Some war funding after all

Hugh Rollings — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:24:40 GMT

The Democrats back down again. Anyone surprised? Got to hand it to them, they are very good at surrendering.

Some war funding after all

Rick, WS, NC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:27:24 GMT

What?!? The dems caved again? I'm shocked, shocked I say. This is what will keep them out of the WH, this inability to even stand up to an unpopular lame duck universally detested president...I'm afraid miss nancy and namby pamby harry are leading you off the cliff dems...

I wonder if obama will vote this time or have another campaign stop to attend instead?

Some war funding after all

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:35:44 GMT

Republicans, since you understand and acknowledge that the overwhelming desire of the people to end this war, how about some intellectual honesty by admitting that your goal is to obstruct the will of the people? Taking pot shots at the Dems for not being able to overcome your obstructionism is disingenuous to say the least. Unless of course you're OK with scoring political points at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, which seems to be the case.

Some war funding after all

Dave, Tn — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:56:38 GMT

Can't we just treat the middle east like democrats treat urban areas here? Install corrupt leaders, pay lip service to the people, and wait for it to boil over. ie... New Orleans

Some war funding after all

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:59:12 GMT

Thanks for your criticism of a party that you do not support for ideas you also do not support. Isn't it obvious that your line of reasoning is a bit slanted, to say the least?

Pelosi could be seen as caving to the Bush Administration, in one respect. However, also, she could be seen to be acting for the benefit of a large number of DOD emplioyees whose boss has threatened to lay them off their jobs during the holidays because of the political gain to be sought from the threat.

Who is the wrong-doer in this scenario? Pelosi, looking out for thousands of American families, or the Administration, by threatening those same families with their livelihoods?

When you take a simplistic approach to governance and politics, everything is seen in black and white. Isn't it a bit more accurate to say that governance should determined in shades of gray (or, in my favorite term of art, all colors of the rainbow)?

I also dislike viewing politics in the "battle" or "war" context. Having been in one, this is a dangerous metaphor for our political process that the mainstream media (as well as a large number of blogs) seek to support. Politics and our government affects everyone, whether it is a small government as the Republicans supposedly seek to support/create, or a large one (which is what we have). PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED.

Therefore, civil discourse should be serious, and not a game of tarring and feathering those that do not agree with you.

Similarly, accusing opposing party members of "not having big sticks" (see the VP's comments w/ Politico) and thus creating some sort of weird gender stigmatization should also not be allowed. That the media is not jumping on the inherently (though implied) sexist remarks of a SITTING VP speaks volumes about the state of this country's "civil discourse."

Some war funding after all

Mark, Atlanta, Ga — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:30:23 GMT

Though I literally despire what the Dems are trying to do (I work for the Army as a Civilian... and I believe the surge is working), I must hand it to them for getting a little more bold. Our two party government helps keep things in check... Believe it or not.. I think the Dems opposition keeps the war on track.

Some war funding after all

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:30:23 GMT

This is from the daily mail.com

War 40, Congress 20

The War is twice as popular as Congress.

Under Democratic leadership, the 110th Congress is the least popular Congress since pollsters began measuring this. Various polls peg the disapproval at various numbers at various times. But one thing doesn’t change: Worst Congress ever.

Democratic apologists say that this is because Congress has failed to end the war. Well, that may explain the low marks on the Democratic end. But the 63 votes so far this year on the war obviously are turning off independents and Republicans.

Let us review. In November, Gallup pegged the Congressional job approval at 20% with 69% disapproval.

In December, Gallup found that 40% of Americans think the Surge is working, 39% say not working.

And while 57% now say going into Iraq was a mistake, 41% say it was not a mistake.

Apparently 69% say electing this Congress was a mistake. Only 20% apparently believe this Congress was not a mistake.

While obviously the questions are slightly different, the pollster is the same: Gallup.

Once again, Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid continue to show while they are great with running their mouths off, they have no idea what is going on outside Washington. Even John Murtha admits the surge is working and I'll bet my next paycheck, Nancy broke off a table leg and told him to change his talking points before she was going to beat him with that table leg.

