Democrats will NOT support the troops.

[Calcountry]

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds

"That’s the only way we’re going to end this war."
Nov 15, 2006
Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1459243)'s Amy Goodman.
"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.
"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.
"We need to shift our direction."
"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.
"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."


http://kucinich.us/

[patteeu]

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's of the country really want.

[Calcountry]

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's of the country really want.They definitely will debate it. After all, they mustn't govern without airing all of thier constituents views. They mustn't ignore the energised base that got them there in the first place. sarcasm off/

[noa]

Yes, what Dennis Kucinich says in a radio interview speaks for all Democrats and their approach to Iraq.

[Laz]

chit .... this was just in a thread yesterday.


you guys talking about how if the Democrats really wanted the troops out they can cut the funding.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=152231


i said yesterday that if they every did so the right would immediately cry "soldier killers" to the top of you lungs.



pathetic

[Chiefnj]

Halliburton CEO's cry when Kucinich speaks.

[go bowe]

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds

"That’s the only way we’re going to end this war."
Nov 15, 2006
Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1459243)'s Amy Goodman.
"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.
"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.
"We need to shift our direction."
"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.
"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."


http://kucinich.us/ c'mon now, Kucinich is a nutjob...

nobody pays any attention to the guy...

he's half moonbat and three quarters dumbass, and he doesn't speak for the democrats...

aren't there some pretty wacked out conservatives out there?

every organization has a few crazies, it's the nature of things...

but quoting this nutjob as if he should be taken seriously isnot a good sign of mental health...

noone with a lick of sense supports kucinich or condones what he says about any subject, particularly the war...

[noa]

When I worked in Congress, every time I went to the floor, Dennis Kucinich was ranting about something and no one was listening...they guy doesn't have much of an audience outside the far left.

[go bowe]

Yes, what Dennis Kucinich says in a radio interview speaks for all Democrats and their approach to Iraq.beat me to it... :banghead:

[Bowser]

I can see how Democrats don't support the soldiers from the rantings of one dumbassed congressman. Jesus.

[patteeu]

chit .... this was just in a thread yesterday.


you guys talking about how if the Democrats really wanted the troops out they can cut the funding.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=152231


i said yesterday that if they every did so the right would immediately cry "soldier killers" to the top of you lungs.



pathetic

The confusion is yours, my friend. Pointing out that the democrats *could* do something in response to a mistaken assertion that they *couldn't* is not the same as suggesting that we'd be happy if they did it or that we wouldn't criticize it.

[go bowe]

The confusion is yours, my friend. Pointing out that the democrats *could* do something in response to a mistaken assertion that they *couldn't* is not the same as suggesting that we'd be happy if they did it or that we wouldn't criticize it.confusion?

you must be reading too many of nightwish's posts...

it's dangerous, i tells ya... :p :p :p

[Laz]

The confusion is yours, my friend. Pointing out that the democrats *could* do something in response to a mistaken assertion that they *couldn't* is not the same as suggesting that we'd be happy if they did it or that we wouldn't criticize it.
what is does show is that no matter what the Dems do the right will twist it.

if the Dems don't try to get the troops out, the right starts yelling how this is validaition that what Bush has been doing has been right all along.

if the Dems do try and get the troops out, the rights starts yelling about how someone this is "troop bashing"


the GOP are such adept liars and have such little concept of sincerity and "doing what's right" that it doesn't matter what happens.

The left got some power JUST IN TIME to be blamed for everything that's gone wrong during the entire Bush administration.

[patteeu]

what is does show is that no matter what the Dems do the right will twist it.

if the Dems don't try to get the troops out, the right starts yelling how this is validaition that what Bush has been doing has been right all along.

if the Dems do try and get the troops out, the rights starts yelling about how someone this is "troop bashing"


You're right about this, but it's the democrats who put themselves in this position. If they suddenly have a conversion and adopt the Rumsfeld/Bush approach then they deserve criticism for their cynical opposition prior to the election. If they stick to their guns then they continue to deserve criticism for their efforts to surrender.

