Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Chicken Doves : Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves/2 - broken link)
This article brings up a lot of interesting points. Some could call them failures from 2006. They were elected to end the war. They haven't. Everytime a funding issue comes up, they roll over. So what have they been doing?
I like the way this guy explained it.
Quote:
David Sirota, a former congressional staffer whose new book, The Uprising, excoriates the Democrats for their failure to end the war, expresses disgust at the strategy of targeting only Republicans. "The whole idea is based on this insane fiction that there is no such thing as a pro-war Democrat," he says. "Their strategy allows Democrats to take credit for being against the war without doing anything to stop it. It's crazy."
Being lazy doesn't win elections. While people may not like the Republicans, what have the Democrats actually done to improve DC since they took control?
I think it's going to be more difficult than either candidate is willing to spell out but that's why I support Hillary's pledge to put together (within 90 days of taking office) a commission to plan troop withdrawal and to not commit to a timetable. As she has said, it is far more complex than simply bringing troops home. The president has to be concerned about the safety of the American contractors working there, the Iraqis who have supported U.S. interests, and the charities working there, as well. To commit to a timetable is foolish and unrealistic.
I think it's going to be more difficult than either candidate is willing to spell out but that's why I support Hillary's pledge to put together (within 90 days of taking office) a commission to plan troop withdrawal and to not commit to a timetable. As she has said, it is far more complex than simply bringing troops home. The president has to be concerned about the safety of the American contractors working there, the Iraqis who have supported U.S. interests, and the charities working there, as well. To commit to a timetable is foolish and unrealistic.
Why should I trust her? I've seen both sides now talking about how untrustworthy they both are. I think both sides are right. What makes either Hillary or Obama trustworthy in the eyes of people who are watching the Democratic silliness?
Why should I trust her? I've seen both sides now talking about how untrustworthy they both are. I think both sides are right. What makes either Hillary or Obama trustworthy in the eyes of people who are watching the Democratic silliness?
The Democrats have no more idea of what to do than the Republicans. Each is afraid that the other side is right; they remain impotent in the face of events.
This is the fate of a government run by politicians instead of statesmen.
Why should I trust her? I've seen both sides now talking about how untrustworthy they both are. I think both sides are right. What makes either Hillary or Obama trustworthy in the eyes of people who are watching the Democratic silliness?
Well, that's for you to decide. I certainly can't convince folks of something they need to decide for themselves. My own, personal opinion is that a timetable is a really dumb thing to set because of the volatility of the situation in Iraq. Setting a timetable pretty much ensures that one will have to break a promise. So, anyone who proposes a timetable is either pandering or not taking into account the complexity of withdrawal, IMO.
The Democrats have no more idea of what to do than the Republicans. Each is afraid that the other side is right; they remain impotent in the face of events.
This is the fate of a government run by politicians instead of statesmen.
Quote:
Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day. Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war. In the meantime, of course, we're to remember that they're the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi! Yay, team!
How much of this bulls*** are we going to take? How long are we supposed to give the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting, deep down in their moldy hearts, to do the right thing?
I think the author of the OP article got it right. You wanted it, Democrats, it's yours. Now what? Come on, we're waiting. Six more months is the rallying cry of the Bush administration. I've been tired of that since 2004.
Afraid or not, the Republicans at least have a plan. It might be a bad one, but at least they have one.
I've heard of it, how does it work? Is it really used?
It no longer exists. Clinton used it very effectively to help balance the budget. Its gave the president power to pass a bill, with the exception of certain lines in the bill.
Currently, the president must pass a bill as an all or nothing. Huge pork projects are included in numerous bills and the president faces a veto the whole bill because of the pork projects, or pass it.
The US Supreme court ruled that the line item veto was unconstitutional, I believe in the 1998's, and no one has attempted to get a constitutional amendmendment to allow the line item to be put back into place.
Well, that's for you to decide. I certainly can't convince folks of something they need to decide for themselves. My own, personal opinion is that a timetable is a really dumb thing to set because of the volatility of the situation in Iraq. Setting a timetable pretty much ensures that one will have to break a promise. So, anyone who proposes a timetable is either pandering or not taking into account the complexity of withdrawal, IMO.
How long will be too long? a year? 2 years? What if in 3 years the Democrat hasn't ended the war?
There are a lot of ways Congress could have scaled back this President. They let him go everytime. He's impeachable for so many things. So many questions and secrecy with Bush's White House and the Democrats have done nothing. Pelosi and Reid will lose this election to the Republicans.
The Chicken Doves : Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves/2 - broken link)
This article brings up a lot of interesting points. Some could call them failures from 2006. They were elected to end the war. They haven't. Everytime a funding issue comes up, they roll over. So what have they been doing?
I like the way this guy explained it.
Being lazy doesn't win elections. While people may not like the Republicans, what have the Democrats actually done to improve DC since they took control?
The Democrats got absolutely NOTHING done since being elected. They said "We will end the war" and did nothing about it.
The Dems said they'd end earmarks and the # of earmarks has been the highest since the 1970s!!!
The Dems said "We'll end partisanship" and everytime there is a vote, the Dems vote party-line, everytime.
Obama claims he will end the war immediatelly, but he won't. If he tries, gas will hit $10/gallon because Iran will take over Iraq, will shut down oil sales to the US, and we will be forced to pay exorbitant oil prices, as I have said before. If that happens, the economy will tank overnight. Obama will go down behind Jimmy Carter as the worst president. Not even the media will save him then.
The truth is only Nader would withdraw from Iraq the day after being sworn in. And he'd cause the US economy to tank, son I don't even think he is THAT crazy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