Some war funding after all

Ben, Chicago IL — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:47:19 GMT

I had NO doubt that the war parties (Dems & Repubs) would continue the war indefinitely.

Some war funding after all

Gary Tellmen, Saunders MS — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:00:14 GMT

So Dems, do you like when you get the lawyer lingo from your hero Nancy? Not approving money for Iraq, except the money that is approved for other things can be moved to Iraq. What a difference a year makes for the "Fraud from Frisco."

Some war funding after all

Sierra, SF — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:00:59 GMT

What a WASTE !!
Nancy Pelosi is my congresswoman.....
I'll vote for someone else next election
(not that it matters, Nancy's a shoe-in)

Why not at least add in SCHIP funding ?
Why not add in a restoration of haebus corpus (sp) ?
How about closing Guantanamo ?

Come on NANCY !!

Some war funding after all

KR Hull — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:01:34 GMT

R{{epublicans, since you understand and acknowledge that the overwhelming desire of the people to end this war,}}

End the war by winning it. Something you Democrats know very little about.

Some war funding after all

airmanc5 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:18:27 GMT

HA HA HA HA HA,Nancy Pelosi and harrry Reid the splineless idiots, And they call this "leadership" ha ha ha , the "do nothing" democrats strike again lmao, even the minimum wage was increased by the republicians not the democrats lmao just count the numbers ha ha ha

Some war funding after all

--NSMSBNC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:13 GMT

End the war by winning it. Something you Democrats know very little about.
KR Hull (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:01 PM)

If we win, who loses? Define winning. Will anybody pay reparations for our war cost, will any nation/group concede something to us?
If we lose, surrender, redeploy, who wins. Who do we surrender to, and who must we meet their demands?

Some war funding after all

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:34:02 GMT

So I am guessing the Republicans (and others) who are screaming about this won't mind giving some money to all the DoD employees that get "furloughed" if they don't provide funding. Let's face it - if Pelosi hadn't agreed, the haters would be demanding her head on a silver platter for letting people get furloughed.

She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, as the Dems seem to always be with this obstructionist Republican minority who doesn't seem to realize that they are not thwarting only the Dems in Congress but the will of the people.

Some war funding after all

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:38:28 GMT

"Install corrupt leaders, pay lip service to the people, and wait for it to boil over." Isn't that pretty much what's happening in Iraq?

Some war funding after all

Amadues, Newport ri — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:49:10 GMT

You all no nothing about how our government works. First we can't end the war or funding with out the majority to override the veto. The republicans keep that from happening. The democrats do not have a 2/3 majority to override the veto. So america will see the republicans as being obstructionist. secondly its the republican congress that is getting the bad poll numbers. all you republicans talk about bad democrats. due foley,delay abramoff, i scotter libby. and should i go on. You republicans made this huge defict and now can't repair it. It will be the dems who get a bigger majroity and the white house next year. Has anybody noticed how the repuks complain since loosing in dec. get over it and do what america wants. And as far as pork. Bush never once veto a bill from the republicans that was loaded with pork. can you say hypocrites. my god get over yourselves. Oh yeah and how about your boy Huck letting a rapist go that he was advised not to by all the professionals and his advisers. Then the rapist went and raped someone else and raped and murder another. And he calls himself a man of god.

Some war funding after all

Greg Okc — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:55:51 GMT

We win by staying, to surrender to radical Islam would be the absolute worst thing that could happen. We would become willing targets once again. To run would be to prove OBL right. These radicals use terrorism to instill fear. For us to leave now would just prove them right. Dont fool yourself, this is not a war fought against the people of Iraq. They are foreign fighters and thugs. The people of Iraq are opening their stores and trying to get back to a normal life with a bright future. Tribes that had fought against each other are forming bonds against the armies of terror. To answer you question Iraq wins, the region wins, The US and her allies win, the world wins.

Some war funding after all

American Voter — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:58:29 GMT

The surrender party surrenders again! Reid & Pelosi - a couple of losers.