[Chief Faithful]

Wow!!

He doesn't say he wants the US out of Iraq because it is morally wrong he say's he wants the US out so Congress can spend more money on projects at home! What happened to all the calls for fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget?

"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods."

The more the Democrats call for a new direction the more this country is preparing to go down the same old path. Maybe they really didn't have any new ideas.

[Calcountry]

When I worked in Congress, every time I went to the floor, Dennis Kucinich was ranting about something and no one was listening...they guy doesn't have much of an audience outside the far left.So what is your approach on Iraq, but then, you don't speak for Democrats.

[Chief Faithful]

They definitely will debate it. After all, they mustn't govern without airing all of thier constituents views. They mustn't ignore the energised base that got them there in the first place. sarcasm off/

The only purpose of the debate is to help the voters swallow the big programs and pork they want to send home to their own constituents.

[Calcountry]

You're right about this, but it's the democrats who put themselves in this position. If they suddenly have a conversion and adopt the Rumsfeld/Bush approach then they deserve criticism for their cynical opposition prior to the election. If they stick to their guns then they continue to deserve criticism for their efforts to surrender.Isn't that the same game that the Democrats, "who support the troops", but criticise the war have been playing?

[noa]

So what is your approach on Iraq, but then, you don't speak for Democrats.


Saying that the Dems will NOT support the troops because of what one Representative said is like saying that the no Republicans support the Iraq war because Chuck Hagel opposed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501450.html

[noa]

The only purpose of the debate is to help the voters swallow the big programs and pork they want to send home to their own constituents.


Are you actually trying to criticize Dems for pork after the Republicans shattered all pork records during their reign? ROFL

[Calcountry]

I can see how Democrats don't support the soldiers from the rantings of one dumbassed congressman. Jesus.A guy who thought he should be President now, don't forget that.

They reside within your party, and there are more of them, than you so called middle of the roaders are willing to admit.

[Calcountry]

Are you actually trying to criticize Dems for pork after the Republicans shattered all pork records during their reign? ROFLI am certainly not happy about that.

[Calcountry]

I am certainly not happy about that. But what are your side going to do about that? Cut spending? Puhlease.

[Chief Faithful]

You're right about this, but it's the democrats who put themselves in this position. If they suddenly have a conversion and adopt the Rumsfeld/Bush approach then they deserve criticism for their cynical opposition prior to the election. If they stick to their guns then they continue to deserve criticism for their efforts to surrender.

In the first case the criticism will come from their own supporters and the general media so they will stick to their guns. You are right the Dems put themselves in this position.

As I've said before, the Dems need to frame the recent change in Congress about more than the war in Iraq or voters are going to get angry at them just in time for the next election cycle.

[Calcountry]

Saying that the Dems will NOT support the troops because of what one Representative said is like saying that the no Republicans support the Iraq war because Chuck Hagel opposed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501450.html

Michael Moore wants em out yesterday. Is he in your party?

[Dave Lane]

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's of the country really want.


Makes perfect sense to me. Get the hell out of there pay down the defeict.

Dave

[Calcountry]

In the first case the criticism will come from their own supporters and the general media so they will stick to their guns. You are right the Dems put themselves in this position.

As I've said before, the Dems need to frame the recent change in Congress about more than the war in Iraq or voters are going to get angry at them just in time for the next election cycle.But that is the whole point, they haven't framed anything, they have run and won on "we hate Bush".

O.K. we get that, but what are you going to do with your power now? Won't you tell us now, pretty please?

More wait and see I guess.

[Chief Faithful]

Are you actually trying to criticize Dems for pork after the Republicans shattered all pork records during their reign? ROFL

I'm not going to defend the Republicans because they failed America in their promise to be fiscally responsible, but it looks like the Dems are preparing to sent a whole new record. Remember the Republicans were specifically sent to congress in the first place to get control of spending and they failed us the last 6 years.

Democratic congress can't control spending so the Republicans get voted in. Nothing changes so the Dems get voted in. Now the Dems are promising to change nothing.

