NationStates Jolt Archive

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=attcJRHvhu28&refer=home):

President George W. Bush attacked the Senate's $122 billion Iraq war-spending bill, which would set a timetable for troop withdrawals, and said he will hold Democrats responsible if they delay funding military operations.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush said in a speech this morning in Washington. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

The Senate today resumed debate on the legislation, which Bush again promised to veto if it reaches his desk with the limits on troops intact. Money for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan begins running out in mid-April.

The president's remarks reflect an escalation in the confrontation between the administration and congressional Democrats, who won control of the House and Senate last November largely as a result of voter dissatisfaction with the president's strategy in Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Bush's comments suggest he is refusing to recognize that he'll have to negotiate with Democrats.

"It's obvious from his statements after yesterday's vote in the Senate that he doesn't want anything but a confrontation," Reid said.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the legislation passed by both chambers, which include timetables for troop withdrawals, reflect public sentiment.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war," she said at the Capitol. "Let's see how we can work together."

A CBS News poll released today said 59 percent of those surveyed favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, while 37 percent opposed it. CBS said the poll was conducted among 831 adults March 26-27 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Senate voted 50-48 yesterday in favor of a provision that would force Bush to pull most U.S. forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House passed a $124 billion package last week, setting a September 2008 troop-withdrawal deadline.

The votes were a repudiation of a plan Bush announced earlier this year to increase the number of combat troops in Iraq. There are about 141,000 U.S. troops there now, with about half the reinforcements in place and the rest to arrive in June.

In the most recent violence, Iraqi Shiite Muslim gunmen carried out reprisals overnight in a Sunni area of Tal Afar in response to car and truck bombings yesterday that killed 75 people in the northern Iraqi city. Tal Afar was cited by Bush a year ago as a place that "gives reason for hope for a free Iraq" after a U.S. operation to regain control of the area from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers.

Bush and some of his allies among congressional Republicans argue that the extra troops already are helping reduce violence in the capital, Baghdad, which has become a focal point of sectarian battles in the last year.

The strategy being carried out by General David Petraeus "is beginning to show signs of success," and the congressional legislation "undercuts him and the troops at his command," Bush said in his remarks to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, said the escalation was helping the Iraqi government function.

"This war was badly mismanaged, but we are making progress," he said in an interview on NBC's "Today" program.

Bush also criticized the House and Senate bills for including billions for domestic spending unrelated to the war as well as putting "restrictions" on military commanders.

"And I have made clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I will veto it," Bush said to applause.

Reid and Pelosi responded to questions about whether Democrats would be willing to drop the withdrawal language in the legislation. The votes in both chambers indicate Democrats won't be able to override a presidential veto, and Congress goes into recess at the end of this week.

"The speaker and I are not here to get into options," Reid said. "The ball is in his court, we look forward to working with him and his staff."

So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much. Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred. If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.

I also like how Baghdad kind of getting better means all of Iraq is getting better. Baghdad remotely improves, every other area degenerates - we are kicking ass in Iraqi clean up!

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much. Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred. If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.

Not that agree w/ what the dems are doing I still respect that they are using their power to it's fullest to do what they believe is right. That is how things get done.

I also like how Baghdad kind of getting better means all of Iraq is getting better. Baghdad remotely improves, every other area degenerates - we are kicking ass in Iraqi clean up!

Ummm, Ramadi? All of Al-Anbar for that matter?

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much. Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred. If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.
Except we arn't at war, not even remotely. Bush isn't ready to do shit, much less bear any sort of burden or pay any sort of cost. There is no one to surrender to because we arn't fighting anyone.

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much.
Resource conservation is unnecessary, Bush is conserving plenty for us already, namely body armor and training.

Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred.
Then why doesn't he send his kids instead of ours? George Bush isn't making any sacrifices, Americans are, it's about time they had their say on this war.

If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.
The "mission" was accomplished, remember?

Except we arn't at war, not even remotely. Bush isn't ready to do shit, much less bear any sort of burden or pay any sort of cost. There is no one to surrender to because we arn't fighting anyone.

http://op-for.com/americaisatthemall.jpg

I heard a bit of his speech on NPR this morning...it went something like this:

"These politicians have no business deciding how to run a war that's 6000 miles away..."

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

By threatening to veto the House’s military funding bill, the President is walking away from his promise to the American people. The President has vowed to veto a bill that contains his own reform benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government, our Defense Department’s own standards for troop readiness, and America’s promise to our veterans.

Tell me again about how Democrats don't "support the troops"

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity.
So you're saying that the will of the people should take a back seat to the decisions of one man who has repeatedly proven himself to be lying, incompetent, and corrupt?

In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much.
That's because people then believed the war was just. That is not the case now.

Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred.
You mean George Bush is ready to throw a tantrum and endanger the lives of the troops because he can't establish his pipe-dream democracy in Iraq. Which is incredibly ironic, considering that the majority of people both in Iraq and in the United States want us to leave ASAP. What's the definition of "democracy", again?

If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.
Disparage them all you want. Just remember that they're representing the majority now.

http://op-for.com/americaisatthemall.jpg
Our troops arn't at war, throw around whatever crap you want. I'm not saying they arn't in armed conflict, but they arn't at war and shouldn't have to be in armed combat, and it is becoming more and more pointless that they are.

I heard a bit of his speech on NPR this morning...it went something like this:

"These politicians have no business deciding how to run a war that's 6000 miles away..."

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

Too bad he can't get pulled over for a DUI anymore, at least until he's out in 2k9

Then why doesn't he send his kids instead of ours? George Bush isn't making any sacrifices, Americans are, it's about time they had their say on this war.
B/c it is his child's choice to join the military or not. Not his.

The "mission" was accomplished, remember?

And the operational environment evolves. Grow up.

I heard a bit of his speech on NPR this morning...it went something like this:

"These politicians have no business deciding how to run a war that's 6000 miles away..."

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

He has supposedly being very hands off and allowing generals in country run the war. Now if we could get some competent regular officers.

Our troops arn't at war, throw around whatever crap you want. I'm not saying they arn't in armed conflict, but they arn't at war and shouldn't have to be in armed combat, and it is becoming more and more pointless that they are.

I'm at war every time I wake up in a war zone. I may not be fighting for my country but that doesn't make it anything other than a war.

I'm at war every time I wake up in a war zone. I may not be fighting for my country but that doesn't make it anything other than a war.
it's not a war, it's an occupation.

Which is incredibly ironic, considering that the majority of people both in Iraq and in the United States want us to leave ASAP.

Actually, that's patently false. Huge majorities are against immediate withdrawal both in the US and in Iraq. Your case holds no water.

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=attcJRHvhu28&refer=home):



So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

Bush wouldn't be in this position if he's just put the cost of the war into the regular budget instead of depending on supplementals to pay for his little war.

Actually, that's patently false. Huge majorities are against immediate withdrawal both in the US and in Iraq. Your case holds no water.
source?

it's not a war, it's an occupation.

def: a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. I didn't want to get into semantics but you left me no option. If there isn't armed hostility and active military operations then I'll be damned.

..everyone know where the blame lies and with whom.like in Vietnam..
The Blame lies with the instigators of the War.
Nigerian cake anyone?

Actually, that's patently false. Huge majorities are against immediate withdrawal both in the US and in Iraq. Your case holds no water.
Allow me to clarify: A majority of Americans want a timetable/benchmarks/phased withdrawal (leave within a few months), while most Iraqis want us out ASAP.

Still, my point stands: Bush's desire for an endless American occupation of Iraq does not sit well with either nation. How can you claim to fight for democracy by stubbornly opposing the will of both your own people and the people you're trying to "help"? Isn't that the antithesis of democracy?

Allow me to clarify: A majority of Americans want a timetable/benchmarks/phased withdrawal (leave within a few months), while most Iraqis want us out ASAP.

Still, my point stands: Bush's desire for an endless American occupation of Iraq does not sit well with either nation. How can you claim to fight for democracy by stubbornly opposing the will of both your own people and the people you're trying to "help"? Isn't that the antithesis of democracy?

That is why the military isn't a democracy. However if it is decided that the winning the war will not achieve anything then it is best to leave. I am, of course, not a subscriber to that line of thought.

Well, the piggy bank runs dry in the middle of next month. Will there be some kind of arm-twisting agreement of shrubby's part. Or will he let it run out and just try to steal it from other places? My bet is the later. He treats talking with Democrats like his father does broccoli.

In vowing to veto this bill, he's also vowing to veto

$100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions.

$6.7 billion to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.

And then he takes another swipe at a portion of his voting block by vowing to veto:

$1.2 billion for small-operation dairy farmers.

$24 million for sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley.

$20 million to combat Mormon crickets.

$4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.

$500 million to combat Western wildfires. (especially important in my home state, where summer fires get horrible, and fighting them is always under-funded)

All this and more will likely be vetoed, all because he shrubster wants to stomp his feet and hold his breath because he's being told to start bringing his toys home next year. Bastard.

Ret's go Democlats! Keep fighting the chimp!

However if it is decided that the winning the war will not achieve anything then it is best to leave.Never mind the sideffects of "wining"...

Do you think you are "wining" ??
Do you think you are going to win this war (Iraq). ???

Actually, that's patently false. Huge majorities are against immediate withdrawal both in the US and in Iraq. Your case holds no water.

[QUOTE=CBS News]
Now
Right thing
41%
Should have stayed out
55%
[\QUOTE]

Article dated Oct 10, 2005; link is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

EDIT: Any polls on the opinoins of Iraqis would be highly innaccurate, because of the environment there. Also, if we really wanted to help people, we would have spent our money in Africa, where it would've been more people saved per dollar.

def: a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. I didn't want to get into semantics but you left me no option. If there isn't armed hostility and active military operations then I'll be damned.
military occupation:

Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
By US declaration, control was taken of Iraq and then relinquished to the civilian Iraqi authority. The American force remain as 'peacekeepers' at the request of the Iraqi government. Having declared themselves in control of Iraq, the US government was technically correct in declaring insurgents as such.

Never mind the sideffects of "wining"...

Yeah i agree. People living in peace sucks.


Do you think you are "wining" ??

The insurgents certainly aren't winning. And yes I do.

Do you think you are going to win this war (Iraq). ???

Given time, yes.

military occupation:

By US declaration, control was taken of Iraq and then relinquished to the civilian Iraqi authority. The American force remain as 'peacekeepers' at the request of the Iraqi government. Having declared themselves in control of Iraq, the US government was technically correct in declaring insurgents as such.

B/c something is an occupation does not mean that it isn't a war.

$20 million to combat Mormon
:eek:

oh, there was a 'crickets' after that, my mistake. would have been great though...

Yeah i agree. People living in peace sucks.

Pedantic and uncalled for


Given time, yes.

How much more do you need??? It's already been longer than WWII, which was a far FAR more worthy fight.

Pedantic and uncalled for




How much more do you need??? It's already been longer than WWII, which was a far FAR more worthy fight.

And much less long than say Vietnam or the Malayan Emergency or the Balkans. All much more comparable conflicts than WWII. I'd have to say about 1 more year w/ troops at this level then reduce to a logistics, training and advising role.

Allow me to clarify: most Iraqis want us out ASAP.

Again, that is false. Although this is a slightly outdated poll, any more recent poll will reveal the same insight.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/

A minority of Iraqis want us out immediately or soon, while most want us to remain for at least 6 more months.

USMC, if we wanted to make the world a safer place, why didn't we go to Korea, which we NEW had nuclear capability? And if we wanted to help people, why didn't we send aid to Africa?

B/c something is an occupation does not mean that it isn't a war.
why am i arguing. there's nothing as can't be improved by painting it with the war brush.