Some war funding after all

Bruce, NV — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:58:49 GMT

NSMBNC, I believe the answers to your questions are self-evident, and you are playing the dunce, but on the off chance that you really don't know, let me spell it out (I'll type slowly):
Winning will be when Iraq is self-governing (not there yet), and the death toll is only St Louis bad, not Detroit bad (nearly there).

Losing will be when the surrender-or-else wing of the Dems (which will likely cost them the WH next year) get their way and pull the troops unilateraly. Whether one thinks going into Iraq was a mistake or not, I'd think all but the most devoted peaceniks might think that leaving Iraq with our tail between our legs, much like the Soviets left Afghanistan might not be best in the long run. Besides emboldening the Muslim terrorist groups (and every tincup dictator on the planet), you'd probably end up with a situation much like war-lord driven Afghanistan, providing cover and succor for more jihadi nuts.

At this point in time, even rank-and-file non-leftwingnut Dem members of Congress are beginning to realize that all is not lost in Iraq, and are trying to move away from Nancy's surrender.

Some war funding after all

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:01:22 GMT

KR Hull (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:01 PM)

Who WON WWII? DEMOCRATS. Who created the, "peace", in Korea and Viet Nam? REPUBLICANS. The only, "wars", that your heroes have won were in places like Grenada(lol)
I wish I knew you so I could buy you a ticket to Baghdad so you could see our progress up close and personal. Maybe then you could tell me what you think VICTORY would look like.
Did you catch the 60 Minutes segment on the purge of Christians in Iraq? Did you know that even under a dictator like Saddam, the Christians has the freedom to practice their faith, but with our help, they must now worship in secret or face DEATH?
Tell me again about what VICTORY means? Is it going to be like our VICTORY in KOREA, where we have over 50,000 troops FIFTY-FOUR years after the treaty?

I know it's probably easier to conceptualize victory when you're unencumbered by any knowledge of complicating factors like history or of the current situation in Iraq politically, but military victory is impossible without political reconciliation, ask GENERAL PETRAEUS.

The country has fractured along religious lines and Baghdad is a city of walls, check-points and partitions, waiting for our departure so they can resume their religious civil war. Our troops can defeat any enemy in the field, but they can't do anything about making the so-called government of Iraq reach the political compromise necessary to save their country.

We will have to begin to scale back our troop levels in Baghdad in a couple of months. When we do, (and the Iraqi police and Army take over) if there is still no progress diplomatically, the religious violence will start increasing again, in the opinion of analysts on all sides, and will erase the military progress of the surge like the a sandstorm erases a desert encampment.

No American ever wants to lose ANYTHING, let alone a war, and the republicans who intone that sentiment have rocks in their heads, or perhaps sand. In order to achieve victory in anything, you have to have SOME IDEA of what that victory constitutes.

It's because of the abject failure of the Bush administration to accurately assess the correct target and threat, adequately prepare for the post-invasion, and honestly admit their many mistakes, that we invaded a country and uncorked ethnic and religious tensions that had been bottled up for decades, but had been simmering for FOURTEEN HUNDRED years; That we are trapped in a situation where victory, (the definition of which has been revised many times), is a word whose meaning has been erased by the sands blowing across a blood-stained country whose people have yet to see anything but death and despair.

Van

Some war funding after all

Todd Denver Colorado — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:02:16 GMT

Support the troops first! Support the employees(military civilians)Pay for the war. Then the Dems
should come up with a comprehensive plan to get out of Iraq. Yes we went in under false pretense, bad intel. But we need to win and fighting among themselves( Repub and Dem's)is not the way to take care of the American men and women and the people of the US of A.

Some war funding after all

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:11:46 GMT

Can we please find a couple members of the Democratic party in Congress with the balls to stand up to our Idiot In Chief and dare him to shut down these operations? I wish that there were a few more real leaders in Congress to step up and say to Pelosi and Reid "NO!" and actually mean it. No more money until Dubya agrees that the war in Iraq is a mistake and to end it. Then we can spend the money in Afghanistan where it is necessary and right to spend it and move on to the important business of the country here at home.