[noa]

Michael Moore wants em out yesterday. Is he in your party?

So your idea of what the Democrats believe is whatever Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore say? No wonder you have so much anger towards the Dems. Just choose the most radical Dems to demonize and its an easy job. I don't pretend to think that all Republicans believe everything that Michael Savage says, and I think you have enough sense to realize that not all Dems believe everything Michael Moore says.

[Chief Faithful]

But that is the whole point, they haven't framed anything, they have run and won on "we hate Bush".



Exactly right. We all see it now the Dems have no plan.

[Calcountry]

Makes perfect sense to me. Get the hell out of there pay down the defeict.

DaveHow will that be possible when our Government insists on throwing huge sums of cash at every problem, real or immagined, that occurs on the Planet?

[Chief Faithful]

Makes perfect sense to me. Get the hell out of there pay down the defeict.

Dave

But he the article says get the hell out of there increase social spending. Paying down the dept is not going to happen, but you can bet your paycheck, which the government wants, that taxes will increase.

[noa]

I'm not going to defend the Republicans because they failed America in their promise to be fiscally responsible, but it looks like the Dems are preparing to sent a whole new record. Remember the Republicans were specifically sent to congress in the first place to get control of spending and they failed us the last 6 years.

Democratic congress can't control spending so the Republicans get voted in. Nothing changes so the Dems get voted in. Now the Dems are promising to change nothing.


Hopefully at some point we will reduce entitlements and implement a pay-as-you-go policy for government spending. I will support which ever party accomplishes this because I care about results more than the letter next to someone's name. I'm reluctant to believe it will materialize, but Pelosi did say that one of her priorities is to start pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ho/eln_pelosi_profile

[Chief Faithful]

Hopefully at some point we will reduce entitlements and implement a pay-as-you-go policy for government spending. I will support which ever party accomplishes this because I care about results more than the letter next to someone's name. I'm reluctant to believe it will materialize, but Pelosi did say that one of her priorities is to start pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ho/eln_pelosi_profile

You and me both. Right now I'm angry at the Republicans for breaking their promise. I'm angry at the President for letting it happen. I don't trust the Dems because their whole platform is appeasement and increase taxes. If Pelosi can get her party inline and reduce entitlements and implement a pay-as-you-go policy then my next vote goes Democrat.

But, I'm not holding my breath.

[noa]

But, I'm not holding my breath.

I think that's wise

[Calcountry]

I'm not going to defend the Republicans because they failed America in their promise to be fiscally responsible, but it looks like the Dems are preparing to sent a whole new record. Remember the Republicans were specifically sent to congress in the first place to get control of spending and they failed us the last 6 years.

Democratic congress can't control spending so the Republicans get voted in. Nothing changes so the Dems get voted in. Now the Dems are promising to change nothing.Agreed, they will get no defense from me on that issue.

They were not conservative. I refuse to let the Democrats paint me as a big spending Republican when I didn't vote for Arnold in either election for Governor.

I don't vote for Rino's, moderate republicans, or Liberal Democrats. I vote for Conservatives who vote and represent conservative ideas and agendas.

[go bowe]

But that is the whole point, they haven't framed anything, they have run and won on "we hate Bush".

O.K. we get that, but what are you going to do with your power now? Won't you tell us now, pretty please?

More wait and see I guess.imo, not much, compared to what the republican's could have done while they controlled the presidency, house and senate (and sometimes even the supremes)...

but it seems to me that it is the president/adminisration who sets the policies both foreign and domestic, and not congress (even if the house and senate are controlled by democrats)...

and despite the election results, president bush is still the president and cic of the armed forces and he will remain so for another two years or so...

for now, the dems will have no choice but to work with the president on a bipartisan basis because the democrat congress can pass whatever they like but the republican president still has the veto...

it'll be interesting to see how this works out over the next 2 years...

[memyselfI]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Kucinich been calling for this measure (or others like it) since troops landed in Iraq? He is anti-war and as such introduces anti-war measures for debate.

