<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BREAKING: CIRESI ON THE RADIO</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mnpublius.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mnpublius.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/</link>
	<description>Tracking Minnesota Politics Since 2005</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kerosene Hat</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-6129</link>
		<dc:creator>Kerosene Hat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://s23139.gridserver.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/#comment-6129</guid>
		<description>There seem to be two possible reasons for the Democrats continuing to fund the war.  One is they want to string out the war as long enough to have it be the deciding factor in the next election.  If they cut off funding and and forced the issue now it would give them an active policy which they would have to defend rather than simply be "against the war".

The second possibility is that they don't really think getting out quickly is the best idea because of the chaos that could follow.  Imagine if troops were being removed because funding were cut off and violence like the recent bombing that killed hundreds of a religious minority escalated.  Would a situation like the Sudan or Rwanda elicit  calls to send in the military to stop it?

Iraq was a terrible decision and there are no good answers at this point.  The Democrats know this and are taking a pass on making a decision until they can get elected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There seem to be two possible reasons for the Democrats continuing to fund the war.  One is they want to string out the war as long enough to have it be the deciding factor in the next election.  If they cut off funding and and forced the issue now it would give them an active policy which they would have to defend rather than simply be &#8220;against the war&#8221;.</p>
<p>The second possibility is that they don&#8217;t really think getting out quickly is the best idea because of the chaos that could follow.  Imagine if troops were being removed because funding were cut off and violence like the recent bombing that killed hundreds of a religious minority escalated.  Would a situation like the Sudan or Rwanda elicit  calls to send in the military to stop it?</p>
<p>Iraq was a terrible decision and there are no good answers at this point.  The Democrats know this and are taking a pass on making a decision until they can get&nbsp;elected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charley</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-6128</link>
		<dc:creator>Charley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://s23139.gridserver.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/#comment-6128</guid>
		<description>With Bush's handling of the war putting his polling numbers in the toilet, it's not particularly brave to come out against the war in Iraq.  Real bravery would be Ciresi declaring that he himself would vote to end the war by voting against its funding.  I certainly haven't heard Mike Ciresi say that so far.

I am completely certain, on the other hand, that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer would consistently vote against any further occupation funding.  That sort of gutsy stand shows the difference between blaming someone else for a problem and taking your own bold steps to solve the problem yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With Bush&#8217;s handling of the war putting his polling numbers in the toilet, it&#8217;s not particularly brave to come out against the war in Iraq.  Real bravery would be Ciresi declaring that he himself would vote to end the war by voting against its funding.  I certainly haven&#8217;t heard Mike Ciresi say that so far.</p>
<p>I am completely certain, on the other hand, that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer would consistently vote against any further occupation funding.  That sort of gutsy stand shows the difference between blaming someone else for a problem and taking your own bold steps to solve the problem&nbsp;yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nitro</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/comment-page-1/#comment-6130</link>
		<dc:creator>Nitro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://s23139.gridserver.com/2007/08/breaking-ciresi-on-the-radio/#comment-6130</guid>
		<description>I love a good race, and that's just what this is between Mike and Al. I think it's just great.

Those ads will get some response.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love a good race, and that&#8217;s just what this is between Mike and Al. I think it&#8217;s just great.</p>
<p>Those ads will get some&nbsp;response.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.447 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2009-01-09 16:31:57 -->