Some war funding after all

KR Hull — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:13:49 GMT

Winning is having another democratically elected country in the middle east. Winning is freeing 40 million people from being ruled at the end of a gun muzzle by terrorists. Winning is having another country that will not harbor and train terrorists. Winning is having a free flow of oil not controlled by dictators and terrorists. Winning is showing other countries and people in the region that they do have a choice between repression and being free, and fostering an environemnt where that idea will catch on. Winning is changing from the constant fighting in the middle east for the past 60 years and moving towards a path that peacefully resolves differences between the people in that region. Winning is showing that it is better to be more tolerant of your neigbors rather then to always fight them.

Losing is walking away from a job that is progressing. Not progressing as fast as some would like, but progressing none the less. Losing is showing the world that the US starts things, but does not finish things. Losing is not being persistent at finishing the job. Losing is being divided, as the US is with many of the Democrats leaders constantly being critical of the objectives, even when the objectives are being met. Losing is giving up because it's just too hard.

Some war funding after all

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:26:17 GMT

Win? Win what, a toaster oven? This isn't a game show.

Now, I know that a lot of you war mongerers were pissed off that in 1991 Bush Sr. didn't go straight through Baghdad. Now that Dick Cheney has done is best Sherman imitation and marched from one end of Iraq to the other killing and destroying everything in his path (and I can make a good case that this is Cheney's war, not Bush's), what the hell else is to "win"? The insurgency isn't something to fight. They're fighting to get us out. Leaving isn't a loss. Leaving is called "common sense" something I am of the belief Republicans as a whole have totally lost. Winning is getting out while we still have a choice in the matter. Staying is losing. Losing money daily. Losing the lives of our soldiers. Losing what little respect we still maintain in the international community. I realize that these are not big concerns to this administration or to the Republican base as a whole, but they need to be. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less safe we are here and abroad. And I hope you can all live with yourselves, heaven forbid, if something far worse than 9/11 happens because of your foolishness and lust for hollow victory in Iraq.

Some war funding after all

sg, michigan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:30:15 GMT

End the war by winning it. Something you Democrats know very little about.
KR Hull (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:01 PM)

If we win, who loses?...--NSMSBNC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:22 PM)

---------------------------------

Interesting point. There doesn't seem to be any substantive goal or definition in our "war on terror". It's much like president Johnson's war on poverty or Reagan's war on drugs. At what point will we finish?

And also, KR Hull, Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) didn't start World War II. But he finished it. Don't be so heavy handed with your generalizations.

Some war funding after all

Bruce, NV — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:41:58 GMT

Actually, sg, HST ended it, not FDR. Oh, and Stalin, and CHurchill.

Perhaps you might save a "Don't be so heavy handed with your generalizations. " who is of the "If the GOP did it=bad" school of "thought".

Some war funding after all

KR Hull — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:49:10 GMT

And also, KR Hull, Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) didn't start World War II. But he finished it. Don't be so heavy handed with your generalizations

The generalizations are more contemporary then from past history. Needless to say, the Democratic party has changed a little since FDR. Do you agree?

And Mike K, Denver - grow up.

Some war funding after all

sane in Ut — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:04:19 GMT

M, Pelosi was not worried about jobs. She was worried about losing union funds and votes. Once again despite always calling Bush stupid he has again out smarted dems. It will always be the case because they those polititions are only committed to their own elections not to any principles. I am a goverment worker and a veteran, I hope a commander in chief will always value to protect soldiers in harms way over jobs for those who are not. It is to bad dem polititions view risking soldiers lives as an acceptable tactic to advance there position. Are we supposed to ignore that this was part of Murta's death by a thousand cut plan. The man is a traitor.

Some war funding after all

Sane in Ut — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:10:05 GMT

So it is OK to use lives of soldiers in a combat zones as political pawns, but threatening goverment jobs is out of line? Talk about being on the wrong side of an issue.