*knew

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=attcJRHvhu28&refer=home):



So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

Correction: Congress passes "legislation" supported by the majority of a CBS poll rather than by the majority of the American people. A poll taken by the same people who gave us Rathergate. The fact that the Democrat Party is not wise enough to see the distinction is the reason that President Bush has the power to hold them responsible by appealing over their heads directly to the American people. Go ahead and believe the American people are on your side if you like. After all, CBS told you so and how could the journalists who gave you things like Rathergate and Jamil Hussein *ever* be wrong? :p :rolleyes: :p

BTW, did you notice all the pork and armtwisting poor, demented Nancy Pelosi had to put into the legislation in order to get her own Democrats to support it? o_O Let us all take a moment to congratulate the Democrats on the way they openly displayed their Culture of Corruption. :D

I'd have to say about 1 more year w/ troops at this level then reduce to a logistics, training and advising role.

Nothing personal. But, weren't people like yourself saying those exact words last year, and the year before? SOme were even saying we'd be out in a matter of weeks.


Four years later....

USMC, if we wanted to make the world a safer place, why didn't we go to Korea, which we NEW had nuclear capability? And if we wanted to help people, why didn't we send aid to Africa?

I believe that in 2003 NK pulled out of NPT, they didn't have a nuclear capability. And them having one would only make the case even greater for not invading. Nuclear wars a generally thought of as bad.:rolleyes: We are the largest aid donor to Africa in the world. If you're going to try to prove someone wrong at least spell check. Especially words that are in all caps.

Nothing personal. But, weren't people like yourself saying those exact words last year, and the year before? SOme were even saying we'd be out in a matter of weeks.


Four years later....

I wasn't. So i guess I'm not like them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=attcJRHvhu28&refer=home):



So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

Wow.

Let us all take a moment to congratulate the Democrats on the way they openly displayed their Culture of Corruption. :D

This shocking hypocrisy would have been much more visible had the Democrats not had the media in their pocket. Unfortunately, their diseased morality and rotten lies were not exposed.

BTW, did you notice all the pork and armtwisting poor, demented Nancy Pelosi had to put into the legislation in order to get her own Democrats to support it? o_O Let us all take a moment to congratulate the Democrats on the way they openly displayed their Culture of Corruption. :D

How can a single person be so monumentally dense?

Look at the voting! Even Jim Webb voted in favor, with the timeline amendment intact. Hell, even Gordon Smith supported the bill, as well as Chuck Hagle. And if you look at my previous list you can see some of the so called pork in this one.

What is it with dimwits? They hear the word "amendment" and instantly jump to the conclusion that it must be money for welfare queens and drug addicts. Jerk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?

I'm very much a part of that 56%. And i don't see what you are sourcing but by all means go ahead.

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

I'm pretty sure he's been at it since before the midterm elections.

I believe that in 2003 NK pulled out of NPT, they didn't have a nuclear capability. And them having one would only make the case even greater for not invading. Nuclear wars a generally thought of as bad.:rolleyes: We are the largest aid donor to Africa in the world. If you're going to try to prove someone wrong at least spell check. Especially words that are in all caps.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/ , they most likely do have capability now. The point in invading is ensuring that they don't get rockets powerful enough to launch those nuclear warheads to the US west coast. I still am generally a pacifist, and wouldn't declare war anyway, but it would be nowhere near as much of a waste as Iraq. On Africa, our being the "largest donor" does not mean that Africa has enough to fight disease/starvation/poverty.

I'm very much a part of that 56%. And i don't see what you are sourcing but by all means go ahead.

I am responding to Solarandus's criticism of my sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/ , they most likely do have capability now. The point in invading is ensuring that they don't get rockets powerful enough to launch those nuclear warheads to the US west coast. I still am generally a pacifist, and wouldn't declare war anyway, but it would be nowhere near as much of a waste as Iraq. On Africa, our being the "largest donor" does not mean that Africa has enough to fight disease/starvation/poverty.

We didn't know that they would have nukes when we invaded. For all you know, if we invaded NK instead Iraq might now have nukes and you would be saying the same exact thing. We are the largest donor and have the largest amount of forces providing medical assistance. If you want to complain about Africa go bitch to someone else.

I am responding to Solarandus's criticism of my sources.

Sounds good. Just in the future try to use the quote option.;)

*knew
You can edit your posts, you know.

Correction: Congress passes "legislation" supported by the majority of a CBS poll rather than by the majority of the American people. A poll taken by the same people who gave us Rathergate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?

Thanks for the back-up, Caraliwaith... I was searching for some sources when you posted.

The fact that the Democrat Party is not wise enough to see the distinction is the reason that President Bush has the power to hold them responsible by appealing over their heads directly to the American people. Go ahead and believe the American people are on your side if you like. After all, CBS told you so and how could the journalists who gave you things like Rathergate and Jamil Hussein *ever* be wrong? :p :rolleyes: :p
FYI, I consider anyone who uses that term to be either ignorant or a meanspirited partisan hack. It's a classic Republican shibboleth.

BTW, did you notice all the pork and armtwisting poor, demented Nancy Pelosi had to put into the legislation in order to get her own Democrats to support it? o_O Let us all take a moment to congratulate the Democrats on the way they openly displayed their Culture of Corruption. :D
Pork is a permanent fixture of American politics. And it's not illegal. Not that I'm saying it's OK, but it hardly approaches the level of corruption and decadence seen in the last Congress.

This shocking hypocrisy would have been much more visible had the Democrats not had the media in their pocket. Unfortunately, their diseased morality and rotten lies were not exposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8qQ-VX9i8

Watch the whole thing.

We didn't know that they would have nukes when we invaded. For all you know, if we invaded NK instead Iraq might now have nukes and you would be saying the same exact thing. We are the largest donor and have the largest amount of forces providing medical assistance. If you want to complain about Africa go bitch to someone else.

Ah, yes, I just remembered, all the people in Africa are perfectly healthy, no-one is starving, and none of them are victims of genocide. Also, I'm not saying we should have invaded North Korea. I'm saying that we should have waited until we had proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons programs before invading.

I'm pretty sure he's been at it since before the midterm elections.

Even earlier, at the '04 convention...

Remember the: "I'm truly not that concerned about him." (referring to Osama Bin Laden) commentary from the back of a limo?

[QUOTE=CBS News]
Now
Right thing
41%
Should have stayed out
55%
[\QUOTE]

Article dated Oct 10, 2005; link is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

EDIT: Any polls on the opinoins of Iraqis would be highly innaccurate, because of the environment there. Also, if we really wanted to help people, we would have spent our money in Africa, where it would've been more people saved per dollar.

Don't use oldy moldy polls to prove your point. Here are the numbers from every major polling place out there with results as fresh as today. The figures say most people want this out and don't trust Bush's running of the war. But some liars can't "figure" it out. That was not pointed at you USMC, but at the freeper posting disinformation on here.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You can edit your posts, you know.

Yes, but I consider that cheating unless you put a "EDIT: ..." before it.

QUOTE=Caraliwaith;12483778]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?[/QUOTE]

Caraliwaith, I am still in awe that Kathy Graham's Washington Post, the same Kathy Graham who has been a supporter of the Democratic Party since the time of JFK and Ted Turner's CNN, the same Ted Turner who was once the boyfriend of Jane Fonda, would *ever* design, conduct and publish polls that just happen to support their owners' point of view? :P

However, the fact that you guys clutch polls so protectively to your chest in the hopes that it will ward off American voters tells me you are not unaware that Congress as well as the President has to answer to the American people. And you know something? Not all the polls you cite on March of 2007 will protect the Democrat Party from the voters in November of 2008 if they are stupid enough to knife the American people in the back by pushing this too far. The President is within his rights to appeal over the heads of Congress to the American people and all the polls that lib newspapers and TV stations take will avail the Democrats very little upon that day. The Federalists had their Hartford Convention once upon a time and look what that Hartford Convention did for them in the end. :)

Wasn't there something where FOX blamed the Iraqi's for not wanting peace?

How can a single person be so monumentally dense?

Look at the voting! Even Jim Webb voted in favor, with the timeline amendment intact.


Ooooo, A Democrat Senator voted in favor of a bill sponsored by the Democrat Party? :eek:

What greater endorsement than that could there be? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes, but I consider that cheating unless you put a "EDIT: ..." before it.
I don't think it's "cheating" to correct a typo...

Besides, anything but a very quick edit will be indicated in italics at the bottom of the post.

Lastly, posting just to correct one minor typos could be considered spam, if done to excess. I'd be mindful of that if I were you.

QUOTE=Caraliwaith;12483778]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?

Caraliwaith, I am still in awe that Kathy Graham's Washington Post, the same Kathy Graham who has been a supporter of the Democratic Party since the time of JFK and Ted Turner's CNN, the same Ted Turner who was once the boyfriend of Jane Fonda, would *ever* design, conduct and publish polls that just happen to support their owners' point of view? :P

However, the fact that you guys clutch polls so protectively to your chest in the hopes that it will ward off American voters tells me you are not unaware that Congress as well as the President has to answer to the American people. And you know something? Not all the polls you cite on March of 2007 will protect the Democrat Party from the voters in November of 2008 if they are stupid enough to knife the American people in the back by pushing this too far. The President is within his rights to appeal over the heads of Congress to the American people and all the polls that lib newspapers and TV stations take will avail the Democrats very little upon that day. The Federalists had their Hartford Convention once upon a time and look what that Hartford Convention did for them in the end. :)[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes, I just remembered, a majority of Americans( well, a majority of those that bothered to get up off their asses and vote ) voted for Democrats in 2006 because they wanted the war to continue.

Ah, yes, I just remembered, all the people in Africa are perfectly healthy, no-one is starving, and none of them are victims of genocide. Also, I'm not saying we should have invaded North Korea. I'm saying that we should have waited until we had proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons programs before invading.

Waiting to go to war until we can't win. Hmmm, I would not suggest a military career for your future.

Ooooo, A Democrat Senator voted in favor of a bill sponsored by the Democrat Party? :eek:

What greater endorsement than that could there be? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Democratic Senator.

Democratic Party.

You're making yourself look like a boorish fool.

Ooooo, A Democrat Senator voted in favor of a bill sponsored by the Democrat Party? :eek:

What greater endorsement than that could there be? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Reposted for accuracy. The problem is you see the world is red and blue, Dem and rep, but it's not that way. Jim Webb was a warrior, has a son fighting now, was a former Republican for many years, served both Republican and Democratic Presidents, so you can't paint him with your broad brush. Further, you chose to ignore Hagel who is a Republican. What do you say of that?


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

I don't think it's "cheating" to correct a typo...

Besides, anything but a very quick edit will be indicated in italics at the bottom of the post.

Lastly, posting just to correct one minor typos could be considered spam, if done to excess. I'd be mindful of that if I were you.

Meh, I suppose you're right. I'll be mindful of that in the future. The reason I considered it "cheating" is because it makes people look stupid when they point something out that isn't there ( but used to be ).

QUOTE=Caraliwaith;12483778]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

EDIT: You want more sources?

Caraliwaith, I am still in awe that Kathy Graham's Washington Post, the same Kathy Graham who has been a supporter of the Democratic Party since the time of JFK and Ted Turner's CNN, the same Ted Turner who was once the boyfriend of Jane Fonda, would *ever* design, conduct and publish polls that just happen to support their owners' point of view? :P

However, the fact that you guys clutch polls so protectively to your chest in the hopes that it will ward off American voters tells me you are not unaware that Congress as well as the President has to answer to the American people. And you know something? Not all the polls you cite on March of 2007 will protect the Democrat Party from the voters in November of 2008 if they are stupid enough to knife the American people in the back by pushing this too far. The President is within his rights to appeal over the heads of Congress to the American people and all the polls that lib newspapers and TV stations take will avail the Democrats very little upon that day. The Federalists had their Hartford Convention once upon a time and look what that Hartford Convention did for them in the end. :)[/QUOTE]

Are you trolling tonight?

Meh, I suppose you're right. I'll be mindful of that in the future. The reason I considered it "cheating" is because it makes people look stupid when they point something out that isn't there ( but used to be ).
I always thought of it the other way -- more like "Haha, you tried to hide your mistake but I caught you!" Kinda like a ninja edit (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ninja%20edit).

Waiting to go to war until we can't win. Hmmm, I would not suggest a military career for your future.

