence of this Feather Mechant prattle may well be a reluctance for the troops to bother taking prisoners.
— Walter E. Wallis, P.E. Nov 15, 08:59 PM # - Sobeck = Champion of lies. Your rock’s getting lonely for you.
— Bob K. Nov 15, 11:04 PM # - I want to know where I can get paid to be a liberal pain in a republican website blog, because I am sure sick of seeing neocon’s harrass democrat and liberal websites. You only make us stronger in our convictions that you are hateful and full of lies and ignorance. You only encourage me more than ever to keep voting blue, so keep spouting ignorance and I’ll keep ignoring you. Kudos to the intelligent democrats on here; let’s keep it at an intelligent level and ignore the neocon garbage. If I want that I’ll go the neocon sites(pew). Keep it up Harry. I’m praying for you guys(democrats) in congress.
— Lisa Nov 16, 01:52 AM # - I am a Democrat now and probably always will be. I became a Democrat almost solely based upon NON-STOP television viewing during the 9/11 attack time frame (I had previously been a Republican). As I watched, FoxNews primarily, I started to understand what true arrogance was all about. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Rielly, Ann Coulter, John Gibson, and the rest. The things they said seemed Patriotic at first but as I saw Bush standing upon the rubble that contained the ashes and remains of many dead Americans with a smile on his face, it made me want to puke. He is now claiming that the Dem’s are politicizing the war. Make no doubt about it the 9/11 attack was the best thing he could have hoped for. We have all seen the footage of him stupidly stateing that he is a “war” President.
Anyway, all this babble brings me to my real point. FoxNews and their Republican keepers are all about silencing the opposition. The whole affair with Scooter Libby has NOTHING to do with the leak it is really all about the White House’s policy of destroying all those that oppose it.
Just try and pick out an opposing view point during one of Bush’s so called “public” appearances. The White House doesn’t even try and hide the fact that they filter out ALL opposition at the gate.
Let’s not degrade ourselves by falling to that level. I prefer honest debate to one-sided ass kissing any day!
— PCruz Nov 16, 11:02 AM # - Some of us were just noticing that the November 14th deadline for the Senate Intelligence Committee report has now passed.
Has anyone heard what the next steps will be if Senator Roberts continues to stonewall?
— RenoResident Nov 16, 07:55 PM # - PCruz, I feel sorry for you that your worldview is so ass-backwards. Everything you accuse Repub’s of is exactly what the Dem’s do all the time.
BTW, in case you haven’t heard, Bob Woddard just blew up the CIA leak case. He said he knew about Plane BEFOE Libby was supposed to have been the instigator of this in June.
But keep trying. Somewhere down the line you may find something to stick. Just because Bob Burkett, Cindy Sheehan, etc didn’t worl doesn’t mean you can’t keep trying.
— repubforlife Nov 16, 08:33 PM # - #17 Gibbons for Gov. Get satellite and check out Aljazeera TV. They are still running the Traitor Turban Durbin senate floor speech as well as some of Harry’s whining. They sure are helping the terrorists kill our soldiers. Durbin and Harry are responsible for almost 2,000 American soldier deaths with their lies and encouragement of the terrorists. Harry should remove Durbin from the Senate and then Harry should resign.
— joro Nov 16, 09:40 PM # - Reid’s Retchings
In a despicable dance on the graves of our service members, democrats, lead by the embarrassing Senior Senator from Nevada, continue to play politics with national security.
While they now pretend to be concerned over the reasons for war in Iraq, they ignore their statements on Iraq and WMD during the Clinton Administration.
In 2004, democrats ran a candidate for President who was unfit for command. With their recent stunts, they demonstrate that the democrat party is unfit to lead.
Senator Reid – will you investigate why you and your comrades made the statements listed below??
“I think he had no alternative. We had to attack. He had to do what his military advisors told him he should do.” Senator Harry Reid. 12/17/98
“Saddam Hussein ‘is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction,’ he added.” Senator Harry Reid. 12/17/98
“You can never underestimate the demonic mind of Saddam Hussein … The more we let him get away with, the more brazen he becomes.” Senator Harry Reid. 11/3/97
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.
”[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.
”[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, and others. Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV. Oct. 3, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Oct 10, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA. Oct. 10, 2002.
http://tinyurl.com/pdzf f
— joro Nov 16, 10:24 PM # - BobK said: “Sobeck = Champion of lies. Your rock’s getting lonely for you.”