Some war funding after all

Dot, Illinoisd — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:11:28 GMT

Bruce, NV

Winning will be when Iraq is self governing.".....
Could you explain that more clearly for me, please? I am not extremely knowledgeable on the subject, but
I thought Iraq had a government in place; not a strong government and maybe not one that represents all the various factions in the country to a level desired by those factions, but they have a President and legislative body, don't they? I think the problem with Iraq seems to be more that they don't have a strong policing body that can control the acts of sectarian violence committed by radical elements. I agree that it will take some time to be able to withdraw all our forces, but I am not sure that Iraq will ever reach a high level of self sufficiency until we start removing some troops and they are made aware that our time there is not limitless. I also think we should not give up on efforts to get UN or other world agencies to trying and arrange for a peace keeping force of soldiers from countries in the area to easy the way for some US forces to withdraw.

Some war funding after all

BIGOLDTEXAN, dallas,tx. — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:11:36 GMT

It is not the democrat fault that they can`t get enough votes from the repukes who keep obstructing the process of ending this war.

Of course they really don`t have anything to worry about as you all know no one from their families are in this war therefore they really don`t care if more blood gets shed.

I am too old to go to war and there have been some of my family members that have been and still in this war, and they are waiting for bush/cheney to end it.

Go ahead, if any of you have family members in this war ask them what they honestly beleive why they are over there and ask them do they think that they should still be over there.

They do not have a clear picture as to why they are there and see no reason for them being there.

One of my family member came home for good last month after spending 3 years over in Iraq, no time off just bullets flying over his head the whole front of him is full of old and new wounds from bombs and close calls. The guy will not come out of the bedroom of his mother house and he is only 26 years old.

I`m sorry but I think that this war is for all the wrong reasons.

The republicans needs to give up the votes and bring all the troops home now.
It is their fault and not the democrats, they started this war and now everyone wants to blame the democrats because they can`t stop it.

Check your records America, if you would stand up to this idiot that is in the white house there wouldn`t be an indifinte war on our hands.

This is too much. you say its the democrats fault and I say it is the republicans.

This war can not be won by the military , it is a civil war among the different cultures & religions in Iraq, they had nothing to do with 911.

And I will say it, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE OIL OVER THERE AND YOU ALL NO IT.

WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BIN LADEN, have they found him
are they still looking for him, "No" and you know why they are just using him & this war for the OIL.

Think about it America.

Some war funding after all

John Widmer, Chicago, IL — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:15:57 GMT

The Democratics in Congress are so invested in our defeat in Iraq, that they cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that the surge is working and that General Petraeus was right. The MoveOn.org party is what they have become. For shame.

Some war funding after all

Fa/ AZ — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:20:40 GMT

Your Washignton self serving paper ahnger has all the soultions,but never the technical data or logic. Which lends fact to, they have confessed to be the worst gathering of lunatic's under one roof.

How is it that little of nothing has been accomplished during this congress? We watch as the self serving agenda is spewed and never a critical issue addressed!

God forebid if there was another major issue which involved Washington Paper hangers to voice upon!!!1

Some war funding after all

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:25:50 GMT

Some war funding after all

Fact/AZ — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:42:41 GMT

The idiots on the right side of the senate claim ""they will not fund another day of this war!! Now they say the funding will support the afghan side of the war,, but funds will be diverted to Iraq to support that war, but again the Demo's will stand beside their pledge not to give one more dime to the Iraq war, seeing they have their spinning in place, their conjecture and open Washington self serving agenda's are fore filled with all their pork barrel,,

We have just experienced our Washington self serving paper hangers again rewirte the rules!! My I'm so damned confused to a point of who the hell are all these Washington self serving Paper hangers????? Some one please send a book on common sense and logic 101 enclosed with a frist grade reader to the Senate. We have never seen so many loose cannons fired all at the same time!!!!

Some war funding after all

Bob W in Washington,DC home of the unicameral legislature — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:57:19 GMT

Will these surprises never stop? First we learn there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iran!!! And now Pelosi tells us how her opposition party is oppooing the war and the administration by announcing that the war will continue for many years and the congress is going to continue to fund the war, or is it the Halliburton-CACI mercenaries they are funding? Maybe cheney/bush do have Gawd on their side.

Some war funding after all

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:07:35 GMT

"To run would be to prove OBL right." Bin Laden wasn't operating in Iraq until we turned it into a lawless free for all. The neocons screwed it up, plain and simple.

