Article

2005-12-16 Home Front: Politix

Donks in Disarray: No Party Platform On Iraq in 2006

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2005-12-16 09:49|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that Iraq is a national issue calling for commitment of national resources and national will. Yeah, other than than, it's pretty much an individual affair.

I don't know what else this crowd of clowns could do to convince me they are unfit to lead this country through difficult times.

Posted by SteveS 2005-12-16 10:12|| 2005-12-16 10:12|| Front Page Top

#2 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

As long as the underlying desire is for defeat, they won't have any problem with "differing positions".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-16 10:13|| 2005-12-16 10:13|| Front Page Top

#3 I love it when you put that picture up. It sends chills down my spine.

Posted by Howard Dean 2005-12-16 10:16|| 2005-12-16 10:16|| Front Page Top

#4 How is this disarray? Since when do parties announce midterm platforms that cover all national issues?

This isnt disarray, this is the right move. It means theyre not announcing a pro-withdrawl policy as the official Dem position. This lets Hilary, Steny Hoyer, and even Lieberman continue with their more hawkish stances. This is a defeat for the doves.

If it makes you feel better to consider this disarray, go right ahead.

The GOP MAY not face disaster. After all, Cheney might resign, and Bush MIGHT appoint McCain VP. That would wipe away all the Delay mess, all the Bush unpopularity, and would actually make the Dems likely to lose in 2006 and 2008.

Or y'all can keep doing what youre doing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 10:22|| 2005-12-16 10:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

Did I miss something? Is Nuancy contributing to or going to be receiving benifits from Social Security? What does she mean "people like me"?

Posted by Gir 2005-12-16 10:39|| 2005-12-16 10:39|| Front Page Top

#6 No liberalhawk,
What it says to me is that those mealy-mouthed s.o.b.'s don't want to even make their position known to their own voters. That way they can play both sides of the field (Hilderbeast). They want to coddle the antiwar crowd while trying at the same time to convince fence riders that they can be tough. It just depends on what disctrict you are in. If it is one with a Dem incumbent, you play the antiwar (or cant win)line. If you are challenging a GOP guy, you play the moderate, and try to convince people you can protect this country. They are so full of shit that they wont even say what they want, because nobody would vote for them then.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-12-16 10:42|| 2005-12-16 10:42|| Front Page Top

#7 So repubs/cons would have the democrats be like themselves by not allowing any dissenting opinions within the ranks in the interest of "unity"? I dont think so.

Obviously a majority of americans disaprove of President Bush handling of Iraq and his job.
All of the major polls show this and yet repubs
stick to a failing policy? More and more congressional repubs up for midterm elections next year are distancing themselves from Bush.

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 10:49|| 2005-12-16 10:49|| Front Page Top

#8 You can talk about dissenting opinions all you want, but if you don't win any elections the whole point of it is kind of lost, isn't it?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-12-16 10:52|| 2005-12-16 10:52|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm historically a Dem, and I'm still marginally more comfortable with their domestic policies than those of the GOP (I'd prefer a genuinely small government party, but you apparently can't get enough votes that way.

The war in Iraq, part of the GWOI (I-fascism) is the most important issue facing this country. If the Dems can't get their act together on this subject, they've demonstrated their unfitness for power.

Posted by Unerong Claper1048 2005-12-16 10:56|| 2005-12-16 10:56|| Front Page Top

#10 big jim:

So you seem to think that the republican hold on congress & the whitehouse is a permanent thing?

Politics in the U.S. tends to happen in cycles,
the american public is very fickle and things could easily change in the dems favor in the future.

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 10:57|| 2005-12-16 10:57|| Front Page Top

#11 That is unquestionably true, but I don't see the democrats doing anything to capture the vote of the majority of , well, anybody. The are ununified, defeatist, and nihilistic without offering any suggestions for a way to make it better. They just want to bitch and cry, that doesn't win elections. It's not enough to say that G.W. sucks ass. You then have to say how you would do it better, and I just don't hear any of them saying that.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-12-16 11:02|| 2005-12-16 11:02|| Front Page Top

#12

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-16 11:06|| 2005-12-16 11:06|| Front Page Top

#13 big jim:

"cut & run", "defeatist" and "artificial timelines that embolden the enemy" are bs repub/con labels try putting on dems/libs for political gain. I think the U.S. public is smarter than that.