When you can show us someone who was pro-war who is now calling for the withdrawal of funding THEN you might have a point... ROFL

[Calcountry]

So your idea of what the Democrats believe is whatever Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore say? No wonder you have so much anger towards the Dems. Just choose the most radical Dems to demonize and its an easy job. I don't pretend to think that all Republicans believe everything that Michael Savage says, and I think you have enough sense to realize that not all Dems believe everything Michael Moore says.What do you have to say? What is your position.

I can only deal with what I see, and I see these loudmouths going off at every opportunity that they can get.

There are many more than the 2 I mentioned. Rosy O' dumbshit is another. If I sit here and think for a while, there is a cornucopia of leftwingers who have a microphone to bellow out of on a continuous basis. Fine, they don't speak for you Noa, just who the heck does? Nanci Pelosi? Hilliary Rotten Cliton? Janet Reno? How bout that Chick Donna Shalala down at the University of Miami, boy, she sure knows how to avoid controversy.

Who speaks for you then?

Swifty Kerry? Algorithm?

Who?

More wait and see. Great.

[noa]

What do you have to say? What is your position.

I can only deal with what I see, and I see these loudmouths going off at every opportunity that they can get.

There are many more than the 2 I mentioned. Rosy O' dumbshit is another. If I sit here and think for a while, there is a cornucopia of leftwingers who have a microphone to bellow out of on a continuous basis. Fine, they don't speak for you Noa, just who the heck does? Nanci Pelosi? Hilliary Rotten Cliton? Janet Reno? How bout that Chick Donna Shalala down at the University of Miami, boy, she sure knows how to avoid controversy.

Who speaks for you then?

Swifty Kerry? Algorithm?

Who?

More wait and see. Great.

So you are not willing to let the big spending Republicans speak for you as a conservative, but I have to let Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell speak for me?
I think there are plenty of ultra liberal Democrats, but there are also plenty of moderate Dems (look at the Blue Dog coalition) and moderate swing voters who supported the Dems in this most recent election. You can't just characterize the whole party by the far left.
Also, you keep criticizing me for saying 'wait and see' but what other option do you have? The Dems haven't taken power yet. They haven't proposed or passed any bills under the new Congress, so how can you possibly judge them before they've done anything?

[Ultra Peanut]

America hates our freedom.

[Nightwish]

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds

"That’s the only way we’re going to end this war."
Nov 15, 2006
Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1459243)'s Amy Goodman.
"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.
"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.
"We need to shift our direction."
"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.
"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."


http://kucinich.us/Go out to a hippy commune and find the most "left" person you can find. Kucinich is to the left of him/her. Kucinich speaks for the Democrats about as much as Pat Robertson speaks for the Republicans.

[Chief Faithful]

imo, not much, compared to what the republican's could have done while they controlled the presidency, house and senate (and sometimes even the supremes)...

but it seems to me that it is the president/adminisration who sets the policies both foreign and domestic, and not congress (even if the house and senate are controlled by democrats)...

and despite the election results, president bush is still the president and cic of the armed forces and he will remain so for another two years or so...

for now, the dems will have no choice but to work with the president on a bipartisan basis because the democrat congress can pass whatever they like but the republican president still has the veto...

it'll be interesting to see how this works out over the next 2 years...

This President lost his veto pen when moved into the White House. He is a big spender that has never seen a spending Bill he didn't love. I don't think the Democrats will have any problem working with him.

[Calcountry]

imo, not much, compared to what the republican's could have done while they controlled the presidency, house and senate (and sometimes even the supremes)...

but it seems to me that it is the president/adminisration who sets the policies both foreign and domestic, and not congress (even if the house and senate are controlled by democrats)...

and despite the election results, president bush is still the president and cic of the armed forces and he will remain so for another two years or so...

for now, the dems will have no choice but to work with the president on a bipartisan basis because the democrat congress can pass whatever they like but the republican president still has the veto...

it'll be interesting to see how this works out over the next 2 years...I really wish he were not.