When I say "proof," I mean substantial proof that they're purchasing uranium/plutonium, and have rocket programs underway. " OMG, they have unrenriched uranium! There's no winning now!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8qQ-VX9i8

Watch the whole thing.

An impolite Democratic strategist spewed propaganda and then prevented his Republican counterpart from answering the charges by constantly interrupting her; furthermore, he had a cocky, arrogant attitude, as is evidenced by his ironic smirk. What's your point? That unilateral debate leads audiences to believe that one side has the upper hand due to the neglect of an opposing viewpoint? That the media is astoundingly liberal? If so, you have accomplished your objective and I will concede that you are correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8qQ-VX9i8

Watch the whole thing.

An impolite Democratic strategist spewed propaganda and then prevented his Republican counterpart from answering the charges by constantly interrupting her; furthermore, he had a cocky, arrogant attitude, as is evidenced by his ironic smirk. What's your point? That unilateral debate leads audiences to believe that one side has the upper hand due to the neglect of an opposing viewpoint? That the media is astoundingly liberal? If so, you have accomplished your objective and I will concede that you are right.

FYI, I consider anyone who uses that term to be either ignorant or a meanspirited partisan hack. It's a classic Republican shibboleth.


That's OK. I consider the fact that the Democrats were thinskinned enough to consider that an insult in the first place to be evidence of their pettiness and supreme lack of a sense of humor.:D One of several things that is causing the Democrat Party to be a political class in decline. From a Pol. Sci. viewpoint the only real question is, will it be the Liberterians or the Jacksonian Party that will replace you when you are gone? @_@

That's OK. I consider the fact that the Democrats were thinskinned enough to consider that an insult in the first place to be evidence of their pettiness and supreme lack of a sense of humor.:D One of several things that is causing the Democrat Party to be a political class in decline. From a Pol. Sci. viewpoint the only real question is, will it be the Liberterians or the Jacksonian Party that will replace you when you are gone? @_@

It's an insult that "Republic"s won't take half a second to type the last two letters.

That's OK. I consider the fact that the Democrats were thinskinned enough to consider that an insult in the first place to be evidence of their pettiness and supreme lack of a sense of humor.:D One of several things that is causing the Democrat Party to be a political class in decline. From a Pol. Sci. viewpoint the only real question is, will it be the Liberterians or the Jacksonian Party that will replace you when you are gone? @_@
Funny... I'd think that given a party that stays responsible to the voters and initiates sound debate, and another that resorts to social wedge issues and political epithets, it would be the latter that would be in decline.

Caraliwaith, I am still in awe that Kathy Graham's Washington Post, the same Kathy Graham who has been a supporter of the Democratic Party since the time of JFK and Ted Turner's CNN, the same Ted Turner who was once the boyfriend of Jane Fonda, would *ever* design, conduct and publish polls that just happen to support their owners' point of view? :P

However, the fact that you guys clutch polls so protectively to your chest in the hopes that it will ward off American voters tells me you are not unaware that Congress as well as the President has to answer to the American people. And you know something? Not all the polls you cite on March of 2007 will protect the Democrat Party from the voters in November of 2008 if they are stupid enough to knife the American people in the back by pushing this too far. The President is within his rights to appeal over the heads of Congress to the American people and all the polls that lib newspapers and TV stations take will avail the Democrats very little upon that day. The Federalists had their Hartford Convention once upon a time and look what that Hartford Convention did for them in the end. :)

Are you trolling tonight?[/QUOTE]

No, I'm pointing out a few home truths. Media Polls are not elections and are not mandates. If you think they are then you are kidding yourself.

How about you? Are *you* trolling tonight or can you do a better job of debating a viewpoint that isn't yours? o_O

When I say "proof," I mean substantial proof that they're purchasing uranium/plutonium, and have rocket programs underway. " OMG, they have unrenriched uranium! There's no winning now!"

By those standards we should be in Iran right now. You can't just change it from proof that they have nukes to proof that they have uranium.

By those standards we should be in Iran right now. You can't just change it from proof that they have nukes to proof that they have uranium.

Fine, uranium/plutonium and uranium/plutonium enriching programs.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that I find it hilarious that USMC points out a small typographical error right as "Solarand" reprimands the demcrats for pettiness.

Waiting to go to war until we can't win. Hmmm, I would not suggest a military career for your future.

The problem is that the war up until now has been botched so badly that winning is not an option. The President and his advisers have no idea who these people are and why this would be so hard. The ethnic squabbles here run back past biblical times and will not be fixed because we "wish" them to be. Hell, Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia until two years in. Can you get any worse planned than that? Of course we want to "win" in Iraq. Right now the options look worse by the day. The choices all suck because we have basically 3...1. Surge like it should have been in the beginning. You fight a counterinsurgency with a margin of at last 8-1, preferable 10-1. Our number need to look more like 650k to 850k. 2. Continue toe slow bleed of deaths with Iraqis and our troops dying or being destroyed for life. 3. Get out now and stop the bleeding. Yes the country will collapse into chaos in the short terms but some form of stabilization will take place as someone grabs power. It still amazes me that Bush and company broke the lamp and then they're pointing at the Dems asking, "How are you going to fix that lamp?"

Funny... I'd think that given a party that stays responsible to the voters and initiates sound debate, and another that resorts to social wedge issues and political epithets, it would be the latter that would be in decline.

And it is. Funny that.

Fine, uranium/plutonium and uranium/plutonium enriching programs.

That's still not at all what you said before. But lets move on as I can't even remember what we were arguing about.;)

Not that agree w/ what the dems are doing I still respect that they are using their power to it's fullest to do what they believe is right. That is how things get done.

And some people like the ones you quoted seem to think that being president means being Lord of all creation with full rights to your firstborn if he demands.

That's OK. I consider the fact that the Democrats were thinskinned enough to consider that an insult in the first place to be evidence of their pettiness and supreme lack of a sense of humor.:D One of several things that is causing the Democrat Party to be a political class in decline. From a Pol. Sci. viewpoint the only real question is, will it be the Liberterians or the Jacksonian Party that will replace you when you are gone? @_@

You can't really be that stupid, can you? That you actually believe that the Democrats are currently in decline? Come out of your hole and see the sunshine, man.

Are you trolling tonight?

No, I'm pointing out a few home truths. Media Polls are not elections and are not mandates. If you think they are then you are kidding yourself.

How about you? Are *you* trolling tonight or can you do a better job of debating a viewpoint that isn't yours? o_O[/QUOTE]

Oh, you mean like the 2006 ELECTIONS and as you state it MANDATES? I was being polite pointing out your lame argument and giving you more credit than you clearly deserve. You said it yourself, the mandate was set by the election. So what's your beef again? :p

He has supposedly being very hands off and allowing generals in country run the war. Now if we could get some competent regular officers.

I think you need competent generals too. He fired all the ones who said his plan as is was unworkable remember?

Oh, you mean like the 2006 ELECTIONS and as you state it MANDATES? I was being polite pointing out your lame argument and giving you more credit than you clearly deserve. You said it yourself, the mandate was set by the election. So what's your beef again? :p
Exactly. If Bush's slim victory in 2004 was a "mandate" (in his own words), then what the hell was 2006?

You can't really be that stupid, can you? That you actually believe that the Democrats are currently in decline? Come out of your hole and see the sunshine, man.

The Democratic platform is built upon a decaying foundation of liberal values not held by the majority of Americans as well as an unreasonable 1960s nostalgia which manifests itself in abhorrent social and economic policy. True, the Iraq War has been a boon to them in terms of public support; however, once that ephemeral facade is eliminated, the party will be gone along with it.

No, I'm pointing out a few home truths. Media Polls are not elections and are not mandates. If you think they are then you are kidding yourself.

How about you? Are *you* trolling tonight or can you do a better job of debating a viewpoint that isn't yours? o_O
You're right--polls are not mandates. Elections are. And who won the last election? The Democrats--and handily, I might add, holding every single one of their seats, a feat never before accomplished in a non-presidential year, and picking up majorities in both Houses. You might want to shut up before you get pwned any further.

The Democratic platform is built upon a decaying foundation of liberal values not held by the majority of Americans as well as an unreasonable 1960s nostalgia which manifests itself in abhorrent social policy. True, the Iraq War has been a boon to them in terms of public support; however, once that ephemeral facade is eliminated, the party will be gone along with it.

Put down the crack pipe and slowly back away. Seriously.

I think you need competent generals too. He fired all the ones who said his plan as is was unworkable remember?

Poor Gen. Shinseki, he got fired and he was right. Sucks to be like, "I'm right but the whole thing is F'd."

Exactly. If Bush's slim victory in 2004 was a "mandate" (in his own words), then what the hell was 2006?

A full on ass-kicking.

That's still not at all what you said before. But lets move on as I can't even remember what we were arguing about.;)

We were arguing about which countries the US should have declared war on if it really had to declare war, but that's beside the point. I agree with moving on. :)

Exactly. If Bush's slim victory in 2004 was a "mandate" (in his own words), then what the hell was 2006?

2006 was a steel toed timberland to every vital organ possible.

The problem is that the war up until now has been botched so badly that winning is not an option.
Yes it is.

The President and his advisers have no idea who these people are and why this would be so hard.
Not really true at all and even if it was, that is why they aren't running the war.
The ethnic squabbles here run back past biblical times and will not be fixed because we "wish" them to be.
That is not what the war is about at all. Individual gangs just use that as a pretext to wage gang wars and gain supporters.
Hell, Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia until two years in. Can you get any worse planned than that?
If u can't source that then I'm just going to have to assume that you are a troll.
Of course we want to "win" in Iraq. Right now the options look worse by the day. The choices all suck because we have basically 3...1. Surge like it should have been in the beginning. You fight a counterinsurgency with a margin of at last 8-1, preferable 10-1. Our number need to look more like 650k to 850k.
That ratio is preferable but is not required. Local cooperation is a much greater factor.
2. Continue toe slow bleed of deaths with Iraqis and our troops dying or being destroyed for life.
We aren't doing that so it is irrelevant.
3. Get out now and stop the bleeding. Yes the country will collapse into chaos in the short terms but some form of stabilization will take place as someone grabs power.
There is no way that someone will be able to grab power right now. There are hundreds of factions in Iraq right now vying for power. Nobody will be able to take control of the country. If you want to see what anarchy is truly like then I guess its the right option.

The Democratic platform is built upon a decaying foundation of liberal values not held by the majority of Americans as well as an unreasonable 1960s nostalgia which manifests itself in abhorrent social and economic policy. True, the Iraq War has been a boon to them in terms of public support; however, once that ephemeral facade is eliminated, the party will be gone along with it.
Those so-called "liberal values" and "abhorrent" social policies are the strongest bastions of democracy in this country.

Tell me, "FreedomAndGlory", what exactly do the Republicans base their social policies on? The most bigoted form of Christianity. The kind that thinks that Christian values are so important that must be imposed on every citizen by force, whether they're Christian or not. That's about as abhorrent a platform as I can think of.

The Democratic platform is built upon a decaying foundation of liberal values not held by the majority of Americans as well as an unreasonable 1960s nostalgia which manifests itself in abhorrent social and economic policy. True, the Iraq War has been a boon to them in terms of public support; however, once that ephemeral facade is eliminated, the party will be gone along with it.

Ah, yes, liberal values like Separation of Church and State, aid to the poor and the Monroe doctrine. Definitely not held by the majority of Americans, or the Founding Fathers.

And some people like the ones you quoted seem to think that being president means being Lord of all creation with full rights to your firstborn if he demands.

I quoted somebody? This is news to me.

Those so-called "liberal values" and "abhorrent" social policies are the strongest bastions of democracy in this country.

Tell me, "FreedomAndGlory", what exactly do the Republicans base their social policies on? The most bigoted form of Christianity. The kind that thinks that Christian values are so important that must be imposed on every citizen by force, whether they're Christian or not. That's about as abhorrent a platform as I can think of.

Crap, you beat me. Seconded, though.

I think you need competent generals too. He fired all the ones who said his plan as is was unworkable remember?