Maybe you beleive as most brainwashed Bushites do that the U.S. should stay in Iraq indefintely until Bush vague "victory" is achieved with a uneding open checkbook and U.S. military casualties and deaths.

I as most democrats dont. Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon.

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 11:16|| 2005-12-16 11:16|| Front Page Top

#14 Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon.

Six months from now an Iraqi unit is in heavy contact with an Al-Qaeda gang, and the US has a squadron of A-10's within range of the fight. Do the A-10's fly in support of the Iraqi unit, or do they stay out of the fight?

Posted by Matt 2005-12-16 11:42|| 2005-12-16 11:42|| Front Page Top

#15 Matt:

Do you believe that the U.S. should be in Iraq
indefinitely?

The answer to your question is obvious, so why
do you ask it?

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 11:54|| 2005-12-16 11:54|| Front Page Top

#16 Hey Left Angle. In case you hadn't noticed Iraq just had a free election (I bet they didn't even have that many dead voters unlike Washington state but I digress...). They are well on their way to a Democratic Government 'by the people'. I know this is bad news to you and the DNC -- but that's life.

And if you would look even a little bit beyond the MSM and DU and read about people who have actually been then (and not just to the Bagdad hotel bar) you might realize that...

We are winning.

And soon, within a few years - once we have WON and the Iraqi are able to provide their own security, we won't be there. Hmm.. we might have a few bases as in Germany, Japan, etc.. but it would be with the permission of the host country.

And by we - I mean the United States and the Colilition (and the Iraqi people) who want a Democratic government in Iraq and not a bunch of murdering thugs or terrorists. I wanted to point that out because I know this isn't necessarily the same side as the DNC in this war.

Check out 'Michael Yon' or '365 and a wakeup' and other sites....

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-12-16 11:59|| 2005-12-16 11:59|| Front Page Top

#17 Left Angle, the problem is that the pool of Democrats keeps shrinking, along with the shrinking labour unions, and as individual interest groups become aware of how the Democratic party as a whole is working against their core interests. Think about how the younger generation of Jews prefers Republican support of Israel vs. Democratic support of the Palestinians; African-Americans climbing white collar career ladders realize that attitudes engendered by the existence of affirmative action hinder rather than help their own progress, and notice that those of their childhood circle who didn't apply themselves to their studies now have no careers to advance; Hispanics who are religiously and socially conservative more and more prefer the party which shares their personal values, the one which provides their children more opportunity by mainstreaming them in schools, rather than hindering their future ability to function in the work world by insisting on hobbling them with a bi-lingual education (I watched my children mainstream in the local preschool when we lived in Germany, and it was 6 months of linguistic hell -- the elder could only handle two hours of incomplete understanding before completely melting down -- followed by effortless use of the language until we were transferred to the next country). Finally, the upcoming generation of voters, including the trailing daughters, was fixed philosophically by the experience of 9/11; the thoughtful ones see us at the receiving end of total war on the part of the Islamo-fascists such as Osama bin Ladin's Al Qaeda organization, and the Democratic party bankrupt of ideas on how to respond, those Democratic politicians even willing to look beyond All VietNam, all the time to even understand that this is a war to the knife, regardless of whether we wish to be at war or not. Statistics show that those young people who are not thoughtful about the issues won't vote anyway.

This concerns me, as I firmly believe this country functions best when there is an effective conversation between the two political parties about how best to proceed within the constraints of an agreed-upon reality (eg, the fact that AlQ. attacked NYC and Washington, DC demonstrates that maintaining the status quo in the Middle East is an unacceptable tactic... at which point the question becomes, how best to change the status quo -- do we first remove Saddam Hussein and his fascist Ba'ath Party hoodlums from power because he is actively trying to control his neighbors, or do we take out the House of Saud because they are financing radical Islamism thin mosques and schools throughout the world?)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-16 12:05|| 2005-12-16 12:05|| Front Page Top

#18 LA: Because you seem to be treating the issue as a yes/no issue, and it isn't. I would phrase the issue as: What degree of military support should the US provide to the fledgling Iraqi republic?

Posted by Matt 2005-12-16 12:05|| 2005-12-16 12:05|| Front Page Top

#19 Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades? My understanding is that "none" would be a reasonable approximation, and that is what will happen once the Iraqis are busily and happily engaged in self-rule. Which is scaring the hell out of the Muslim bully-boy regimes in the neighborhood. Not to mention being called to account by the American soldiery for the not-as-covert-as-they-thought war they've been waging against Israel since the 1920's.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-16 12:10|| 2005-12-16 12:10|| Front Page Top

#20 "The are ununified, defeatist, and nihilistic without offering any suggestions for a way to make it better. They just want to bitch and cry..."