[Calcountry]

So you are not willing to let the big spending Republicans speak for you as a conservative, but I have to let Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell speak for me?
I think there are plenty of ultra liberal Democrats, but there are also plenty of moderate Dems (look at the Blue Dog coalition) and moderate swing voters who supported the Dems in this most recent election. You can't just characterize the whole party by the far left.
Also, you keep criticizing me for saying 'wait and see' but what other option do you have? The Dems haven't taken power yet. They haven't proposed or passed any bills under the new Congress, so how can you possibly judge them before they've done anything?Because, they are who we thought they were. If you want to go ahead and crown em ,then crown em. But we let em off the hook.

[Nightwish]

Because, they are who we thought they were.
They are? How do you know that? They haven't assumed power yet, so they haven't had a chance to prove to anyone who they are or aren't, what they will do or won't, which faction of them (the ultralibs or the moderates) will come out on top. You simply don't know. None of us do.

[noa]

Because, they are who we thought they were. If you want to go ahead and crown em ,then crown em. But we let em off the hook.


The Republicans didn't turn out to be who you thought they would be in Congress (conservative). There are no guarantees.

[Chief Faithful]

The Republicans didn't turn out to be who you thought they would be in Congress (conservative). There are no guarantees.

I thought they did pretty good until Newt was unfairly run out on a rail, but that was a long time ago. The Senate was a disappointment from the beginning.

[banyon]

Because, they are who we thought they were. If you want to go ahead and crown em ,then crown em. But we let em off the hook.

It's "crown their a**." At least get it right.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1h71vEQtCM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1h71vEQtCM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[patteeu]

Makes perfect sense to me. Get the hell out of there pay down the defeict.

Dave

I feel bad that I didn't include you. If the members of ChiefsPlanet would be so kind as to allow me to revise and extend my remarks, let the record show that post #2 should read:

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's and Dave Lane's of the country really want.

;) :p

[patteeu]

Exactly right. We all see it now the Dems have no plan.

Some of them have no plan and noa949 insists that we disregard the ones who do. :)

[patteeu]

But he the article says get the hell out of there increase social spending. Paying down the dept is not going to happen, but you can bet your paycheck, which the government wants, that taxes will increase.

Increase socials spending, stifle the economy with CO2 emissions controls, minimum wage increases and tax increases (rollbacks), secure the borders and ports beyond what the Republicans have done, implement the 9/11 commission recommendations regardless of the cost, AND reduce the deficit. I guess we should expect some massive defense cuts.

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/charlie_brown_lucy_football_2.jpg

[Nightwish]

Increase socials spending, stifle the economy with CO2 emissions controls, minimum wage increases and tax increases (rollbacks), secure the borders and ports beyond what the Republicans have done, implement the 9/11 commission recommendations regardless of the cost, AND reduce the deficit. I guess we should expect some massive defense cuts.
Ohhhhh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[noa]

Some of them have no plan and noa949 insists that we disregard the ones who do. :)


Remind me again what the Republican plan is that is working so well. Don't add troops, don't withdraw troops. Cause that's been working for us so well... Attacks rates continue to rise, the insurgency continues to grow, and all the Repubs can come up with is keeping things the same.
Again, despite whatever the voters may think, the Democrats are not responsible for creating a winning strategy for the war. That rests with the Commander in Chief. He is the one who must have the plan to win this war, not the Congress. The Dems can propose all the ideas they want, but it doesn't mean anything unless the president is on board as well. All Congress can do is control funding and pass some non-binding resolutions.

[noa]

implement the 9/11 commission recommendations regardless of the cost


We are expected to bear whatever costs there are for this war in Iraq, which will supposedly make us safer in the long run, but when there are other security recommendations on the table that would contribute to our security, we should only implement them if they are cheap?

[patteeu]

We are expected to bear whatever costs there are for this war in Iraq, which will supposedly make us safer in the long run, but when there are other security recommendations on the table that would contribute to our security, we should only implement them if they are cheap?

Cost/benefit analysis is always relevant.

[noa]

Cost/benefit analysis is always relevant.

Do you think its been relevant in Iraq?