He fired all the ones who said that his requirements were unworkable. He didn't make any plan. But that's besides the point. It was a serious misstep.

What exactly do the Republicans base their social policies on?

They base it on morality and personal freedom. The guilty are punished in order to save the innocent rather than allowing criminals to roam free and exact their vengeance upon those who have done nothing wrong. The hard workers are rewarded for their performance rather than being constrained by loathsome labor unions. Honest men are allowed to defend their family from brutal felons instead of being stripped of their defenses. The lazy are not given help but rather pushed to play a functional role in society.

Ah, yes, liberal values like Separation of Church and State, aid to the poor and the Monroe doctrine. Definitely not held by the majority of Americans, or the Founding Fathers.

Aid to the poor and the Monroe Doctrine were not principles held by the Founding Fathers. Do you honestly believe that we had a despicably socialist welfare state in the late 1700s? The Monroe Doctrine was formulated in the 1820s, by the way. Well, you got 1 out of 3, but that value is also held by conservatives. Of course, liberals go out of their way to annihilate religion by erasing it from all spheres of public life, so they use state power to restrict private religion. That's a flagrant violation of the separation of Church and State.

The Democratic platform is built upon a decaying foundation of liberal values not held by the majority of Americans as well as an unreasonable 1960s nostalgia which manifests itself in abhorrent social and economic policy. True, the Iraq War has been a boon to them in terms of public support; however, once that ephemeral facade is eliminated, the party will be gone along with it.

I pity you in your delusion, but really, they shouldn't let people this out of it post on the internet.

They base it on morality
Whose morality? Oh, right -- Christian morality. Unless you're suggesting that the Christian Right is the only possessor of morality. In which case you might want to examine the personal and legal indiscretions of most of the Christian Right's leaders.

and personal freedom.
How is banning gay marriage, flag burning, stem cell research, recreational drug use, and countless other "immoral" activities supportive of personal freedom?

EDIT: Furthermore:

The lazy are not given help but rather pushed to play a functional role in society.

Why is it that when it comes to money, the conservatives tell the poor to suck it up and support themselves like adults... but when it comes to personal morality, they have no problem playing the role of Father Knows Best? If it's fine to leave the poor mired in poverty, why can't they leave everybody else "mired" in "immorality" -- especially if such "immoral" behavior is undertaken by choice? I smell more Republican hypocrisy...

They base it on morality and personal freedom. The guilty are punished in order to save the innocent rather than allowing criminals to roam free and exact their vengeance upon those who have done nothing wrong. The hard workers are rewarded for their performance rather than being constrained by loathsome labor unions. Honest men are allowed to defend their family from brutal felons instead of being stripped of their defenses. The lazy are not given help but rather pushed to play a functional role in society.

The lazy? You mean people who can't get jobs because they didn't get a good education? Because their parents couldn't pay for college? Because they're single mothers living on the minimum wage? And what's wrong with labor unions? Workers have a right to petition in groups for higher wages and better working conditions. It's right there in the Constitution, First Amendment, "right to assemble peacefully." In other words, get together to organize a strike. And the death penalty? What happens when an innocent is sentenced to death? At least with life in prison, there's a chance to appeal. Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be unjustly punished.

They base it on morality and personal freedom.
Unless you own a phone.
The guilty are punished in order to save the innocent rather than allowing criminals to roam free and exact their vengeance upon those who have done nothing wrong.
Eye for an eye make the whole world blind.
The hard workers are rewarded for their performance rather than being constrained by loathsome labor unions.
And then fired for being a black woman in a white man's world. H
Honest men are allowed to defend their family from brutal felons instead of being stripped of their defenses.
I thought we punished all those boorish felons a few quotes ago?
The lazy are not given help but rather pushed to play a functional role in society.
Explain the functionality of sub poverty (exemption: MLS players ;) ).
Do you honestly believe that we had a despicably socialist welfare state in the late 1700s?
I doubt any of us would have opposed it had we lost everything in the Depression, but your strong moral values would have made you money, right?
Of course, liberals go out of their way to annihilate religion by erasing it from all spheres of public life, so they use state power to restrict private religion. That's a flagrant violation of the separation of Church and State.

How, exactly? I didnt know government land was private religion.

Yes it is.

"Nuh uh"


Not really true at all and even if it was, that is why they aren't running the war.

Oh really? You mean the Pentagon and the office os special plans didn't ignore most of the military leaders and run the war on their own? Damn that news station (everywhere).

That is not what the war is about at all. Individual gangs just use that as a pretext to wage gang wars and gain supporters.

This "war" was about this, and then it was about that. If you don't want to see that ethnic squabbles for years are what's at stake then so be it.

If u can't source that then I'm just going to have to assume that you are a troll.

sourced
(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html)

Hmm, let me go find this to make you happy. Recently they asked two senators if they knew the difference and oooops, they didn't.

That ratio is preferable but is not required. Local cooperation is a much greater factor.

Sure, it's not my ideas there just the greatest counter-insurgency minds in the military. The General now in charge knows it and has written about it for years prior to this engagement. Have you read any of his strategy pieces?

We aren't doing that so it is irrelevant.

There is no way that someone will be able to grab power right now. There are hundreds of factions in Iraq right now vying for power. Nobody will be able to take control of the country. If you want to see what anarchy is truly like then I guess its the right option.

Yes, anarchy will ensue for a short term followed by a climb to the top for someone. You're right though. It's better we let the young men get killed and dismembered in a slow fashion.

If you want more sources I'll get them for you. But you're a smart young man and can use the google yourself. Also, if you have a problem with junior officers than work it out with them and if that doesn't work go to your div chief.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/200702120009

Now take back your troll statement as you're talking to one of those officers you hate so.

Most call me first lew and I've been where you have been. Haditha area mostly. It's nice that we can debate here as our comments aren't welcome to top brass. The whole command CinC thing gets in the way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/215257/257

Edit: Read some responses in your original quote as well for some answers, including a few sources.

Aid to the poor and the Monroe Doctrine were not principles held by the Founding Fathers. Do you honestly believe that we had a despicably socialist welfare state in the late 1700s? The Monroe Doctrine was formulated in the 1820s, by the way. Well, you got 1 out of 3, but that value is also held by conservatives. Of course, liberals go out of their way to annihilate religion by erasing it from all spheres of public life, so they use state power to restrict private religion. That's a flagrant violation of the separation of Church and State.

I'll take out welfare, but the Monroe doctrine has been around forever, it just wasn't called that until much later. The earliest presidents maintained (whenever possible ) a position of neutrality foreign affairs. Republicans do not believe in separation of Church and State, regardless of what they say. Evidenced by: restriction of gay marriage, insertion of "God" into the pledge of allegiance, restriction of scientific research, and banning of the teaching of evolution.

I'll take out welfare, but the Monroe doctrine has been around forever, it just wasn't called that until much later. The earliest presidents maintained (whenever possible ) a position of neutrality foreign affairs. Republicans do not believe in separation of Church and State, regardless of what they say. Evidenced by: restriction of gay marriage, insertion of "God" into the pledge of allegiance, restriction of scientific research, and banning of the teaching of evolution.

I dont think you cant bang them with God in the pledge. Context shows them a different party in a different time. They battled they Godless Commies.

Friends, And Fellow Citizens

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive
government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time
actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the
person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to
me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of
the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have
formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of
whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that
this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the
considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful
citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service
which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no
diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful
respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction
that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your
suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of
inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared
to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much
earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty
to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been
reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous
to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address
to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and
critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous
advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the
idea.

I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal,
no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the
sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded whatever partiality may
be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our
country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were
explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will
only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the
organization and administration of the government the best exertions of
which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the
outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own
eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the
motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of
years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as
necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that, if any
circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were
temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and
prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not
forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the
career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the
deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved
country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for
the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the
opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable
attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness
unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these
services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an
instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the
passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst
appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often
discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success
has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support
was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by
which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall
carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows
that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence;
that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free
constitution which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained;
that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom
and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States,
under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a
preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to
them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and
adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which
cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to
that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your
solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some
sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable
observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of
your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more
freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a
parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his
counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it your indulgent
reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts,
no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the
attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people, is
also now dear to you. It is justly so: for it is a main pillar in the
edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home,
your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty
which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from
different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken,
many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this
truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the
batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and
actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of
infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of
your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you
should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immoveable attachment to it;
accustoming yourself to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your
political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with
jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion
that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the
first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country
from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the
various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by
birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to
concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you in
your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism,
more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight
shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and
political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed
together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint
councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to
your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more
immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds
the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union
of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by
the equal Laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the
latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise
and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same
intercourse, benefitting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture
grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the
seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and
while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the
general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the
protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted.
The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the
progressive improvement of interior communications, by land and water,
will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it
brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the
East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of
still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment
of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence,
and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union,
directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one Nation. Any other
tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether
derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural
connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and
particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find
in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource,
proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent
interruption of their peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of
inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those
broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict
neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which
their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which
opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and
imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown
military establishments, which, under any form of government, are
inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought
to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the
one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and
virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the UNION as a primary
object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government
can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere
speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that
a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of
governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to
the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such
powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country,
while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there
will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any
quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as
matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for
characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and
Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to
excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and
views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within
particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other
districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies
and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend
to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by
fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately
had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by
the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the
treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event,
throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the
suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general Government
and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to
the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two
treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to
them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations,
towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to
rely for the preservation of these advantaged on the UNION by which
they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers,
if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect
them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole
is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be
an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and
interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible
of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the
adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your
former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your
common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice,
uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of
its powers uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a
provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and
your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws,
acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental
maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right
of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.
But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an
explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory
upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to
establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the
established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and
associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design
to direct, control counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action
of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental
principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give
it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the
delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but
artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the
alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration
the mirror of the illconcerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather
than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common
councils, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and
then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and
things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and
to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards
the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your
present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily
discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but
also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its
principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be
to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair
the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly
overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that
time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of
governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest
standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution
of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypotheses
and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of
hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient
management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a
government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of
liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a Government,
with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It
is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble
to withstand the enterprise of faction, to confine each member of the
society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in
the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with
particular reference to the founding of them on geographical
discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you
in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of
party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its
root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under
different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest
rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages
and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a
frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually
incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power
of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this
disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public
liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless
ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs
of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of
a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public
administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and
false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments
occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the
government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy
and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of
another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon
the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of
liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments
of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with
favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character,
in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of
that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger
of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate
and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance
to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should
consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country
should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to
confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres,
avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon
another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of
all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of
government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and
proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is
sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of
reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and
distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the
guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been
evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country
and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to
institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or
modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,
let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution
designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this,
in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon
by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always
greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit
which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to
respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their
connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked,
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense
of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of
investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may
be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar
structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of
popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to
every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can
look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the
general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a
government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public
opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit.
One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding
occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely
disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater
disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not
only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of
peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned,
not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves
ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your
representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate.
To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that
you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts
there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no
taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and
unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the
selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties),
ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of
the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the
measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time
dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and
harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it
be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a
free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to
mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided
by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course
of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any
temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can
it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a
nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every
sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by
its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and
passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place
of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The
nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual
fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to
its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its
duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another disposes
each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes
of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling
occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate,
envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and
resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best
calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the
national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject;
at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to
projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister
and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty,
of nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a
variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common
interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays
the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter,
without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to
concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions: by
unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by
exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the
parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to
ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their
own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with
the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference
for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base of
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot.
How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to
practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or
awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a
great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the
latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe
me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of
the most baneful foes of republican government.

