Here Today... Gone To Hell!

 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved a nonbinding measure saying President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States."

All the major news sites are listing it as breaking news.  More details should be coming up soon.

Interesting......

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/us.iraq.ap/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785663/

Aw C'mon! Give it a chance!

I think the dems have basically just responded to THAT request....and I doubt GW is going to like the response.

Im personally shocked by this.

I thought George would get his troops, and in a few months when this war has still gone nowhere, we could see what his next "big plan" is.. :hihi:

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.

Im a proud Canadian :)

Remember, the measure is NON-BINDING.

That means Bush still gets his troops....this is more like a "sanction" than anything with teeth.

I was shocked one Senator even MENTIONED withholding funds.....that'll never get backing.

I suppose I could pretend and whip some response up that would be appropriately galling....

It would be non-sensical without much factual backing, possibly playing up sympathies and calling into question the patriotism of anyone who "doesn't support our troops" by going along with ole GW and his hunting budies, and finally quoting some awful Ann Coulter drivel....

but it would be galling!

Common sense hasn't been much in fashion as of late, but some of us have been keeping the torch lit for its eventual return.


I'm a commie-pinko, and I endorse this message.

You guys are next when were done with Iraq  :hihi:

LOL, in other words, you have nothing to worry about.

Senate passes non binding resolution... 

 tax dollars hard at work

If it was a binding resolution, then they'd have to take responsibility on giving an alternative course of action. 

I agree, I sort of miss the great debates put forth by the former Republicans on this board.  They brought so many interesting things to the table like um...well...um....eh at least they posted something to laugh about!

So, without further adeiu....I'll officially play devil's advocate on here from now on........Just call me Bill Brasky (R) PA

First order of business and the most serious problem facing the US right now.....gays shouldn't be married!!!

 :hihi: That was pretty funny.

 ::)

They CAN'T pass a binding resolution when it comes to the president's deployment of the military.  That control lies with the executive branch, and the executive branch, alone.  About the only thing they can do is cut off funding....and no one is going to do that because we're already deployed, and doing so puts the troops lives at risk.

It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with "taking responsibility".  They CAN'T do that...it's not within their power to do so.  All they can realistically do is exactly what they did: Voice their displeasure. 

Well, first of all, if GnRFLs implication is that the war opponents have no alternative, hes wrong again.

Secondly, a measure by Chris Dodd requiring Congressional authorization before escalating troop levels failed to pass committee.  Dodd said this:

"[My bill] says that, prior to sending any more troops ? the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people ? it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.

And why do I do that? The authorization which allowed the troops to go in in the first place was based on two conditions. One is because there were weapons of mass destruction, which we now know is false; and that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and causing serious problems. Obviously, he?s gone.

Today we?re faced with the civil war in Iraq ? a very different fact situation than we were even told existed five years ago."

I saw the measure by Dodd (of course, being from CT, it was all over the news).  It's an interesting strategy but one, ultimately, I don't think will work.  Congress previously authorized the deployment.  That was their one shot at intervening.  I don't think they can argue this is a "different war" and thus, should have to "reauthorize" deployment.  There's no precedent that changing conditions, after deployment, should require reauthorization. It's just not going to stand up to scrutiny, I think, and it looks like what it is: A desperate attempt to intervene.  It didn't pass for pretty much those reasons:  The rest of the legislature didn't think the resolution would pass muster.

All of them have been banned?
It's freaky how most eager right wingers seem to  have the greatest issues in obeying teh rules in the internet world:=)

this is the most pointless resolution ever...it doesnt DO anything..all it does is EXPRESS how the Dems dont agree with it....further showing all of our enemies that we are a divided nation...and thus encouraging all of them....thank god dems dont run our country...we would be invaded and conquered within an hour...

Over 60% of the country disagrees.  Hell, almost 70% disagree with this "surge".

"Divided" is an oversimplification...based on the percentages and approval ratings we're actually quite united: United in disagreeing with our president.  WHICH, FYI, is a founding tenet of this country.  That is, the right to disagree with those running our government.  Read the Constitution.  It's all there, in black and white.

Thank god people who disagree with it are not running this country......(or maybe one is?).

The dems took one of the only options available to them.  As a conservative/republican, you don't like it.  Of course, when the Repubs issued meaningless sanctions against Clinton, I'm sure you were crowing from your roof.

I think you need to UNDERSTAND the process before you can criticize what those working within it are doing.