Some war funding after all

Alba Lavrenz,Burt,Iowa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:33:52 GMT

I want to know how you feel about the war in Iraq.
How nuch should we continue supporting Foreign Policy.

Some war funding after all

KR Hull — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:34:14 GMT

[I wish I knew you so I could buy you a ticket to Baghdad so you could see our progress up close and personal.]

Maybe you should just save your money and go ask your good buddy Murtha. You know, before Nancy beats his head in to shut him up.

Nice job though cutting and pasting in moveon.orgs take on the war. That's a good skill set. It should take you far in life.

Some war funding after all

KR Hull — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:43:49 GMT

BigOldTex says: It is not the democrat fault that they can`t get enough votes from the repukes who keep obstructing the process of ending this war.

Question. How many votes does it take for the Democrats to not pass a spending bill to fund the war? You may want to re-read the question a few times if you choose to answer. The question is a little tricky, especially for Democrats, at least the current Democrats. The FDR Democrats will get the answer in about a second. Feel free to work in groups, and do show your work.

Some war funding after all

what a maroon — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:43:55 GMT

"End the war by winning it. Something you Democrats know very little about. "

You twit - the chicken hawk draft dodger party has some insight?

Some war funding after all

But FOX NEWS said..... — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:48:05 GMT

"The Democratics in Congress are so invested in our defeat in Iraq, that they cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that the surge is working and that General Petraeus was right. "

Jeez. Of course "it works." If we sent 100,000 more, it would work better. If we sent 1,000,000 we could stop the violence all together.

Rub two brain cells together and try to figure out for yourself what happens when they leave.

Some war funding after all

Greg Okc — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:50:29 GMT

BIGOLDTEXAN, I too have nephews that have served in Iraq. Both home now one w/perm disability. They were there pre-surge. They are 100% behind what is happening there. By the way we are conservative people. Usually vote Republican but will vote for the candidate. Most of the military tends to vote Republican so where you get the Republican kids arent there? I never understood that one. I am very proud of the service of my nephews, they get it, take the battle to the enemy, to his home keep it away from here. I dont believe its just chance that there has not been another attack since 9/11.

Some war funding after all

Richard S — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:55:55 GMT

If the Dems had supported the war, it would have been over and done with years ago. Instead they needed and made it a politcal issue so they could have something they could hate. Watch they hate spill over to the Rep candidate, whomever he may be. Hate for hate sake. What a sad lot of losers letting moron.org dictate their postitions.

Some war funding after all

karlos — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:15:27 GMT

the funding is not to continue the war it's to defend the troops that are stuck there! putting the employees of the dod out of a job won't stop the war either! you don't shoot the messenger folks and that's all you're doing. you elect the only candidate with a plan to end the and handle world affairs, joe biden!as for winning the war you can forget that as there is no win scenario in this fiasco, we should have learned that in nam. biden has the only reasonable plan for iraq and the rest of the candidates say "i agree with joe" so take them at their word and elect joe biden.

Some war funding after all

Don in LA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:17:30 GMT

Anyone who continues to support this current criminal administration in anything they do, from the occupation of Iraq to the sabre rattling towards Iran, you are all just idiots! I could use a lot of 4 letter words, or even phrases from the right wing media, but what for. You are all being led down a narrow path that leads to the end of this country as we once knew it. If the continuous evidence of lies, deceit, cover-ups, obstruction of justice, misappropriations of funding, illegal wiretaps right on down to the misuse of the Justice department isn't enough to convince you imbeciles, what's the use in trying to convince you. As Forest Gump would say...Stupid is as Stupid does!

Some war funding after all

Carla, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:21:27 GMT

If the American people were really against funding our troops then Nancy et al would have no trouble. A majority of Americans want to WIN the war. They want to SUPPORT the troops. You can't complain about sending them in there unarmored and then withhold funds. There is actually a Congress contemplating not funding US troops in combat. No wonder these dingbats have the lowest rating in all of American history. I hope all these Democrats get kicked out on their behinds.