But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the
instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence
against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive
dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on
one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the
other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are
liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the
applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political
connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let
them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very
remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the
causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore,
it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the
ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and
collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a
different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government,
the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external
annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality
we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when
belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon
us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose
peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to
stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of
any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of
European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

`Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any
portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to
do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity
to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public
than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat
it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense.
But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a
respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances
for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy,
humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an
equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors
or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and
diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing;
establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable
course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the
government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best
that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary,
and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and
circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that `tis folly
in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must
pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under
that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the
condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of
being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no
greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to
nation. 'Tis an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride
ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and
affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting
impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the
passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto
marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they
may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that
they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn
against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the
impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense
for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the
principles which have been delineated, the public records and other
evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself,
the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed
myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the
22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving
voice, and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the
spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any
attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could
obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances
of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to
take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should
depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and
firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not
necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according
to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by
any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing
more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every
nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the
relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be
referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant
motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and
mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption
to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it,
humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious
of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to
think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they
may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to
which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my country
will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five
years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults
of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must
soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that
fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the
native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I
anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise
myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the
midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a
free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy
reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

George Washington


Proof of the Monroe Doctrine being held by the Founding Fathers?

*ultra snip*
Proof of the Monroe Doctrine being held by the Founding Fathers?
Interested folk might also want to take a look at this: Washington's Farewell Address Translated into Everyday Speech (http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/29/washingtons-farewell-address-translated-into-the-vernacular/).

I dont think you cant bang them with God in the pledge. Context shows them a different party in a different time. They battled they Godless Commies.

Not really, it was Eisenhower who put it in there, and I consider him to be part of the modern Republic way of thinking, just as I consider FDR to be part of the modern Democratic way of thinking. Besides, putting "God" in the pledge just to spite the USSR isn't a particularly good reason, I don't think he cared too much about the First Amendment.

Waiting to go to war until we can't win. Hmmm, I would not suggest a military career for your future.

So you are in favor of shooting people in another country because they might sometime in the future, and that's a really big might, mug you?

*ultra snip*


Lol do I get a prize for longest post?
Oh, and by the way, for people who skipped through it, I bolded the important part, you might want to look back at it.

I quoted somebody? This is news to me.

FreedomAndGlory. You quoted that guy.

He fired all the ones who said that his requirements were unworkable. He didn't make any plan. But that's besides the point. It was a serious misstep.

Well duh. And in all that time, has he ever appointed anyone competent to take their places or has he just got a bunch of yes men still there?

Yes men make lousy generals.

FreedomAndGlory. You quoted that guy.



Well duh. And in all that time, has he ever appointed anyone competent to take their places or has he just got a bunch of yes men still there?

Yes men make lousy generals.

I think USMC left.

Not really, it was Eisenhower who put it in there, and I consider him to be part of the modern Republic way of thinking, just as I consider FDR to be part of the modern Democratic way of thinking. Besides, putting "God" in the pledge just to spite the USSR isn't a particularly good reason, I don't think he cared too much about the First Amendment.

Come now, its Republican. Its like using Liberal as a swear word.

I really don't see Eisenhower as pandering to the basist of the base extreme religious views. Hell, he almost ran for the Dems in '48 cause he had no political history. Reagan is the beginning of today's movement.

Come now, its Republican. Its like using Liberal as a swear word.

I really don't see Eisenhower as pandering to the basist of the base extreme religious views. Hell, he almost ran for the Dems in '48 cause he had no political history. Reagan is the beginning of today's movement.

Fine, I'll drop that one but the others still stand. How is saying "Republic" like using liberal as a swear word? The Republicans on this forum have been using "Democrat," if you don't believe me, do a ctrl+f for "Democrat ". One of them even mocked the Democrats for protesting.

Fine, I'll drop that one but the others still stand. How is saying "Republic" like using liberal as a swear word? The Republicans on this forum have been using "Democrat," if you don't believe me, do a ctrl+f for "Democrat ". One of them even mocked the Democrats for protesting.
I don't think it's a good idea to stoop to their level...

Fine, I'll drop that one but the others still stand. How is saying "Republic" like using liberal as a swear word? The Republicans on this forum have been using "Democrat," if you don't believe me, do a ctrl+f for "Democrat ". One of them even mocked the Democrats for protesting.

Dont drop to their level. Its petty either way.

Dont drop to their level. Its petty either way.

True... I'll be carefull about that in the future, but I can't guarantee that I'll never use it again. Anyway... I'm logging off, FreedomAndGlory, and USMC left, so I have no-one to argue with any more.

Dont drop to their level. Its petty either way.

True... I'll be carefull about that in the future, but I can't guarantee that I'll never use it again. Anyway... I'm logging off, FreedomAndGlory and USMC left, so I have no-one to argue with any more.

True... I'll be carefull about that in the future, but I can't guarantee that I'll never use it again. Anyway... I'm logging off, FreedomAndGlory, and USMC left, so I have no-one to argue with any more.

No one caught that I abbreviated his quoted posts as FAG.

Yes, anarchy will ensue for a short term followed by a climb to the top for someone. You're right though. It's better we let the young men get killed and dismembered in a slow fashion.

If you want more sources I'll get them for you. But you're a smart young man and can use the google yourself. Also, if you have a problem with junior officers than work it out with them and if that doesn't work go to your div chief.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/200702120009

Now take back your troll statement as you're talking to one of those officers you hate so.

Most call me first lew and I've been where you have been. Haditha area mostly. It's nice that we can debate here as our comments aren't welcome to top brass. The whole command CinC thing gets in the way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/215257/257

Edit: Read some responses in your original quote as well for some answers, including a few sources.

...Did you seriously just use dailykos as a source? You know, when you source something, people expect you to source something that, at the very least, tries to hide it's political leanings.

No one caught that I abbreviated his quoted posts as FAG.

I caught it, but I didn't say anything, because I'm still laughing. :D

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much.

Good. Fuck tough sacrifice. And fuck "wartime necessity", too. Wars are for shit.

Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred.

That apparently doesn't jibe with the feelings of the electorate. I scarcely think the voting public cares any more, assuming of course they ever did. Though I think they do know, deep down inside - that this is all for shit.

If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.

Yes; it lies squarely at the feet of that lying, cheating, thieving scoundrel of a president who likes picking fights and playing in the shit.

He has supposedly being very hands off and allowing generals in country run the war. Now if we could get some competent regular officers.

Or a competent commander in chief.

And much less long than say Vietnam

Yes, lets bring up another armed conflict (not a war, it was not declared by congress) that we should not have been in in the first place and stayed in to long. Way to bolster your argument.

Waiting to go to war until we can't win. Hmmm, I would not suggest a military career for your future.

Because no one could possibly win against a country that had a known nuclear weapons program THAT HAD YET TO PRODUCE ANY ACTUAL NUKES. :rolleyes:

Reposted for accuracy. The problem is you see the world is red and blue, Dem and rep, but it's not that way. Jim Webb was a warrior, has a son fighting now, was a former Republican for many years, served both Republican and Democratic Presidents, so you can't paint him with your broad brush. Further, you chose to ignore Hagel who is a Republican. What do you say of that?


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

So you are arguing that you are female at the same time you are male and that water is dry at the same time it is wet? Your arguement for universal greyness is amusing but stale. :p

Jim Webb's having once been a "warrior" is irrelevant to the point that he is indeed a Democrat no matter what he once was. Trying to hide him behind his son does not do either you or Senator Webb much credit. Saying that Mr. Webb was a "former Republican" for many years before he became a Democrat is like saying a whore was a "former virgin" for many years before becoming a whore. It might not be true but it does not alter the fact that she became a whore. Likewise nothing you write alters the fact that Mr. Webb became a Democrat. u_u

Funny... I'd think that given a party that stays responsible to the voters and initiates sound debate, and another that resorts to social wedge issues and political epithets, it would be the latter that would be in decline.

Quite right. That's why the Democrat Party is in trouble. The fact that you guys became petty, thinskinned and humorless social wedge issues and political epithets became the only thing you had left. Thanks for the straight line! :)

It's an insult that "Republic"s won't take half a second to type the last two letters.

But you see Caral, that's the difference between us - *I* don't mind at all if you did call us Republics or the Republic party. That's the difference between normal people and Democrats. :) Moreover, since the principles of government by Republic are the essence of what the Republican party stands for I rather approve. So as I far as I'm concerned go ahead and do it. I would laugh at any fellow Republican who objected so why shouldn't I go ahead and laugh at you guys when you wince at being called Democrat? Are you really that ashamed of who you are? o_O


And here's something else to keep in mind Caral, compared to a number of the ways you guys mangled our name on purpose over the past 6 years calling us the Republic party would be tame even if we *were* as petty, thinskinned and pompous as you've allowed yourselves to become. In fact, considering *some* of the things you've called both us and President Bush I can't help but feel that you now stand revealed as crybaby hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it in return when you do get this offended over what was initially an honest mistake on the part of President Bush. You guys taunt him for malapropisms for *how* many years and then your collective noses get out of joint because if the way he pronounces your party name? I just wish this story of how petty you were had come out in 2006. I'd've had some fun with it. Sucks to be you that it came out at all since I intend to have some fun with it in 2008 anyway. :)

Perhaps you guys should just go ahead and change your name to the *Emocrat* Party? Emo really does seem to have become what your party now stands for. :D

You can't really be that stupid, can you? That you actually believe that the Democrats are currently in decline? Come out of your hole and see the sunshine, man.

Can you be stupid enough to believe the Democrats *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 70s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes. A single election is a bump on the graph when you see across decades. ^_^

Put it another way: 2006 was an audition for you guys rather than a mandate. It's America giving you a last chance. Too many stunts like this current one and you will find your party being given the hook by the voters. And you yourselves realize it upon the subconscious level or else you would not be upset at President Bush preparing to appeal to the American voters over the heads of Congress the way that President Truman did in years past.

You're right--polls are not mandates. Elections are. And who won the last election? The Democrats--and handily, I might add, holding every single one of their seats, a feat never before accomplished in a non-presidential year, and picking up majorities in both Houses. You might want to shut up before you get pwned any further.

That's right! Ned Lamont, "anti war" candidate lost bigtime to Joe Leiberman who supports America's efforts in Iraq didn't he? And Joe Leiberman, who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, now controls the balance of power in the Senate. So much for the Emocrats! :p Especially when they try to stab America in the back with efforts like this. ^_~

|\|4zz, J00 p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53lf! ^____^ |\|3><+ 7i/\/\3 d0|\|'+ 7ry +0 5i|_e|\|c3 50/\/\30|\|3 83c4u53 |-|3 d154gr33s \/\/1t|-| j00! :D

By those standards we should be in Iran right now. You can't just change it from proof that they have nukes to proof that they have uranium.

No one said proof that they have nukes. They said proof that they had a nuclear weapons program. You can have proof of a program prior to that program having results.

Can you be stupid enough to believe the Democrats *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 70s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes. A single election is a bump on the graph when you see across decades. ^_^

Put it another way: 2006 was an audition for you guys rather than a mandate. It's America giving you a last chance. Too many stunts like this current one and you will find your party being given the hook by the voters. And you yourselves realize it upon the subconscious level or else you would not be upset at President Bush preparing to appeal to the American voters over the heads of Congress the way that President Truman did in years past.Hmm. The Democrats currently have a greater majority in the House of Representatives than the Republicans ever did in the years they controlled it--from 1994-2006. If that's a party in decline, I'll take it, especially since the pickup opportunities in 2008 look even sweeter. Good shots at increased majorities in the House and Senate, and at the White House as well. Oh yeah, give me some more of that decline, baby.



That's right! Ned Lamont, "anti war" candidate lost bigtime to Joe Leiberman who supports America's efforts in Iraq didn't he? And Joe Leiberman, who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, now controls the balance of power in the Senate. So much for the Emocrats! :p Especially when they try to stab America in the back with efforts like this.
So you're gloating over a single Senate race where Connecticut voters sent a 3 term incumbent back over a challenger, and the Republican finished under 10%? That's a PlasticMan stretch. And by the way, Lieberman doesn't control shit in the Senate. Last I checked, the supplemental bill passed with him voting against it. Hmmm. Guess he doesn't have quite the stroke you think he does.