Gosh! That sounds like about 47% of the countries attitude and behavior.

""cut & run", "defeatist" and "artificial timelines that embolden the enemy" are bs repub/con labels try putting on dems/libs for political gain. I think the U.S. public is smarter than that."

Spoken like a true fuzzy thinking liberal. Let's hope you are wrong about that last sentence! BTW, have you been fitted for your burkha yet? Just askin`.

Posted by Doitnow 2005-12-16 12:27|| 2005-12-16 12:27|| Front Page Top

#21 "Left Angle, the problem is that the pool of Democrats keeps shrinking..."

Not only that, the ones who are still in the pool are the ones who drove the others out by peeing in it. Idiots like Left Angle are the reason why, after 31 years, I'm no long a Democrat.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-12-16 12:38|| 2005-12-16 12:38|| Front Page Top

#22 I posted this because it's sooooo delicious taht teh Dems have to lie and obfuscate about their real intentions and principles to remaina marginally viable opposition. If they really hold their cut and run policy as a principle, at least have the F*&KING COJONES to say so and stick with it. Cowards and liars. Think Joe Lieberman (ex-VP candidate) will be given a prime-time speaking spot in 2008 for the DNC convention? Not a chance....so much for diversity. Remember Casey?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-16 12:41|| 2005-12-16 12:41|| Front Page Top

#23 what Frank said.

MOOSE THATS A WINNER!

Posted by Red Dog 2005-12-16 12:59|| 2005-12-16 12:59|| Front Page Top

#24 Dem leadership... you know the saying: Lead, follow or get out of the way. PLEASE Nuancy, pick one, then STFU!

P.S. I think it's funny as hell to watch the Dems try to carve out consensus opposition platforms within the democratic framework... you GO girl! Seriously. Just go.

Posted by Hyper">Hyper 2005-12-16 13:02|| 2005-12-16 13:02|| Front Page Top

#25 Frank: what I find really mind-blowing about the Donks is that they are not only unable to come up with a coherent position on how to defeat Islamic extremism in the GWoT, these "reality-based" geniuses haven't even been able to articulate any domestic policy initiatives worth looking at.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-12-16 13:13|| 2005-12-16 13:13|| Front Page Top

#26 wow its so clever when folks call Hillary "hildabeest" - almost as good as the loons who talk about Bushitler or the Chimperor.
Shows theres stupidity all around, I guess.

Of course the Dems cant agree on a position on the WOT. Can the GOP? Some Republicans oppose the Patriot Act, most (including McCain) support it. Most support the McCain amendment, as does the WH, but many oppose it (and some here call McCain filth for it) Most GOP Senators supported the Warner resolution calling for a new strategy - but some - including McCain - thought that was dangerously irresolute. Similarly Dems are divided. BECAUSE this is so important, people are putting policy position ABOVE party lines. And while that may disappoint hardcore partisans, whether here or at Daily Kos, I think its a good thing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 13:47|| 2005-12-16 13:47|| Front Page Top

#27 "Not only that, the ones who are still in the pool are the ones who drove the others out by peeing in it. "

Thats why 2006 has so much promise. An increase in Dems in congress will inevitably come in swing districts - which will mean more sane, moderate Dems to dilute the loons. Starting a virtous cycle.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 13:49|| 2005-12-16 13:49|| Front Page Top

#28 "Think about how the younger generation of Jews prefers Republican support of Israel vs. Democratic support of the Palestinians;"

except almost all prominent Dems support Israel.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 13:52|| 2005-12-16 13:52|| Front Page Top

#29 trailing wife:

How many people voted for Democrat Senator Kerry
in the last prez election against those who voted for President Bush and what is the percentage in regards to the previous democratic total of V.P.
gore vs bush. did the percentage of democratic votes increase or decrease?

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 13:57|| 2005-12-16 13:57|| Front Page Top

#30 LA, If the Iraqis need to start taking responsibility for their own country soon, how about the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Hatians, and the Kosovars?

Posted by Greter Jolutch2588 2005-12-16 14:43|| 2005-12-16 14:43|| Front Page Top

#31 LiberalHawk: appreciate your comments. I respectfully point out that in most situations, something beats nothing.