Actually, Sobek = ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god. Your etymology is a little off.
Lisa said: “I want to know where I can get paid to be a liberal pain in a republican website blog…”
I love it that liberals believe the conservative commenters here are actually paid to do this, and yet call us gullible.
”...because I am sure sick of seeing neocon’s harrass democrat and liberal websites.”
Since when is it considered harassment to quote the Senators own words against him? Or ask him to demonstrate a little consistency? That’s a highly unusual definition.
PCruz said: “I became a Democrat almost solely based upon NON-STOP television viewing during the 9/11 attack time frame…”
Bud, sometimes you have to turn off the idiot box. If I had to watch Fox News all day, I’d probably become a Democrat, too. Fortunately for me, politics is not my only hobby.
“The whole affair with Scooter Libby has NOTHING to do with the leak it is really all about the White House’s policy of destroying all those that oppose it.”
I think you’ve got it wrong. Valerie Plame sent her unqualified husband on a mission to discredit a sitting President in the run-up to a war. Joe Wilson came back to America and flat-out lied to the American people. Scooter Libby told a reporter the truth about Wilson’s connection to the CIA, for the purpose of demonstrating Wilson’s untrustworthiness.
Even if we take for granted your belief that Plame was outed to “destroy” her or her husband, what a singularly inept way of doing it. Because she was never undercover in the first place, “revealing” her identity could not, in and of itself, harm her career. So how exactly was the destruction intended to work?
RenoResident, well, I guess not EVERYone can live in Vegas, so I’ll let it slide.
That said, if you really expected Reid’s stunt to actually pay off, well … government has a knack for not getting anything accomplished.
joro said, “Durbin and Harry are responsible for almost 2,000 American soldier deaths with their lies and encouragement of the terrorists.”
Don’t take this the wrong way, but hyperbole and name-calling don’t really help the cause.
By that same token, quoting extensively the statements made by Democrats that they are now trying to deny is extremely effective. Let’s see more of that, and less with the reckless claims. I wonder how Reid can sleep at night, knowing (as he cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact) the baselessness of his claims and the hypocrisy of his attacks.
— Sobek Nov 16, 11:50 PM # - Personally I don’t care who voted or didn’t vote for the war previously to this. What I care about is what we are going to do about this mess.
If anyone thinks that we are going to win (and what does “win” mean, President Bush can’t say…) they are fooling themselves. Their religious nut jobs aren’t like our religious nut jobs. They REALLY believe in what they are doing.
41 was at least smart enough to know NOT to go into Iraq because then we’d own that hell hole. 43 hasn’t a clue.
I think we need the outer fringes to know that the vast majority of Americans are right in the center. We want what is best for the country. That does not include jailing Scooter Libby and it does not include “staying the course” when the truth is, “there is NO course”.
joro’s comment…
“Durbin and Harry are responsible for almost 2,000 American soldier deaths with their lies and encouragement of the terrorists.”
...is fun in that it is so stupid that he once again proves the point that some folks shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Don’t mistake my comment to mean he shouldn’t have an opinion. Of course he should it helps us weed out the nut cases.
Sobek we don’t turn off the tube because we have to be ever vigilant and keenly aware of what the Republicans are doing to this great country. You may feel that attacking the world when ever we feel like it is a “stradegy” but I call it lunacy.
I can help you out. If ANYONE can produce even one minute of footage of Bush (43) talking about or even mentioning GOD before his Presidential elections I’ll stop writing in this blog. He is the ultimate hypocrite. I am sure, if there is such a place, he’ll have a front row seat in hell.
— PCruz Nov 17, 11:12 AM # - Sobek corrects: “Actually, Sobek = ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god. Your etymology is a little off.
Truth is, I believe my command of entomology’s what’s short. I’d wager a Roach-headed god would be a better representation.
Hey, you righties can squirm all you like. We wouldn’t expect anything less.
— Bob K. Nov 17, 04:13 PM # - “I think you’ve got it wrong. Valerie Plame sent her unqualified husband on a mission to discredit a sitting President in the run-up to a war. Joe Wilson came back to America and flat-out lied to the American people. Scooter Libby told a reporter the truth about Wilson’s connection to the CIA, for the purpose of demonstrating Wilson’s untrustworthiness.”