Tell me something--do you ever get tired of being so continually, consistently wrong?

So you are arguing that you are female at the same time you are male and that water is dry at the same time it is wet? Your arguement for universal greyness is amusing but stale. :p

Jim Webb's having once been a "warrior" is irrelevant to the point that he is indeed a Democrat no matter what he once was. Trying to hide him behind his son does not do either you or Senator Webb much credit. Saying that Mr. Webb was a "former Republican" for many years before he became a Democrat is like saying a whore was a "former virgin" for many years before becoming a whore. It might not be true but it does not alter the fact that she became a whore. Likewise nothing you write alters the fact that Mr. Webb became a Democrat. u_u



Quite right. That's why the Democrat Party is in trouble. The fact that you guys became petty, thinskinned and humorless social wedge issues and political epithets became the only thing you had left. Thanks for the straight line! :)



But you see Caral, that's the difference between us - *I* don't mind at all if you did call us Republics or the Republic party. That's the difference between normal people and Democrats. :) Moreover, since the principles of government by Republic are the essence of what the Republican party stands for I rather approve. So as I far as I'm concerned go ahead and do it. I would laugh at any fellow Republican who objected so why shouldn't I go ahead and laugh at you guys when you wince at being called Democrat? Are you really that ashamed of who you are? o_O


And here's something else to keep in mind Caral, compared to a number of the ways you guys mangled our name on purpose over the past 6 years calling us the Republic party would be tame even if we *were* as petty, thinskinned and pompous as you've allowed yourselves to become. In fact, considering *some* of the things you've called both us and President Bush I can't help but feel that you now stand revealed as crybaby hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it in return when you do get this offended over what was initially an honest mistake on the part of President Bush. You guys taunt him for malapropisms for *how* many years and then your collective noses get out of joint because if the way he pronounces your party name? I just wish this story of how petty you were had come out in 2006. I'd've had some fun with it. Sucks to be you that it came out at all since I intend to have some fun with it in 2008 anyway. :)

Perhaps you guys should just go ahead and change your name to the *Emocrat* Party? Emo really does seem to have become what your party now stands for. :D



Can you be stupid enough to believe the Democrats *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 70s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes. A single election is a bump on the graph when you see across decades. ^_^

Put it another way: 2006 was an audition for you guys rather than a mandate. It's America giving you a last chance. Too many stunts like this current one and you will find your party being given the hook by the voters. And you yourselves realize it upon the subconscious level or else you would not be upset at President Bush preparing to appeal to the American voters over the heads of Congress the way that President Truman did in years past.



That's right! Ned Lamont, "anti war" candidate lost bigtime to Joe Leiberman who supports America's efforts in Iraq didn't he? And Joe Leiberman, who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, now controls the balance of power in the Senate. So much for the Emocrats! :p Especially when they try to stab America in the back with efforts like this. ^_~

|\|4zz, J00 p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53lf! ^____^ |\|3><+ 7i/\/\3 d0|\|'+ 7ry +0 5i|_e|\|c3 50/\/\30|\|3 83c4u53 |-|3 d154gr33s \/\/1t|-| j00! :D


I can't decide whether you're disgusting, stupid, or just pathetic.

BTW, nice use of Leetspeak, L053r!!!!ZOMG!!11!1!!!11 :rolleyes:

Not really, it was Eisenhower who put it in there, and I consider him to be part of the modern Republic way of thinking, just as I consider FDR to be part of the modern Democratic way of thinking.


Well, ya see, right there is where you have just exposed yet *another* reason the Democrats are in decline. Eisenhower's Presidency was the 1950s, FDR's the 1940s. On behalf of the Republic Party may I welcome you of the Democrat Party into the 21st Century? o_O

Put it another way, middle of the previous century is *not* modern! The fact that you guys consider it to be is a bad sign for you. :rolleyes:


Hmm. The Democrats currently have a greater majority in the House of Representatives than the Republicans ever did in the years they controlled it--from 1994-2006. If that's a party in decline, I'll take it, especially since the pickup opportunities in 2008 look even sweeter. Good shots at increased majorities in the House and Senate, and at the White House as well. Oh yeah, give me some more of that decline, baby.

Ask and ye shall receive! :) The fact that you think the present is etched is stone and not subject to change without notice is yet another symptom of why you guys are in decline. Your congresscritters were elected on a promise of reform. The fact that this bill needed to be so pork laden and required so much armtwisting of the "Blue Dog" Democrats is not something that will go unnoticed by the voters.


So you're gloating over a single Senate race where Connecticut voters sent a 3 term incumbent back over a challenger, and the Republican finished under 10%? That's a PlasticMan stretch. And by the way, Lieberman doesn't control shit in the Senate. Last I checked, the supplemental bill passed with him voting against it. Hmmm. Guess he doesn't have quite the stroke you think he does.

Tell me something--do you ever get tired of being so continually, consistently wrong?


But did you notice that your "supplemental" bill needed Republican help to pass? Just keep whistling in the dark about Mr. Leiberman. It won't come back to haunt you, *honest*! :D

BTW, don't forget that the "Nutroots" who supported Mr. Lamont didn't think of the little detail of Mr. Leiberman being a 3 term incumbant at the time they kicked him out of the party. They lost a safe seat that way. If they can't apply foresight to something as basic as that do you really think their election strategies in 2008 won't have a few clunkers as well? ;)

BTW, nice use of Leetspeak, L053r!!!!ZOMG!!11!1!!!11 :rolleyes:

It was nice of you to salute the use of a talent that is beyond your skill. :)

It was nice of you to salute the use of a talent that is beyond your skill. :)

Do you really want to take me on, little troll?

Do you really want to take me on, little troll?

Nice of you to sign your real name to that last sentence but I have no need for employees. Perhaps if you say something relevant to the discussion you will have the ability to grow beyond being a little troll.

Nice of you to sign your real name to that last sentence but I have no need for employees. Perhaps if you say something relevant to the discussion you will have the ability to grow beyond being a little troll.

Am I supposed to be impressed or intimdated by some adolescent hotshot whose idea of bullying someone apparently is "I know you are, but what am I"? As for relevant to the discussion, just exactly what kind of a contribution have you made beyond posturing and lame attempts to twist others' words? You're not even good at trolling; quite amatureish, in fact. Tell you what? I'll contribute a response to your arguments when your arguments consist of something more profound than flinging your own feces at people.

Quite right. That's why the Democrat Party is in trouble.
The Democrats were the majority party, last time I checked.

The fact that you guys became petty,
Hmmm... my dictionary defines "petty" as either "junior-grade" or "marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters." Now... who's the one throwing around the childish, schoolyard name-calling again? The one refusing to add two widdle letters to address their rivals correctly? What's next, the "Demo-brats"? :rolleyes:

thinskinned
You act as if it's a trifle, and yet Newt Gingrich considered it to be an important enough political tool to write a tract outlining the use of it along with dozens of other loaded words back in the 1990s. See: "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control".

MediaMatters write-up (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005)
Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29)

and humorless social wedge issues and political epithets became the only thing you had left. Thanks for the straight line! :)
A wedge issue is defined as a controversial topic that is used to cleave potential supporters from a rival party. So, by definition, it involves positions that are divisive and "us-vs.-them". These kinds of platforms are held almost exclusively by Republicans (anti-gay marriage, anti-evolution, anti-flag-burning, etc.). And every election, they hammer away at these relatively unimportant themes, while the Democrats focus on the issues that actually matter to the welfare of this country (stem-cell research, the war in Iraq, etc.).

But you see Caral, that's the difference between us - *I* don't mind at all if you did call us Republics or the Republic party. That's the difference between normal people and Democrats. :) Moreover, since the principles of government by Republic are the essence of what the Republican party stands for I rather approve. So as I far as I'm concerned go ahead and do it. I would laugh at any fellow Republican who objected so why shouldn't I go ahead and laugh at you guys when you wince at being called Democrat? Are you really that ashamed of who you are? o_O
Nice... another right-winger that sees political bullying as a badge of honor. :rolleyes:

And here's something else to keep in mind Caral, compared to a number of the ways you guys mangled our name on purpose over the past 6 years calling us the Republic party
*cough* (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22democrat+party%22&word2=%22republic+party%22)

In fact, considering *some* of the things you've called both us and President Bush I can't help but feel that you now stand revealed as crybaby hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it in return when you do get this offended over what was initially an honest mistake on the part of President Bush. You guys taunt him for malapropisms for *how* many years and then your collective noses get out of joint because if the way he pronounces your party name?
There's a big difference between due criticism and political slurs. If a Democrat acts incompetently, then fine, call them incompetent. But Democrat-as-adjective is a purposeful error that has been used as an immature right-wing taunt for decades. I refer you to the articles I posted above for the history of the term.

Perhaps you guys should just go ahead and change your name to the *Emocrat* Party? Emo really does seem to have become what your party now stands for. :D
Wow. And to think that I suggested the word "Demo-brat" in jest. Your actual petty immaturity has outdone my sarcastic exaggeration of it.

Can you be stupid enough to believe the Democrats *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 70s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes. A single election is a bump on the graph when you see across decades. ^_^
"Can you be stupid enough to believe the Republicans *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 90s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes."

Put it another way: 2006 was an audition for you guys rather than a mandate. It's America giving you a last chance. Too many stunts like this current one and you will find your party being given the hook by the voters. And you yourselves realize it upon the subconscious level or else you would not be upset at President Bush preparing to appeal to the American voters over the heads of Congress the way that President Truman did in years past.
This "stunt" is exactly the thing Democrats were elected for in the first place. To put a stop to this war.

That's right! Ned Lamont, "anti war" candidate lost bigtime to Joe Leiberman who supports America's efforts in Iraq didn't he? And Joe Leiberman, who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, now controls the balance of power in the Senate. So much for the Emocrats! :p Especially when they try to stab America in the back with efforts like this. ^_~
Could you get any more backwards and foolish in your answers?

|\|4zz, J00 p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53lf! ^____^ |\|3><+ 7i/\/\3 d0|\|'+ 7ry +0 5i|_e|\|c3 50/\/\30|\|3 83c4u53 |-|3 d154gr33s \/\/1t|-| j00! :D
I guess so...

Well, ya see, right there is where you have just exposed yet *another* reason the Democrats are in decline. Eisenhower's Presidency was the 1950s, FDR's the 1940s. On behalf of the Republic Party may I welcome you of the Democrat Party into the 21st Century? o_O
I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations on political philosophy.

Ask and ye shall receive! :) The fact that you think the present is etched is stone and not subject to change without notice is yet another symptom of why you guys are in decline. Your congresscritters were elected on a promise of reform. The fact that this bill needed to be so pork laden and required so much armtwisting of the "Blue Dog" Democrats is not something that will go unnoticed by the voters.
Welcome to modern American politics.

But did you notice that your "supplemental" bill needed Republican help to pass? Just keep whistling in the dark about Mr. Leiberman. It won't come back to haunt you, *honest*! :D
Yes. It's called bipartisanship. Quite refreshing after years of GOP shut-outs.

Reposted for accuracy. The problem is you see the world is red and blue, Dem and rep, but it's not that way. Jim Webb was a warrior, has a son fighting now, was a former Republican for many years, served both Republican and Democratic Presidents, so you can't paint him with your broad brush. Further, you chose to ignore Hagel who is a Republican. What do you say of that?


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

It says that he's a Bushevik with brown lips from kissing Il Douche's ass.

So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

'course it is their fault. I bet that some nitwit at the Pentagon is already planning air raids against Dem conventions and occupation of the seats of the Dem Party nationwide.

Or, as a second thought, Operation Canadian Bacon.;)

No one said proof that they have nukes. They said proof that they had a nuclear weapons program. You can have proof of a program prior to that program having results.