The Dems have been talking about trying to find a common platform and national issues for the mid-term election so that they could replicate what Newt Gingrich did with the 'Contract with America' in 1994. Remember, 50+ seats changed then.

That the Dems can't come with a common statement on the most important issue today says a lot about their ability to nationalize the mid-term election. It all but hands the midterms to the Repubs. Just my $0.02.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-12-16 15:05|| 2005-12-16 15:05|| Front Page Top

#32 GJ:

Can you be more specific in your question?

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 15:08|| 2005-12-16 15:08|| Front Page Top

#33 Left Angle, I don't have a clue, but I'm sure you can find the answer on Google. To be a part of the Rantburg community you have to do some of the work, too. Certainly Bush won the last election not only by a majority of Electoral College votes, which in our system is all that matters, but also by a majority of the total votes, which doesn't happen nearly as often. However, I had the distinct pleasure of being present while the local leadership of the Jewish community agonized over how to bring the young people back into the Democratic fold, at a coffee following a speech by Senator Kerry's Jewish brother. Did you know that back in the old country (Czechoslovakia) the Kerrys were Jewish? They must've converted to Irish Catholicism on the boat coming over.

Liberalhawk -- the leadership of the American Jewish community is indeed solidly Democratic. It's us youngsters who are supposed to be the followership that aren't. Long term the youngsters always win. And I've got two daughters who read Rantburg. Trailing daughter#1 will vote Republican in the next Presidential election, something I didn't come round to until Bush v. Kerry. Td#2, who was recently bat mitzvahed, thinks Democrats are like Canadians: they can say anything they want, because nothing they say matters. It should be interesting -- td#1's Confirmation class will travel to Washington, DC in February to lobby the Ohio Senators on matters the kids think urgent. I am very much looking forward to hearing which issues they choose, and what they argue for.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-16 15:12|| 2005-12-16 15:12|| Front Page Top

#34 Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades?

TW, I have to say something here. The Baader/Meinhof//Red Army Faction (extreme communist) killed 7 and wounded 31 people during the early 1980's (one of those killed was a friend of mine). There have been Americans killed in Japan, especially Okinawa, by organized crime elements. These murderers are much like the ones in Iraq - either extremist elements or criminals who are equally abhorred by the majority of the locals, but it's still dangerous to wear the US uniform anywhere.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-12-16 15:22|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-16 15:22|| Front Page Top

#35 Oh, and Left Angle, how many of the occupation troops currently in Germany or Japan have been killed by local insurgents in the past, say, two decades?

TW, I have to say something here. The Baader/Meinhof//Red Army Faction (extreme communist) killed 7 and wounded 31 people during the early 1980's (one of those killed was a friend of mine). There have been Americans killed in Japan, especially Okinawa, by organized crime elements. These murderers are much like the ones in Iraq - either extremist elements or criminals who are equally abhorred by the majority of the locals, but it's still dangerous to wear the US uniform anywhere.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-12-16 15:22|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-16 15:22|| Front Page Top

#36 Now the democrats are trying to make it impossible for the American people to find the truth that the Clinton, rather corrupt Clinton administration had used the IRS to go after political opposition. American voters want to know. Leftists fools want to hide the truth. That kind of politics won't fly here on the net.
It's yet another bad move by bad people, and most of us know all about it.

Posted by wxjames 2005-12-16 15:23|| 2005-12-16 15:23|| Front Page Top

#37 I'm sorry, libhawk, I didn't read your last comment completely before responding. The Democratic party leadership may be solidly pro-Israel, but lots of the rank and file politicians and party members are not. Which means that long term, if not medium term, the Democratic party will switch sides on that subject.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-16 15:25|| 2005-12-16 15:25|| Front Page Top

#38 Go Down Moses!

Leave it to the WaPo to characterize "lack of consensus/Ideas" as "Diversity".

Posted by DepotGuy 2005-12-16 15:44|| 2005-12-16 15:44|| Front Page Top

#39 I yield to your greater knowledge, Old Patriot. Still, not a very effective insurgency, was it -- capable of causing individual grief and anger, but otherwise having no impact. I could live with the Iraqi insurgency becoming equally ineffective, and I don't expect it will take very long.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-16 15:45|| 2005-12-16 15:45|| Front Page Top

#40 wxjames, this is on my reading todo list. Publish the Barrett report now. This the kind of political corruption the news media should be pouncing on, but like a certain President lying under oath, it becomes a private matter.