PS Habeus Corpus has not been suspended nitwit!

Some war funding after all

Carla, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:21:28 GMT

Some war funding after all

Jacksonian — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:47:36 GMT

I'M A DEM BUT NOT FOR LONG! The current democratic leadership is pathetic, spineless, & impotent. What do we get from our first female speaker? Strength? Courage? Commitment? No. Another cave-in. The Republican party has spent the last 30 years destroying this country and undermining democracy. Do you pay 29% interest rates on your credit cards? Thank Ronald Reagan for "getting government off our backs" by deregulating the banking industry; are you a retired American Airlines worker who watched your pension evaporate into thin air? Thank a Republican-controlled Congress which threw out longstanding U.S. Bankruptcy Code provisions designed to protect employees & retirees; are you employed full time yet unable to make ends meet or to insure your family? Thank the greedy, corrupt, hypocritical, war-mongering, incompetent, lying Republican "moralists" who tap into people's patriotism and religiosity with one hand while the other hand rifles through their wallets.
It's bad enough that when they're not in power, the democrats fail to convey any persuasive message or opposition in response to the party of bad/no government. But EVEN WHEN THEY'RE IN CHARGE they fail miserably! Nancy? Harry? Take a chance & take a stand! SAY NO, NO, NO to this administration! Give these liars & thieves NOTHING! Do you honestly think that you can go along to get along? No matter what you do, they'll say you didn't support the troops. So why not say NO! Say it's not that you didn't support the troops: it's that you didn't support the WAR. That's what Americans elected you to say.

Some war funding after all

small fact/AZ — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:40:07 GMT

If the Demo's get their way """Call Henry Waxman""" He;ll open up one of his tax dollar driven investigations!!!!! Such a bag of whiners and loser's. Pointing finger and braying like the jackasses they really are!!!!

To be a full fledged Jackass member ""You must attend braying school"""!!! Under the desk 101 and sand box training a must!!!

Some war funding after all

class Warrior, D.C. — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:18:49 GMT

Pelosi's caught in a mess...if she doesn't fund the civilians, jobs will be lost. But in funding civilians and Afghanistan, she and everyone else knows good and damn well that the Cheney/Bush Admin doesn't care about either, that they'll funel money into Iraq, a sort of new Iran-Contra (remember when we SOLD weopons to Iran?). A self-serving shell-game that Pelosi, the Dems ad the country will always lose as long as cheney's running things. But what does she do? Not fund the war and have Cheney/Bush punish the Dems by punishing civilian workers? It's a sneaky, under-handed and typically evil thing they're doing, but they'l do it anyway, and Pelosi, the Dems and the Americans ponying up their hard-earned money for it always lose. We just need to vote the war-lovers out of both Congress and the White House in Novemeber and maybe then we can start doing things honestly again.

Some war funding after all

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:14:59 GMT

Carla:

A majority of Americans recognize that there is no such thing as "winning" this war. What defines victory? First it was the WMD's, then it was toppling Saddam, then it was democratic elections. I don't even know what it is now. Each time the stated purpose is met, there is a new stated purpose. You can't win a war that has no true purpose.

Some war funding after all

David Powell, Ocean City NJ USA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:21:46 GMT

Better Pelosi surrender to Bush than to terrorism. Good on her, I just wish she would be more honest in supporting American victory which will be better for the Afghans and Iraqis too. Too many psychos are so blinded by hatred of President Bush to care about the security of human beings here and eevn in Iraq and Afghanistan, where majorities want freedom but fear terrorism and need our help to build better tomorrows. Also, isn't it so strange that some "liberals" who claim to be for womens' rights, freedom of religion and democracy back allowing fundamentalist, anti-woman and anti-democratic terrorists to win? I'd say "isn't it funny," but it's really not. Good on Pelosi for giving the troops the money, wish she'd be a bit plainer in avering her support publically, I guess with her far out base in San Fran she has to be careful. Mad props to President Bush for sticking it out and working it out so we can stick behing the surge and win this thing. What gets troops home? Victory. a la the end of WW2, that's what.