No, thats pretty much exactly what he said. This is what happens when you come into a debate in the middle.

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much. Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred. If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.

a. People are willing to sacrifice for wartime necessity. George Bush made every effort to convince people not to sacrifice. The sacrifice he asked of us was to do more shopping. This is because he knew that after Afghanistan he was going to fight a stupid war that would serve no legitimate purpose, and if people were sacrificing he would not only be opposed by the compassionate, the wise, and the patriotic. He would also face opposition from the stupid, the vulgar, and the hateful. By not asking for sacrifice he knew that he would retain the support of those who care only about themselves, or hurting others.

b. The people want this war to end. They blame Bush in greater numbers every day. If it continues, they will know who to blame. If the Republicans or the Democrats won't end it, they'll find someone who will.

Ask and ye shall receive! :) The fact that you think the present is etched is stone and not subject to change without notice is yet another symptom of why you guys are in decline. Your congresscritters were elected on a promise of reform. The fact that this bill needed to be so pork laden and required so much armtwisting of the "Blue Dog" Democrats is not something that will go unnoticed by the voters.Hmmm. I mention change in the very post you reply to and yet you suggest I believe the present is etched in stone. You fail at reading comprehension. And last I checked, pork and earmarks weren't the primary or even the secondary reason the Democrats won in 2006. We won because the voters wanted a check on the Republican president on foreign and domestic policy. Pork is the price of doing business in DC, and most voters accept it, outside a little railing against it from time to time, but it certainly wasn't foremost on their minds in 2006. And most voters, if they have any clue of what a "Blue Dog" is, think it's a series by the New Orleans artist Rodrigo. You've been reading too much Free Republic (if indeed, you can call what you do reading).


But did you notice that your "supplemental" bill needed Republican help to pass? Just keep whistling in the dark about Mr. Leiberman. It won't come back to haunt you, *honest*! :D

BTW, don't forget that the "Nutroots" who supported Mr. Lamont didn't think of the little detail of Mr. Leiberman being a 3 term incumbant at the time they kicked him out of the party. They lost a safe seat that way. If they can't apply foresight to something as basic as that do you really think their election strategies in 2008 won't have a few clunkers as well? ;)
You guys lost Smith and Hagel from your caucus on this vote, and it won't be the last time you lose votes like this, because Bush is toxic, and lots of these people are running for reelection in 2008. And after 2008, no matter what happens in the Senate, Lieberman (learn how to spell his name, by the way) will be irrelevant. Even if the Dems only pick up one more seat, they won't need him any more--not that he does much for us right now.

From an objective standpoint it was played quite well politically for the Republicans. This way, as the Iraq situation deteriorates, they can point back the Democrats pushing hard for withdrawling funding and say 'We wanted to win, but they decided they wanted another Vietnam and cut the funding.', And of course the Democrats can say 'we did what we had to do for the country and our troops, we didn't like it, but America is more important that Iraq' and appeal to the Centerist-Right sect and general Nationalistic Americans

If played well, the Republicans can get off scot free and push the blame on the Democrats, the same way the Democrats pushed blame for Vietnam onto the Republicans. Or vice verca the Democrats can garner suport from a traditionaly republican sect.



...or considering they're politicans it's all just a bunch of shortsightedness and it's merely conincidence that it looks exceptionaly well played out in political strategy that would make Machiavelli jealous...

Yeah...probably the second one.

We've had so many torturous comparisons of Iraq/Afghanistan to Vietnam already. None are accurate, but they made me think a little about the final outcome. Here's what I don't want to see at the end of our visit...
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/wbEDITORIAL_wideweb__430x253.jpg

Hmmm. I mention change in the very post you reply to and yet you suggest I believe the present is etched in stone. You fail at reading comprehension. And last I checked, pork and earmarks weren't the primary or even the secondary reason the Democrats won in 2006. We won because the voters wanted a check on the Republican president on foreign and domestic policy. Pork is the price of doing business in DC, and most voters accept it, outside a little railing against it from time to time, but it certainly wasn't foremost on their minds in 2006. And most voters, if they have any clue of what a "Blue Dog" is, think it's a series by the New Orleans artist Rodrigo. You've been reading too much Free Republic (if indeed, you can call what you do reading).



You guys lost Smith and Hagel from your caucus on this vote, and it won't be the last time you lose votes like this, because Bush is toxic, and lots of these people are running for reelection in 2008. And after 2008, no matter what happens in the Senate, Lieberman (learn how to spell his name, by the way) will be irrelevant. Even if the Dems only pick up one more seat, they won't need him any more--not that he does much for us right now.

That's funny. I was saying the same thing in November, when the Democrats were trying to do their '100' hours of legislation. I asked why they couldn't pass something more than a non-binding resolution against the continued occupation in Iraq. I believe I was told by several, including you, that the main reason that the country went Democratic was because of the Republican corruption. We all knew that was a lie then, that the real reason they didn't pass any purposeful legislation was because they couldn't even get their own party to fully support it. Well, they still can't. It takes some opportunistic Republicans, that see this issue as a ticket to the White House, to sway the numbers in favor of the left-wing [foreigners go away, politics is local and the leadership of the Democratic Party is relatively left wing] dislike of any possible success for the Bush Administration.

Don't forget what this is really about. The Democratic Party wants nothing more than to completely discredit the Bush administration. They could care less about the Iraqis, the American troops, or even the majority opinion of their constituents if it doesn't suit their needs. This is still about their loss of power in 1994 and the way salt was rubbed into their wounds in 2000.

Sometimes tough sacrifices have to be made; sometimes populism has to take a backseat to wartime necessity. In the past, people planted "victory gardens" to aid the war effort and they conserved energy, scrap metal, and food. Now, they're not even willing to do that much. Well, George Bush is ready to bear the burden; he's willing to pay the cost to ensure that Iraq will not be utterly destroyed by sectarian hatred. If Democrats want to raise the white flag and surrender to these monsters, that's their fault; everyone will know where the blame lies and with whom.

They did that in a war to the death with actual credible threat to their homes ... this is not the case with iraq, comparing the two is just silly

Technically, Bush is accurate.

If Pelosi is true to her statement that she respects the President's Constitutional authority (and asks Bush to respect hers), then Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, and Pelosi is the funding person.

If the troops don't get funded, it's her responsibility.

Technically, Bush is accurate.

If Pelosi is true to her statement that she respects the President's Constitutional authority (and asks Bush to respect hers), then Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, and Pelosi is the funding person.

If the troops don't get funded, it's her responsibility.

Here's the thing:
Overall, the American people want an end to the war, and the Democrats are trying to give them that. Thing is, any bill that would end the war in one fashion or another by itself without anything attached just isn't going to pass through the entire Senate, and even if it did Bush would just veto it. So, the Democrats decide to attach the requirement of a troop withdrawl to a funding bill in order to get it through. Is it underhanded? Absolutely. It is necessary? Absolutely. Thanks to our asshole of a President it can't get through any other way, and there will be such a serious backlash against the Republicans eliminating any hope of a Republican Presidency in 2008 if Bush vetos this bill. It's underhanded, but so is a lot of politics. It's how the game is played.

Here's the thing:
Overall, the American people want an end to the war, and the Democrats are trying to give them that. Thing is, any bill that would end the war in one fashion or another by itself without anything attached just isn't going to pass through the entire Senate, and even if it did Bush would just veto it. So, the Democrats decide to attach the requirement of a troop withdrawl to a funding bill in order to get it through. Is it underhanded? Absolutely. It is necessary? Absolutely. Thanks to our asshole of a President it can't get through any other way, and there will be such a serious backlash against the Republicans eliminating any hope of a Republican Presidency in 2008 if Bush vetos this bill. It's underhanded, but so is a lot of politics. It's how the game is played.

You never know. If the people somehow get the idea that the troops are being fucked for a lack of money, they could just as well blame the Democrats.

Remember the time the Republicans did this to Clinton, and shut down the government twice?

Who got the blame? The Republican Congress.

You never know. If the people somehow get the idea that the troops are being fucked for a lack of money, they could just as well blame the Democrats.

Remember the time the Republicans did this to Clinton, and shut down the government twice?

Who got the blame? The Republican Congress.

Well, that's true. Still, I think it's worth the risk, because the gains--the end of the war--are just too good not to risk it. Besides, I personally don't give a damn about the Democrat's image or the Republican's image, so who gets blamed in the end matters not to me so long as the war is ended.

Well, that's true. Still, I think it's worth the risk, because the gains--the end of the war--are just too good not to risk it. Besides, I personally don't give a damn about the Democrat's image or the Republican's image, so who gets blamed in the end matters not to me so long as the war is ended.

Well, that may be true. But I'm sure that if played correctly, you could anger quite a few people with the fact that Congress has done little except harp about the war.

Americans tend to get tired of ranting, and move on to other things that "concern" them.

Clinton played on that at a moment when Republicans had taken power based on his momentary unpopularity. It worked - people forgot why they elected Republicans and blamed them.

I'm not so sure everyone in the US is as ardent as you are. Yes, they may want the war to end, but they might not be willing to bring the government to a screeching halt to do it.

...Did you seriously just use dailykos as a source? You know, when you source something, people expect you to source something that, at the very least, tries to hide it's political leanings.

I actually quoted 5 different sources, but you choose the one you think you can attack me on first right? A source was asked for, I gave 5. Note the problem with this again.

So you are arguing that you are female at the same time you are male and that water is dry at the same time it is wet? Your arguement for universal greyness is amusing but stale. :p

Jim Webb's having once been a "warrior" is irrelevant to the point that he is indeed a Democrat no matter what he once was. Trying to hide him behind his son does not do either you or Senator Webb much credit. Saying that Mr. Webb was a "former Republican" for many years before he became a Democrat is like saying a whore was a "former virgin" for many years before becoming a whore. It might not be true but it does not alter the fact that she became a whore. Likewise nothing you write alters the fact that Mr. Webb became a Democrat. u_u



Quite right. That's why the Democrat Party is in trouble. The fact that you guys became petty, thinskinned and humorless social wedge issues and political epithets became the only thing you had left. Thanks for the straight line! :)



But you see Caral, that's the difference between us - *I* don't mind at all if you did call us Republics or the Republic party. That's the difference between normal people and Democrats. :) Moreover, since the principles of government by Republic are the essence of what the Republican party stands for I rather approve. So as I far as I'm concerned go ahead and do it. I would laugh at any fellow Republican who objected so why shouldn't I go ahead and laugh at you guys when you wince at being called Democrat? Are you really that ashamed of who you are? o_O


And here's something else to keep in mind Caral, compared to a number of the ways you guys mangled our name on purpose over the past 6 years calling us the Republic party would be tame even if we *were* as petty, thinskinned and pompous as you've allowed yourselves to become. In fact, considering *some* of the things you've called both us and President Bush I can't help but feel that you now stand revealed as crybaby hypocrites who can dish it out but can't take it in return when you do get this offended over what was initially an honest mistake on the part of President Bush. You guys taunt him for malapropisms for *how* many years and then your collective noses get out of joint because if the way he pronounces your party name? I just wish this story of how petty you were had come out in 2006. I'd've had some fun with it. Sucks to be you that it came out at all since I intend to have some fun with it in 2008 anyway. :)

Perhaps you guys should just go ahead and change your name to the *Emocrat* Party? Emo really does seem to have become what your party now stands for. :D



Can you be stupid enough to believe the Democrats *aren't* in decline? o_O Is so then draw a line from their epitome in the 70s to their current state today. Institutional decline does not happen overnight but it is always easy to see for those who have eyes. A single election is a bump on the graph when you see across decades. ^_^

Put it another way: 2006 was an audition for you guys rather than a mandate. It's America giving you a last chance. Too many stunts like this current one and you will find your party being given the hook by the voters. And you yourselves realize it upon the subconscious level or else you would not be upset at President Bush preparing to appeal to the American voters over the heads of Congress the way that President Truman did in years past.