Posted by ed 2005-12-16 15:52|| 2005-12-16 15:52|| Front Page Top

#41 "The Dems have been talking about trying to find a common platform and national issues for the mid-term election so that they could replicate what Newt Gingrich did with the 'Contract with America' in 1994. Remember, 50+ seats changed then.

That the Dems can't come with a common statement on the most important issue today says a lot about their ability to nationalize the mid-term election. It all but hands the midterms to the Repubs. Just my $0.02."

IMHO nationalizing the midterm elections a la Gingrich was a bit of a pipe dream from the start. The issues there were fundamentally economic (the economy still didnt look all that good in '94) and economics was the uniting issue of the GOP. Foreign policy is just farther removed from what congress does, and its been the issue that most divides the Dems, for the last 40 years.

Of course Newt also won in large part to capital hill scandals. If I were top Dem strategist, id play up the current hill scandals, and keep pushing on domestic policy, deficits, etc, and NOT make Iraq central. Making Iraq central is just screwy - A. Cause the Dems are divided on it B. Cause its impossible to tell now what the situation on the ground will be like in Nov 2006 (and the smart dems, like Biden and Clinton, know it will probably be better) C. Cause if youre not gonna call for pullout (which they had better not) what you DO say is gonna be too subtle for sound bytes.

So I still think theyll make a pick up in 2006 - how big it will be i have no idea.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 16:27|| 2005-12-16 16:27|| Front Page Top

#42 "I'm sorry, libhawk, I didn't read your last comment completely before responding. The Democratic party leadership may be solidly pro-Israel, but lots of the rank and file politicians and party members are not. Which means that long term, if not medium term, the Democratic party will switch sides on that subject."

There were rank and file activists who were anti-Israel back in the 1970's. Somehow by the time such folks reach the House (IF they do) they change. Its not a generational thing as you imply - its a loony activist vs sane party boss thing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 16:29|| 2005-12-16 16:29|| Front Page Top

#43 "the leadership of the American Jewish community is indeed solidly Democratic. It's us youngsters who are supposed to be the followership that aren't. Long term the youngsters always win. "

I just dont see that. Yeah american jews are a lot more conservative then they used to be - they used to lean practically socialist, supporting real social change. Now most want moderately free market economics, and a relatively secular approach to social issues. IE Clintonism. See the Dems have moved to the right same as the Jews.

Now IF they GOP was to move back in that direction that would be one thing. McCain, for ex. But a GOP thats Rick Santorum, and Tom Delay ....

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 16:35|| 2005-12-16 16:35|| Front Page Top

#44 please don't feed the dinosaurs.

Posted by 2b 2005-12-16 16:35|| 2005-12-16 16:35|| Front Page Top

#45 The donks are have no rutter and no spine. They will make '06 and '08 a cake walk for the Repubs.

Posted by Captain America 2005-12-16 16:38|| 2005-12-16 16:38|| Front Page Top

#46 LA, If the Iraqis need to start taking responsibility for their own country soon, how about the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Hatians, and the Kosovars?

#32 GJ:

Can you be more specific in your question?

It was a rephrase of your #13. I presume you knew what that meant. Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, and Kosovo are countries, or areas, we have conquered militarily and are in various stages of nation building. We still have troops in all of them. If we should leave Iraq after 3 years because it's time for them to start taking responsibility for their own country, and soon, how about these slackers we've been in for 10-60 years?

Posted by Greter Jolutch2588 2005-12-16 17:10|| 2005-12-16 17:10|| Front Page Top

#47 G.J.

Which one of those countries attacked the U.S.
on 9-11-01 and which one of them is being debated on as in this site as part of President Bush's War on Terror?

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 17:16|| 2005-12-16 17:16|| Front Page Top

#48 LA, Great logic. Doe this mean the Iraqis no longer need to take responsibility for their own country and soon or that Germany,Japan, Italy, Haiti and Kosovo somehow get a pass?

Posted by Omererong Cromotch3860 2005-12-16 17:21|| 2005-12-16 17:21|| Front Page Top

#49 answer the question, I posed.

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 17:23|| 2005-12-16 17:23|| Front Page Top

#50 49 posts, nice work, troll

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-16 17:26|| 2005-12-16 17:26|| Front Page Top

#51 LA (if you aren't really Aris), After you answer #30

Posted by Greter Jolutch2588 2005-12-16 17:29|| 2005-12-16 17:29|| Front Page Top

#52 frank g.

the only troll in here is YOU.

the question posed is irrevelant to the debate.
President Bush isnt being pressured to get the military out of any of those countries nor is he
losing ground politically because of whats going on in any other country other than Iraq. In which one of his last 4 speeches did he address any of those countries? What country is the central debate in congress going on about. Is it one of those? this is too damn funny.