How ironic that “unqualified” Joe Wilson was right about Saddam’s attempt at purchasing uranium, and the advocates of this war was, as usual, quite wrong. You guys can start pulling out quotes of officials stating that Saddam “talked” to officials in Niger about obtaining yellow cake, yada, yada, yada. But the reality is, you guys are overarching trying to defend this president. Pulling any and every quote and report that weakly provides evidence to support your weak defense. As though it’s supposed to overshadow any caveats and disssent that were also reported to this president prior to the invasion. Everyone in the intelligence community did not believe that Saddam had weapons. And those who did agree that he had reestablished his WMDs program did not believe that force was the necessary option. And guess what, everyone else was right. But the saddest part of this whole mess, is that the topic of discussion has been Saddam since 9/11, and hardly anyone talks about Osama Bin Laden, the man who actually orchestrated the deaths of 3,000 Americans. But I guess supposedly “living in caves” in Afghanistan is enough to satisfy this administration that Osama has been throughly punished.
— softvoice Nov 18, 10:34 AM # - Sobek—No one could pay you what your posts are worth. Thanks for all the patriots of the New Media.
John Patterson said “As for W calling me and the rest of his critics irresponsible and unpatriotic, I humbly ask God to determine who was responsible for what.” He will but how will He get the message through? It might come through as convoluted as your quote. The President couched his remarks very carefully to say each person has right to criticize him and the war but to not rewrite what happened.
The truth can only come to those who WILL hear and those who WILL see. The world rolls ever along towards it’s ultimate destiny and the Kingdoms of Light and Dark are dividing. All knowledge isn’t from learning but some is from sensing. A person can study a mountain of books and never be able to paint a picture, yet an artist can paint a picture of things never studied.
— Mystique Nov 18, 07:12 PM # - I think that 250 billion dollars is close to the exact amount that FEMA needs to honor the insurance policies of the victims of Katrina. People who paid for flood insurance every month are now being told that FEMA cannot honor their commitment and help these people rebuild their homes, even though they faithfully paid their premiums.
This is an outrage. We are in a war that has no reason other than a power grab for the Halliburton Corp. and their ‘friends’. We have no proof that the claims that took us to war have any real truth. Over 2,000 Americans have died in this quagmire, get rich scheme, there is no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 or WMDs, Osama is no where to be found and no one really mentions him anymore, and our presence in Iraq has only seemed to step the recruiting efforts of Al Quada….and this in turn steps up the efforts of the administration to wage more war and a longer war. It is a cycle that could go on for years, while the people of Louisiana and Alabama are left with useless flood insurance and no homes. And it is entirely clear, thanks to Mother Nature, that FEMA is completely useless due to lack of planning and no real commitment on the part of Washington to really have a Federal Emergency Management Act.
We Americans are swinging in the breeze while a handful of folks are playing a chess game for profit. Our government is completely OUT OF TOUCH with its citizens and the sad part is that we citizens are the last to know. Get up, get out and vote! Its no longer a thing to take lightly…its your duty. GO TO THE POLLS AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
— Andrea Nov 19, 01:37 AM # - This contrived “war” was siezed upon (as of 9/11) as a way to cloak the Rethug’s fast-tracking their way to all the things they ever dreamed of pulling off on their own agenda.
Bin Laden found?? That would be stupid! So long as Bin Laden’s “out there”, they can keep the fear factor generating the cover for their plunder of monies and our freedoms!!!!
Remember the 9, long minutes Dub spent Dumbfounded after hearing of the attack on the towers? Was he just void of thought or was he thinking: “My God! What a gift to the GOP! We’ll be able to subvert civil liberties and plunder the treasury like we never dreamed possible! Thank you, Bin Laden!”
— Bob K. Nov 19, 10:01 PM # - My wife and are very disappointed to find the Democratic caucus did not come out and support the redeployment and over time withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Democracy cannot be exported. Where it has been attempted it becomes associated with domination or colonization. As long the US remains in Iraq that will remain the association and resistance and insurgency will continue. It is time we made it clear now that Saddam is gone, it is up to the Iraqi’s to govern themselves, their economy and their civic society.
The Democratic Party will never regain a majority in Congress or the Presidency if it does not show clearly and definitely it has principles both domestically and internationally that offer true benefit and from a Democratic Party administration.
Sadly, this has yet to be demonstrated. Particularly disappointing since polls do show Americans have turned decisively against our war in Iraq.
Charles Martinez-Pita
Rowena Martinez-Pita
Albuquerque, NM
— Charles and Rowena Martinez-Pita Nov 20, 03:51 PM #
commenting closed for this article