The main thing this resolution is doing is allowing the dems to say "this is NOT our war - it's Bush's war".  When the surge fails as many think it will, Bush will be to blame, not congress.

in that regard, the symbolism of this resolution is very important.

I think it's too little too late for that. Not that they really have an viable options, so I suppose distancing themselves from the current plan makes some kind of sense. But (and I hate to play devil's advocate) a lot of Dems voted for the war and until they come up with something better it's really partly their war too.

You just redlined the hyperbole meter.

The "Dems" have run our country, and currently run Congress, but I guess youre eager to break 2007Whats monopoly on thoughtless hyperbole.   

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo conflict?

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99 

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." - Rep. Dick Armey

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." - Senator Trent Lott

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." - Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." - Senator Trent Lott

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" - Joe Scarborough

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles." - Senator Inhofe

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" - Rep. Tom Delay

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag" - Senator Don Nickles

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - Governor George W. Bush

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." - Senator Richard Lugar

"You can support the troops but not the president" - Rep. Tom Delay 

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." - Senator Trent Lott

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" - Rep. Tom Delay

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." - Michael Savage

oh jeez, how often do we have to go back to this convo......a lot of people were for the war, under the pretenses of false information/intelligence upon which it was sold to the american people and congress.

the climate at the time was also one of fear and did not allow for dissent.  if you weren't for the war you hated america, hated freedom, we couldn't eat french fries anymore, only freedom fries, and you didn't support the troops.  it was ridiculous.

now, knowing everything we know, SOME people STILL want to continue this mess of a war. 

this is bush and the neo cons war.  nobody elses.

Its Bush (and his packs) war for sure, but Democrats shoulder some responsibility for enabling it.  Twenty-two (and Lincoln Chaffee) had the good sense to vote against it, the rest should have followed.

Many, many, many more times if Hillary is the Dems candidate (which she will probably be). There's nothing inherently wrong with populism, since they are elected "representatives", but this better just be a first step towards something meaningful....and it sounds like they're already bickering over semantics with three different senate proposals according to what I just read at cnn.com

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-even-better-than-kos-reports.html

    In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

    "He's tried this two times ? it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

    Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Oh, it's better than that. When I was on the Hill on Tuesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told us (on the record) the rest of the story. Apparently, Pelosi's final come-back to the president was the following:

    PELOSI: He's tried this two times ? it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?'

    BUSH: Because I told them it had to.

    PELOSI: Why didn't you tell them that the other two times?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16825899/

Bush's response.

yeah... that what usually happens ... people invade countries and all
just like last week when switzerland invaded russia
and last month when sri lanka attacked  peru !

so crazy!

very interesting words you use man:
ennemies
invaded
conquered
thank god

very interesting...

WAT-EVER, you've now seen your first (well, maybe not the first) real live "hawk".

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

Who said I was a republican?? I just see Nancy Pelosi for what she is...fucking useless....and if you dont think our enemies love seeing our country divded you are beyond clueless.you know damn well that no one is going to stop this war...dems will NEVER cut off funding..so all of this is a big facade to please the left..... answer this for me...do you honestly think there is a difference between republicans and democrats?  I remember I used to think like you..I would pull up all of these quotes that dems or republicans would say and actually try to draw some meaning from them...but there is none....I am an independent and I am also completely positive I can kick your ass in any debate unless of course I agree with you on the topic.. You are clearly loyal to one party...therefore you have no chance....because either party is always wrong at least half the time....usually more...looks like you have a decent amount of posts on here...so i am sure you know how to use the private messages....so send some over....I would love to hear from ya....oh by the way Michael Savage is not a republican....he hates republicans more than Ted Kennedy

and i thnk you need to UNDERSTAND that this "resolution" is bullshit...Dems wil NEVER cut off funding for this war...Bush will go ahead with the troop surge and continue to do whatever he wants because the dems cant stop him....This whol resolution thing is just the dems trying to score political points with the left...thats it....it is not going to end the Iraq war any sooner...and for the hundredth time I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN...i am just really good at spotting bullshit...like this resolution...just because I hate democrats you automatically assume i am a republican...you know there are more than 2 options out there....

Good question.  I didnt.  However, by singling out Democrats supposed diviseness, youre implicitly absolving the Republicans of the same thing.  If youre truly an independent with no party loyalties, you surely wouldnt single out Democrats for something of which Republicans are guilty. 


So much for not letting the terrorists win, huh?  So public speech/debate should be incumbent upon "the enemies" opinions - dissent should be quelched to appease terrorists.  Congress should be obsequious and unquestioning and let the executive branch do whatever it pleases.  If youre not a Republican, you sure think like one.