In other words: STAY ON TOPIC. LOL

Posted by Left Angle 2005-12-16 17:31|| 2005-12-16 17:31|| Front Page Top

#53 Troll. Even Aris isn't this obtuse.

Posted by Greter Jolutch2588 2005-12-16 17:41|| 2005-12-16 17:41|| Front Page Top

#54 The dolt is today's Rantburg Chew Toy. For now, he's kinda funny...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-12-16 17:47|| 2005-12-16 17:47|| Front Page Top

#55 the "arguments and talking points" have all been shot down and recycled here so many times they've lost all flavor. I vote for High School wannabe Dem Club President off for Christmas break

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-16 17:55|| 2005-12-16 17:55|| Front Page Top

#56 except almost all prominent Dems support Israel.

Lotsa qualifiers there. "Almost all", "prominent".

The Democrats are the party of McKinney. They're the party that passed anti-semitic crap around inside their party headquarters.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-12-16 19:01|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-12-16 19:01|| Front Page Top

#57 Left Angle is so far out of his/her league that we need to take up a collection for day care expenses:

#7: "All of the major polls show this and yet repubs stick to a failing policy?""
Policy by poll is so... Clintonesque. Only suited to lowly moral relativists. As for failing, you'd have to ask millions and millions of Iraqi voters about that.

#10: "So you seem to think that the republican hold on congress & the whitehouse is a permanent thing?"
Well, if Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Gore and Kerry are the best you can do -- yes.

#13: "Iraqis need to start taking over the responsibility for their country and they need to start doing it soon."
Where do you get your news? Iraqis approved a constitution and they just voted in large numbers. And haven't you noticed that the Iraqi police are taking heavier losses than we are. It's not because they're killing time.

#29: "How many people voted for Democrat Senator Kerry in the last prez election against those who voted for President Bush and what is the percentage in regards to the previous democratic total of V.P. gore vs bush. did the percentage of democratic votes increase or decrease?"
You're sort of ignoring the big picture: Bush won both times and by a wider margin the second time. Get over it.

#47: "Which one of those countries attacked the U.S. on 9-11-01..."
I take it you wanted to leave history out of this, but no doubt you'll flip any minute now and reference the "Vietnam quagmire."

#52: "the question posed is irrevelant to the debate"
ROTFL! My, that's a convenient way to duck a serious discussion! The troops are still in Germany and South Korea and many other places for good reason, yet your ilk insist that we evacuate Iraq and would then blame Bush for the retreat.

Left Angle can't be Aris -- Aris is arrogant and informed and logical. Left Angle is just arrogant.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-16 19:34|| 2005-12-16 19:34|| Front Page Top

#58 don't bother RC. Liberalhawk would rather let the democratic party sew yellow stars on him than he would acknowledge that the left has become dangerously anti-semetic and talks out of both sides of their mouth regarding Israel and the Jews.

There were rank and file activists who were anti-Israel back in the 1970's. Somehow by the time such folks reach the House (IF they do) they change. Its not a generational thing as you imply - its a loony activist vs sane party boss thing.

yeah, that's right liberalhawk. Just the free-spirits of youth. None of it's real. Go put your head back in the sand, because history has shown if you just pretend anti-semitism doesn't exist, it will go away.

Posted by 2b 2005-12-16 19:47|| 2005-12-16 19:47|| Front Page Top

#59 President Bush isnt being pressured to get the military out of any of those countries..

Ha...haahahaaa....HAAHAHHAHAHAHA....HAAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!

You're kidding, right?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-16 21:47|| 2005-12-16 21:47|| Front Page Top

23:46 Red Dog
23:45 jules 2
23:43 Silentbrick
23:37 CrazyFool
23:20 SR-71
23:06 jules 2
23:05 jules 2
22:50 jules 2
22:44 AzCat
22:34 Oldspook
22:33 AzCat
22:26 Oldspook
22:21 DMFD
22:11 Penguin
22:11 Ebbinetle Sholumble1110
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Captain America
21:53 twobyfour
21:52 RG
21:47 Bomb-a-rama
21:44 Barbara Skolaut
21:03 trailing wife
20:56 Santa
20:53 Red Dog