[patteeu]

Attacks rates continue to rise, the insurgency continues to grow, and all the Repubs can come up with is keeping things the same.
Again, despite whatever the voters may think, the Democrats are not responsible for creating a winning strategy for the war. That rests with the Commander in Chief. He is the one who must have the plan to win this war, not the Congress. The Dems can propose all the ideas they want, but it doesn't mean anything unless the president is on board as well. All Congress can do is control funding and pass some non-binding resolutions.

If the democrats want to step back and let the CiC lead the war without constantly trying to undermine us, I'm perfectly content having them continue to fail to come up with a plan. Unfortunately, most democrats seem to want to stand on the sidelines and take potshots at the CiC's approach because they see it as politically advantageous or (in some cases) because they've already given up.

[patteeu]

Do you think its been relevant in Iraq?

It's always relevant.

[noa]

If the democrats want to step back and let the CiC lead the war without constantly trying to undermine us, I'm perfectly content having them continue to fail to come up with a plan. Unfortunately, most democrats seem to want to stand on the sidelines and take potshots at the CiC's approach because they see it as politically advantageous or (in some cases) because they've already given up.


Its a big country. There are a wide variety of opinions on almost every issue under the sun. Just because people don't agree with the CiC's approach doesn't mean they are trying to undermine him. They are expressing what they think is best for the country, and as a democratic country that celebrates its freedom, we shouldn't muzzle the opposition just because they share a different point of view than the president. Opponents to the war are not rooting against our troops or rooting against our country. They just have a different view than the supporters of the war as to what is best for our country. Reasonable people can disagree about this without rooting against our troops or our nation.

[Calcountry]

They are? How do you know that? They haven't assumed power yet, so they haven't had a chance to prove to anyone who they are or aren't, what they will do or won't, which faction of them (the ultralibs or the moderates) will come out on top. You simply don't know. None of us do.ROFL

[Adept Havelock]

Reasonable people can disagree about this without rooting against our troops or our nation.


Indeed. Sadly, that seems to be forgotten by many in their failed attempt to hold a monopoly on the Federal Government.

[Calcountry]

Increase socials spending, stifle the economy with CO2 emissions controls, minimum wage increases and tax increases (rollbacks), secure the borders and ports beyond what the Republicans have done, implement the 9/11 commission recommendations regardless of the cost, AND reduce the deficit. I guess we should expect some massive defense cuts.

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/charlie_brown_lucy_football_2.jpgSo they can bitch when the next President needs to go to war with weak body armor and lack of armored hummers.

[noa]

So they can bitch when the next President needs to go to war with weak body armor and lack of armored hummers.

Bush didn't need to go to war in Iraq with weak body armor and lack of armored hummers. He chose to.

[Calcountry]

Its a big country. There are a wide variety of opinions on almost every issue under the sun. Just because people don't agree with the CiC's approach doesn't mean they are trying to undermine him. They are expressing what they think is best for the country, and as a democratic country that celebrates its freedom, we shouldn't muzzle the opposition just because they share a different point of view than the president. Opponents to the war are not rooting against our troops or rooting against our country. They just have a different view than the supporters of the war as to what is best for our country. Reasonable people can disagree about this without rooting against our troops or our nation.Undermine him all you want on domestic issues, but politics stops at the waters edge, or, at least it use to.

[Calcountry]

Bush didn't need to go to war in Iraq with weak body armor and lack of armored hummers. He chose to.It was a mistake.

[Calcountry]

We are expected to bear whatever costs there are for this war in Iraq, which will supposedly make us safer in the long run, but when there are other security recommendations on the table that would contribute to our security, we should only implement them if they are cheap?We should only implement them if it benefits Ted Kennedy.

[Calcountry]

You Demoncrats make me laugh, here you are saying there is going to be a lot of change, when your party is the one that has the most fossils in it: Kennedy, Murtha, Byrd, Kerry, Clinton, Conyurs, Rangel, Sarbanes, Obey.

Unbelieveable.

[Logical]

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's of the country really want.