Russ Feingold is holding hearings next week to explore the possibility, but youre right, the majority of the part will not follow; its simply not practicable.  However, thats not the only means of action.  By speaking out and offering alternative measures to end it, theyll continue to influence public opinion which will either expediate the wars end or give voters the opportunity to vote for it a year from now.


Enough for you to contantly single out one over the other.


Such wisdom!  Which brings us to...


The mark of a great debator.   : ok:


No, thank you. 


I didnt say he was a Republican.  But like yourself, hes alligned with them not only ideologically for the most part, but in his hatred for liberals. 

Also, a point I forgot to make is that the opposition to Bushs plans is substantially bipartisan.  I dont think theres one single Democrat in the Senate that supports it, while theres possibly two in the House (the two Georgia Democrats that came close to defeat this last election).  Conveniently, you chose to single out Democrats, but Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith and John Warner have all voiced their opposition.

WOW....Just WOW. If thousands of people weren't being killed, the hypocrisy and scumbaginess of the above people would be hilarious.

you didnt say I was a republican? You said at least twice in other threads...but that is neither here nor there...and by listing a bunch of quotes that you said were made by "republicans" and putting a Michael Savage quote in there..you are in fact calling him a republican.....since you already declined my offer for you to PM may about ANY topic...which doesnt surprise me, liberals hate being confronted on their views, if i can say anything about republicans at least they know where they stand and will defend it....But I would love to here an answer to this question...you keep on saying things about democrats having a different solution or vision on how to end the war...give me ONE..besides the common cut and run solution they have which will end in catastrophy....Listen I will be the first one to say that Bush fucked up th Iraq war...it is a mess, no doubt about it....however I want to hear ONE other option that the democrats have that will WIN the war over there....

they don't need to have a plan because pointing fingers is currently working.  Revisionist history is working now as well too.  Pointing figers won't win the 2008 presidential election.  Although it's way too early to make any predicitions, my money is on Hillary for the Dems.

true pointing fingers is working wonders right now...for both sides.....but its not doing us any good

Prove it.


No, Im not.  I explained why I put him there.


Youre welcome to believe that if it makes you feel better, but the truth is I simply have no interest in talking to you through PMs.

But speaking of being confronted, youve crept away from providing any evidence that Nancy Pelosi had plastic surgery, offering nothing more than your own desire for it to be true.  You avoided addressing the divisive Republican statements during Kosovo, instead [ironically] asserting your remarkable debating skills.  You make an issue of Obamas lack of experience and fail to explan how it differs from Lincolns similar experience.  Heres your opportunity to back up your opinions instead of weaseling out again.


By creating that condition, youre not interested in hearing the alternative, youre interested in pretending youre right.    You apparently share the presidents simplistic notion of "victory."  Well see how that turns out.

How does not taking it to PM become avoiding confrontation. If you're the master debater that you claim, why do you want to do it in private?

Honestly I asked Booker Floyd to do it in private, because most of you on this board have no idea what you are talking about and are actually taking away from the converstation...I was tired of sifting though all the useless comments to get to Bookers which actually hold some water....

ok as for Nancy Pelosi having plastic surgery just look at her..well google her name and you will see what i mean...we have had no evidence of Michael Jackson having plastic surgery does that mean he didnt have it...and who cares if she did? i made one wise ass remark about her and you decided to take issue with it...I can care less if she had plastic surgery...thats not the reason she is such a shitty politician...I can care less about what republicans said about Kosovo...I am not here to defend republicans...I am here stating my opinions on how I think this country can become better....I dont care who does it....rep or dem.....Obama has a lack of experience...so did Lincoln...Lincoln turned out to be a good president....but I think Obamas lack of experience will hurt him...especially with Clintons track record....it is a different time,, i just dont think he has enough to get the nomination.....yet

what condition do you speak of? I want our country to WIN in Iraq.....what is the alternative....do the Dems have one that will involve us winning or will it be another embarrassment like the situation they got us into in Vietnam(which Nixon contributed to as well)

I want your honest opinion on this....what solution would you be happy with as far as Iraq goes...You may think I have a simplistic view about it...but it is a pretty simple situation...People want to kill us....we can either a. kill as many of them as we can before they come here to kill us , or b. wait for them to sneak into our country and knock down a few more buildings or even worse set off a dirty bomb in New York....give me you honest opinion on a good solution for this problem.....