That's right! Ned Lamont, "anti war" candidate lost bigtime to Joe Leiberman who supports America's efforts in Iraq didn't he? And Joe Leiberman, who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, now controls the balance of power in the Senate. So much for the Emocrats! :p Especially when they try to stab America in the back with efforts like this. ^_~






|\|4zz, J00 p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53lf! ^____^ |\|3><+ 7i/\/\3 d0|\|'+ 7ry +0 5i|_e|\|c3 50/\/\30|\|3 83c4u53 |-|3 d154gr33s \/\/1t|-| j00! :D

After all we know there is no such thing as a Conservative Democrat right? Democrats are all evil, liberal scum who deserve the scorn. Sorry, your little diatribe says more about your ignorance and bias than it does anything else. You compare Democrats to whores and it makes your hackery that much more apparent. Once again you are a Bushpulican while I have always been a Republican. I'm a traditional conservative in the fiscal sense and a moderate in the social sense. I will not allow a dolt like you to try and pigeonhole me you snickering sneech. You are your starbellies simply think you are better than everyone else. Jim Webb is an honorable man with a son currently serving. George W Bush is a fortunate son who would never put his own in harm's way. Further, you yourself said that elections prove what Americans want, and Americans chose a change. Why do you hate America so much? :(

No, thats pretty much exactly what he said. This is what happens when you come into a debate in the middle.

Then you'll be able to quote where someone actually said to wait until they had nukes instead of wait until we had proof of a nuclear weapons program.

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=attcJRHvhu28&refer=home):



So... Congress passes legislation supported by a majority of the American people, delivering the very promises they were voted into office to uphold... and it's their fault if Bush's stubbornness kills it and leaves the troops without money?

:headbang:

GOOD!! No leaving till the job is done.

I heard a bit of his speech on NPR this morning...it went something like this:

"These politicians have no business deciding how to run a war that's 6000 miles away..."

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

Leave the war to the Generals. Fighting wars is their jobs and NOT Congress's.

He has supposedly being very hands off and allowing generals in country run the war. Now if we could get some competent regular officers.

That I can agree with.

I'm not so sure everyone in the US is as ardent as you are. Yes, they may want the war to end, but they might not be willing to bring the government to a screeching halt to do it.

That would be a shame. If one wants a war to end than they shouldn't be willing to accept many exceptions in this belief.

I heard a bit of his speech on NPR this morning...it went something like this:

"These politicians have no business deciding how to run a war that's 6000 miles away..."

Am I the only one who thinks he's picked up the bottle again?

I tend to think Iraq is a bit more than 6000 miles away also. Or are we at war somewhere in Africa?

Well, that may be true. But I'm sure that if played correctly, you could anger quite a few people with the fact that Congress has done little except harp about the war.

Except, you know, have the most successful first week in terms of legislation passed of any congressional session.

Nope, nothing else but bitch about the war.

I'm not so sure everyone in the US is as ardent as you are. Yes, they may want the war to end, but they might not be willing to bring the government to a screeching halt to do it.


The US government has a long history of being tremendously detrimental to the US people. The less they do the better.

I tend to think Iraq is a bit more than 6000 miles away also. Or are we at war somewhere in Africa?

The straight line distance between Washington and Baghdad is approximately 6200 miles

http://www.findlocalweather.com/how_far_is_it/dc/washington.html

If we count the most eastern tip of the US and the most western tip of Iraq, it probably comes out a little less than 6000.

Quite right. That's why the Democrat Party is in trouble. The fact that you guys became petty, thinskinned and humorless social wedge issues and political epithets became the only thing you had left. Thanks for the straight line! :)

You forgot teh funny.

I think it's hard to come across as being funny when mostly all you're doing is bragging about the size of your political party's penis.

You forgot teh funny.

I think it's hard to come across as being funny when mostly all you're doing is bragging about the size of your political party's penis.

which is, these days, kinda small...and shrinking.

which is, these days, kinda small...and shrinking.And covered in running sores. :p

The US government has a long history of being tremendously detrimental to the US people. The less they do the better.

If the US government isn't being detrimental, it will be whoever they are ceding power to.

I actually quoted 5 different sources, but you choose the one you think you can attack me on first right? A source was asked for, I gave 5. Note the problem with this again.

I didn't have a problem with the other four, it was just that last one I had a problem with.

You probably would have been better off just getting your sources from the DNC website.

Anywho, so that I don't get blamed for gravedigging:

I seriously doubt the Dem's very slim victory in both Houses was a mandate of any sort. Now, if there were only, say 3 Republicans left, I'd have to agree with you, but a 51-49 majority is hardly what I call a mandate.

If the Dems decide to screw the troops by cutting the funding, then it's their own fault; Congress controls the power of the purse, and the Dems weakly control Congress, so... (draw your own conclusions).

I didn't have a problem with the other four, it was just that last one I had a problem with.

You probably would have been better off just getting your sources from the DNC website.

Anywho, so that I don't get blamed for gravedigging:

I seriously doubt the Dem's very slim victory in both Houses was a mandate of any sort. Now, if there were only, say 3 Republicans left, I'd have to agree with you, but a 51-49 majority is hardly what I call a mandate.

If the Dems decide to screw the troops by cutting the funding, then it's their own fault; Congress controls the power of the purse, and the Dems weakly control Congress, so... (draw your own conclusions).
Slim victory? In the Senate, it's only a slim victory if you look at the final tally, but flipping 7 seats in a single election is a major ass kicking. And as I noted above, the Democrats hold a larger majority in the House than the Republicans ever did from 1994-2006, the height of the Republican revolution. There is no reasonable way to call the 2006 House win for the Democrats a slim victory.

Well in the concept of popular sovereignty under representative democracy, the Democrats are only acting under the delegated wishes of their electorates, who by a large majority want an Iraq withdrawl sooner rather than later. So how can they be blamed for acting in accordance with such wishes? That is of course what democracy is all about, when elected representatives move away from acting on their wishes democracy is void and it becomes elitist, as in people telling other people that their opinions are somehow higher and of more value than the commons. Therefore, the Democrats cannot be blamed.

Just remember: when it's a Republican majority in Congress that votes for something, it's a "mandate". When it's a Democratic majority in Congress that votes for something, it's "not supporting the troops".

which is, these days, kinda small...and shrinking.
http://www.geocities.com/vandelay_industries007/george2.jpg

"I was in the pool!"

Just remember: when it's a Republican majority in Congress that votes for something, it's a "mandate". When it's a Democratic majority in Congress that votes for something, it's "not supporting the troops".

And somehow miraculously if the deadline clause becomes law and the Sunni and Shi'ite make a peace aggreement, then 'Staying the course' worked.

We've had so many torturous comparisons of Iraq/Afghanistan to Vietnam already. None are accurate, but they made me think a little about the final outcome. Here's what I don't want to see at the end of our visit...
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/wbEDITORIAL_wideweb__430x253.jpg

Here's what you WILL see, thanks to Bush's utter incompetence, at the end of his killing spree:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/wbEDITORIAL_wideweb__430x253.jpg

I figure the end of his killing spree'll look a lil' more like this:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t055/T055219A.jpg

I figure the end of his killing spree'll look a lil' more like this:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t055/T055219A.jpg
I just pray to whatever gods there are that it doesn't somehow turn out like this:

http://www.geocities.com/republicanpowerblog/bush_coin.JPG

I just pray to whatever gods there are that it doesn't somehow turn out like this:

http://www.geocities.com/republicanpowerblog/bush_coin.JPG

Tell me that's computer-generated. Please?

Before the end of this cursed war, I shall be the one to embody Shakespeare as he descends from the high heavens. Now, I shall state my request: Attack with Brutus' Honor!

Friends, users, posters, lend me your eyes;
I come to bury the Democrats, not to praise them;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with the Democrats…. The noble Neocons
Hath told you the Democrats were unAmerican:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath them answered it….
Here, under leave of the Neocons and the rest,
(For the Neocons are honourable men;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak about the Democrat's vote….
They were the people's will, and decided by a majority:
But the Neocons say they were unAmerican;
And the Neocons are honourable men….
The Democrats intend to bring the soldiers safely home,
Following the American people's will:
Did this in the Democrats seem unAmerican?
As the people voted, their promises were kept:
UnAmericanism should be made of less democratic stuff:
Yet the Neocons say they were unAmerican;
And the Neocons are honourable men.
You all did see that, in their ideal,
the American people praise democracy,
Which the Democrats followed: was this unAmerican?
Yet the Neocons say they are unAmerican;
And, sure, they are honourable men.
I speak not to disprove what the Neocons spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
The people voted to end the war, not without cause:
What cause prompts the democracy-oriented Bush to veto it?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Logic,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Tell me that's computer-generated. Please?
It probably is.

But this is apparently one of Liberia's national coins:

http://www.pandaamerica.com/upd_images/lrs2001bush-cheney-coin.jpg

:eek:

I just pray to whatever gods there are that it doesn't somehow turn out like this:

http://www.geocities.com/republicanpowerblog/bush_coin.JPG

It burns, it burns!

Before the end of this cursed war, I shall be the one to embody Shakespeare as he descends from the high heavens. Now, I shall state my request: Attack with Brutus' Honor!

Friends, users, posters, lend me your eyes;
I come to bury the Democrats, not to praise them;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with the Democrats…. The noble Neocons
Hath told you the Democrats were unAmerican:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath them answered it….
Here, under leave of the Neocons and the rest,
(For the Neocons are honourable men;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak about the Democrat's vote….
They were the people's will, and decided by a majority:
But the Neocons say they were unAmerican;
And the Neocons are honourable men….
The Democrats intend to bring the soldiers safely home,
Following the American people's will:
Did this in the Democrats seem unAmerican?
As the people voted, their promises were kept:
UnAmericanism should be made of less democratic stuff:
Yet the Neocons say they were unAmerican;
And the Neocons are honourable men.
You all did see that, in their ideal,
the American people praise democracy,
Which the Democrats followed: was this unAmerican?
Yet the Neocons say they are unAmerican;
And, sure, they are honourable men.
I speak not to disprove what the Neocons spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
The people voted to end the war, not without cause:
What cause prompts the democracy-oriented Bush to veto it?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Logic,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
That was great stuff. *applauds*

That was great stuff. *applauds*

Yeah, I didn't feel like performing an autopsy on each one of them here, so I decided to go for the big guns already. ;)

Thanks. :)

You know how when your parents buy you that fancy guitar and shell out all that money for lessons and amps and all that? And then you need more money for like strings and a cool strap and some cool pedals for the crayon box and your parents go, "You know, we're not giving you any more money for this crap until you actually start learning to play that thing."

Is it the parent's fault for not paying for something anymore that's not working? Or is it your fault for not making progress with what you had? And if you've been pissy and arrogant and dismissive about your not learning to play the guitar, how patient would your parents be? Really, how unrealistic is it to say, "Alright, you can have this money, but after all the benefit of the doubt you squandered, we want to make sure this is going somewhere, so if you want the money we want some guidelines, because we tried it your way and it wasn't working."

Really, this is more than reasonable.

But the Republicans have had this script ready since last November-"All right," they thought, "We'll just call 'em out on the most extreme of their choices, we'll just stonewall until they go for that and then we'll spin it as an example of how much they hate the troops. I'm sure that chestnut will work for us one last time come 2008, even though it sank in 2006..." But the Democrats didn't really take the bait, they funded the troops but also did exactly what they said they would (at least some of them, there were a lot of them and they all ran on different things) that Iraq policy needed to change. Bush is the one who is going to veto this, there is no reason in hell that congress should pass him yet another blank check and free pass, he in no way has demonstrated that he deserves it. It is Bush that is being a petulant child about this, it is Bush that is going to endanger the troops further, it is Bush that doesn't care. I'm sorry, he doesn't. I have the same concern seeing a service person who still likes Bush as I do when I see a victim of spousal abuse who still loves the abuser.

If he wants his money for his little 'project' then he's going to have some guidelines. It's what any reasonable person would do at this point. And if he throws a little tantrum and decides that he doesn't want the money then it's on his head. Just like the rest of this ill concieved, poorly executed war is.