I agree they won't have the courage to do it, but this is what needs to be done so we force the President to remove our country from this failing occupation.

[Logical]

c'mon now, Kucinich is a nutjob...

nobody pays any attention to the guy...

he's half moonbat and three quarters dumbass, and he doesn't speak for the democrats...

aren't there some pretty wacked out conservatives out there?

every organization has a few crazies, it's the nature of things...

but quoting this nutjob as if he should be taken seriously isnot a good sign of mental health...

noone with a lick of sense supports kucinich or condones what he says about any subject, particularly the war...

Actually on the war go bo I support what he says because it is the only way to force the President's hand.

[patteeu]

Bush didn't need to go to war in Iraq with weak body armor and lack of armored hummers. He chose to.

Hummers were never supposed to be armored cars. Those types of criticisms are pretty lame if they're coming from someone who knows what they are talking about.

[patteeu]

Update:

It won't happen, but you know that's what the memyselfi's, Dave Lane's, and Logicals of the country really want.

[noa]

Hummers were never supposed to be armored cars. Those types of criticisms are pretty lame if they're coming from someone who knows what they are talking about.


I didn't say that, I was quoting someone else...read what my post was referencing.

[patteeu]

I didn't say that, I was quoting someone else...read what my post was referencing.

You seemed to be endorsing that criticism when you said, "He chose to." But I don't mean to single you out. Everyone who seriously complains about that is lame.

[Nightwish]

You seemed to be endorsing that criticism when you said, "He chose to." But I don't mean to single you out. Everyone who seriously complains about that is lame.
So just because Humvees weren't originally intended to be armored combat vehicles, that there shouldn't be some modification done to afford adequate protection when they are going to be to use other than their original intended use?

[patteeu]

So just because Humvees weren't originally intended to be armored combat vehicles, that there shouldn't be some modification done to afford adequate protection when they are going to be to use other than their original intended use?

Modifications were in fact made, but they can't be made overnight. The vehicles weren't used for a different mission in Iraq, it was the threat that changed. I suppose you could criticize the dinosaur war planners in the Army for not anticipating this new threat, but then you'd be moving dangerously close to the Rumsfeld position that the army needs to evolve to meet a new, highly dispersed, nonhomogenous, low intensity threat.

[Bowser]

You Demoncrats make me laugh, here you are saying there is going to be a lot of change, when your party is the one that has the most fossils in it: Kennedy, Murtha, Byrd, Kerry, Clinton, Conyurs, Rangel, Sarbanes, Obey.

Unbelieveable.

And what does that say about your party of choice when these pissants can assume control of congress from your beloved Repubs?

You live in Cali, right? I am going to assume you live in an area full of far left moonbats which fuels your anger towards anything remotely related towards the Democratic party.

[Calcountry]

And what does that say about your party of choice when these pissants can assume control of congress from your beloved Repubs?

You live in Cali, right? I am going to assume you live in an area full of far left moonbats which fuels your anger towards anything remotely related towards the Democratic party.It didn't use to be that way, but they have crawed over the hill like maggots infesting all that was good, eating away at it, and leaving nothing in their wake.

[Loki]

imo, not much, compared to what the republican's could have done while they controlled the presidency, house and senate (and sometimes even the supremes)...

but it seems to me that it is the president/adminisration who sets the policies both foreign and domestic, and not congress (even if the house and senate are controlled by democrats)...

and despite the election results, president bush is still the president and cic of the armed forces and he will remain so for another two years or so...

for now, the dems will have no choice but to work with the president on a bipartisan basis because the democrat congress can pass whatever they like but the republican president still has the veto...

it'll be interesting to see how this works out over the next 2 years...
i dunno about you, but i'm expecting a LOT of cooperation and progress...

:rolleyes:

[Loki]

We should only implement them if it benefits Ted Kennedy.
http://www.fototime.com/E6BFEB3D44A94DB/orig.jpg

[D2112]

http://www.fototime.com/E6BFEB3D44A94DB/orig.jpg
ROFL ROFL ROFL