Some war funding after all

Lee in CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:22:36 GMT

"PS Habeus Corpus has not been suspended nitwit! "

Tell that to Jose Padilla, you know nothing know it all.

Some war funding after all

Lee Holmes — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:44:24 GMT

John B: No,in fact it is not. BLOOMBERG observes that Iraqi bond value rates are rising[while the New York Times is tanking into ''sell''regions. MSNBC is doing so lousy that its boss is going to chop jobs later this month].Further,oil production continues to increase with 2.5 million barrels per month,an increase of a half-million barrels daily just since late September. Much of this money is now being poured back into infrastructure repairs [now taking place in Baghdad and Fallujah],and funding the return of an increasing number of refugees from Jordan and Syria.[who apparently have their own reasons for returning to a ''disaster'',a ''quagmire'', and a ''failure''].

Lee: Gee. One guy out of a nation of over 300 millions constitutes a blanket ''suspension''of Habeas Corpus. Somebody better tell Barry Bonds. Meanwhile,Padilla has been properly heard and sentanced,with the new row in the USSC eminating over Congress' authority in passing it's 2006 law which allows military tribunals in GTMO,backed by the administration[now being argued by Clement],and opposed by human rights watchers [who were already blasted for their silence in the use of child soldiers by the Palestinians and the use of rockets aimed deliberately at civilian targets],who are being,as are the prisoners,represented by Seth Waxman,a relative of Henrys. Thus the USSC has in no way determined a loss of Habeas Corpus that can be heretofore established as found law which would have been held in violation by the administration.[Else they would not even be having this argument right now]. This is the patent result of the USSC punting to Congress,in the HAMDI and HAMDAN cases. Yet Congress did act,even if the result was not the one desired by the administrations critics,who go back to the USSC for another crack at it.

Some war funding after all

Lee in CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:06:22 GMT

"Lee: Gee. One guy out of a nation of over 300 millions constitutes a blanket ''suspension''of Habeas Corpus. "

How stupid are you? If president monkey butt can wave his hand over Jose Padilla, he can do it to your mother. Please don't respond to my posts anymore.

Some war funding after all

Sane in UT — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:16:27 GMT

Yeh! Lee stop upsetting Lee with logic and truth. Dems hate that stuff. It's like holy water to a vampire. The nice thing is they do always leave when they know they have been out witted. Lee in Ca, feel free to rant some more if you want.

Some war funding after all

Lee Holmes — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:29:45 GMT

Lee: I only calls em as I sees em. Your vapid inanities are based upon mere partisanship,little else,which is the province of the simple mind. Wen Ho Lee was found by the USSC to have had his Habeas Corpus rights abridged by a liberal majority of the USSC. Did this mean that Clinton was wantonly suspending HC for all Americans? No. You forget that Padilla was locked into a legal paradigm which had heretofore never been adressed by the high court[''Jihad Johnny''Walker having already pleaded guilty and accepting a deal before it had moved into an area that would be contested at the appellate level,Walker acting as ''battlefield soldier''as opposed to suspected ''terrorist'']. The USSC has already spoken as regards Padilla,who,as I observed,is now serving out his sentance. Thus ''my mother''is already protected by the USSCs found law as well as the Document. What is it that you cannot grasp regarding this quite simple fact? Thus,your paranoid fantasies quite to the contrary,Bush will most certainly not be coming for my ''mother'',yours either,that person over there,or the persons below this post. In fact,if you can find one single American citizen whose case is now wending its way through the court system devoid of HC protections,again in a nation of over 300 millions,then get with it man. Quit wasting time,and produce your Habeas Corpus-less ''dictatorship''. Anything else is mere intriguing,devoid of fact.

Also see: www.volokh.com-The VOLOKH Conspiricy,a lawblog comprised of civil and military jurists,lawyers,clerks,professors, constitutional experts and law students.

Some war funding after all

mike in port orchard, wash. — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:47:30 GMT

seems to me Lee in Ca shouldno longer be allowed to post if he can not refrain from name calling and demeaning others who care to post their opinions. only reading two of his replies i detect a meanspirited and hateful individual...how sad