You are the king of debating. I'll be even more impressed when you make a point.

He did ask me if I got all my political views from Green Days latest endeavor. That's gotta count for something.....

I have made several points on this board...just because you might not agree with them does not mean they havent been made...

yeah well your profile says you are from France, so i figured you know all about being invaded and conquered : ok:

You've reeled off a bunch of stuff that everyone here has heard many times before, and half the time you're responding to things the other person didn't even say just because that's what your script says. It's not about whether I agree or disagree, it's about your self-proclaimed debating prowess, and I'm the jury.

How old are you? 13?

come on that was a good line and you know it :)   and repeating things you have heard thousands and thousands of times is what happens when you debate about politics..there is only so much that can be said....Watch any tv show with 2 people goin at it and you can probably guess what they are going to say before they open their mouths....the whole point is to hammer on each other and get absolutely nowhere and resolve nothing....which is what debating this kind of shit does....

More rightwing backwash proper gander for the masses. Too bad for him that nobody is listening anymore.

We are witnessing the beginning of the complete implosion of Bushism. The Senate is poised to rebuke him, led by members of his own party. His Attorney General arrives to push Bush fascism on habeus corpus, something Maccaca and the Gang would have accepted a few months back, and is instead laughed out of the Senate.

The end of the "We Are Winning In Iraq" charade, a buffoonish national clown show where administration Tony Snow-Job would give us daily pronouncements from Der Fuehrer that all was well on the Russian Front. To make it even more painful, the coup de grace was delivered by Bush's newest top military man, who seems to be able to speak the truth, unlike Bush dicksuck Abizaid, the guy who ran the Iraq war into the ditch, So here we have it now, Bush's new man telling us the truth:


Incoming commander admits miscalculations
Adm. Fallon says U.S. overestimated Iraqi forces? ability to take control


(AP) Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, President Bush's nominee to head U.S. Central Command replacing Gen. John Abizaid, said in a statement that securing Iraq was more difficult than the U.S. anticipated.

WASHINGTON - Adm. William Fallon, who is poised to become the top American commander in the Middle East, says the United States miscalculated the ability of Iraqi forces to take control and underestimated the enemy?s persistence.

?Securing the stability of the country has been more difficult than anticipated,? Fallon said in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee. ?Our ability to correctly assess the political, economic and security situation in Iraq has been lacking.?

Fallon?s remarks were submitted in advance of a confirmation hearing Tuesday. Fallon, who commands troops in the Pacific region, has been tapped to replace Army Gen. John Abizaid as head of the U.S. Central Command.

In addition Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was expected to consider the nomination of John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, to become deputy secretary of state.

Fallon and Negroponte?s confirmations were not expected to rouse Senate protests, despite bitter opposition in Congress to Bush?s plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

Public sentiment has turned strongly against a war that has dragged on for nearly four years with more than 3,000 American dead and violence unabated by insurgents and sectarian militias.

Sharp rebuke of al-Maliki
In remarks prepared for a speech Tuesday, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a member of the Armed Services Committee who recently returned from a trip to the region, said only another 200,000 or 300,000 U.S. troops would make a substantial difference in Iraq.

?Based on everything I saw last month, and based on my conversations with Iraqi officials, our own military leaders and rank-and-file soldiers, I am convinced more troops won?t end the sectarian violence,? Nelson said.

Nelson also was expected to deliver a sharp rebuke of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Nelson said al-Maliki ?either lacks the will, or the nerve, to take on the Shiite militias.?

Last week the Senate approved, 81-0, Bush?s nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to head the Iraq war. Petraeus would work alongside Fallon, who would oversee military operations throughout the region, including Afghanistan.

During Petraeus? Jan. 23 confirmation hearing, senators questioned him on how Bush?s new strategy would work and whether Congress should weigh in with a resolution of disapproval.

I am not follwing a script or "talking points" as they are commonly called...they are my opinions...if they have been discussed already its not my fault...everything I post on here I feel has something to do with a question or a post I am responding too....What I dont understand is how I am labled "right wing" just for wanting to WIN in Iraq....because I have a problem with democrats I am right wing? I have a problem with alot of republicans as well....As far as you saying no one is listening to that right wing propaganda...thats not true....Rush Limbaugh is the number 1 radio show in the nation by FAR...and Sean Hannity is number 2...and you dont get more one sided than those 2 guys....so that right wing  stuff is still popular....I cant listen to Rush for more than 5 minutes though...I dont know how millions of people do it if for 3 hours everyday