Al Franken wrote an op-ed in yesterday’s Star Tribune that, in my humble opinion, absolutely eviscerated Senator Coleman and his ad attacking Franken. More than that, however, Franken captured exactly how I feel about this whole MoveOn nonsense and returned the attention to what’s actually important: this disastrous war and how we’re going to get out. Franken’s dead-on here and I know this will resonate with more Minnesotans than a ridiculous ad about a ridiculous ad. I tried for a while to just pick some excerpts to post, but the whole thing is so damn good I gave up. So, here’s the whole thing [emphasis mine]:
I’m a satirist by trade. And as a satirist, my job was to point out the absurd, the hypocritical, the ridiculous in life.
It’s been a banner week for ridiculous.
Case in point: On Tuesday, Sen. Norm Coleman took out an ad in this paper criticizing me for criticizing a Senate resolution that criticized MoveOn.org for taking out an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus.
It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end. And it’s doubly ridiculous that Coleman, of all people, is still playing politics with this issue.
After all, he voted last week against a resolution that condemned personal attacks on anyone who had served our nation honorably. That would include Democrats like Max Cleland, John Kerry and John Murtha — proud American veterans who were the targets of political attacks not just on their character, but on their patriotism. In 2004, when Murtha (a Silver Star winner) called for better armor for our troops, Coleman himself accused him of “emboldening the enemy” and “undermining the morale of our troops.”And as his reelection campaign gets underway, it’s worth noting that Coleman has hired the same media consultant who ran ads in Georgia that juxtaposed pictures of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden.
I guess now it’s my turn to be attacked. I’ve been to Iraq four times to visit our troops; I know the incredible sacrifice our men and women in uniform make every day in service to our nation. But Norm Coleman is who he is — so he’s accusing me of “undermining our troops.”
Frankly, I’m used to this kind of smear — it’s what happens when you speak truth to power in George W. Bush’s America. But I think Minnesotans have had enough of this kind of political gamesmanship. As I go around the state, I don’t hear a whole lot about ads in the New York Times. What I do hear is that Minnesotans want this war to end, and that if this president won’t end it, they want the Senate to force him to end it.
There are more than 160,000 troops currently serving in Iraq. We should honor their service by providing them with the best possible medical care when they return. We should honor their sacrifice by refusing to allow this president to keep them there in the middle of a civil war. And we should honor them by taking seriously the difficult debate about the best way, or at least the least bad way, to end our engagement in Iraq.
Bush and his allies in Washington have blocked increases to veterans’ benefits, refused to be held accountable for the mistakes that ruined our military’s efforts in Iraq, and dodged every effort to bring our troops home. Instead of solutions, Norm Coleman offers political games and pointless attacks.
As a satirist, I find the whole thing ridiculous. But as a Minnesotan who wants to bring the troops home, I also find it sad.
Read in front of a crowd of average Minnesotans that would get a huge standing ovation.
A read of “The Truth With Jokes” is a quite eye awakening read, his book explains what went wrong with the Kerry campaign and also shows an acute understanding of just what needs to be said and done to defeat those who win on lies and half truths.
Character assasination has suddenly taken a turn for the worse for the Republican party, as the Craigs and Vitters and mistakes and obvious spin of their party make them seem, frankly, unaccountable and incompetent.
Truth to power is what we must think to ourselves with every breath we take, as politically active Democrats. Anyone who falls outside the lines of truth, regardless of party, should not have our support. That will be the rights undoing. They do not sacrifice in a time of war. They reward the rich and punish the poor. America should offer equality for all, regardless of income.
What do you call 93 Republicans and 7 Democrats at a brothel?
A bipartisan scandal.
pwnd!
Hey Matt! Did you read todays LTE? Angry Al got PW3ND by the readers of his OP-ED..ouch!
So, Nitro, will you vote for Hillary if she get the nomination or Amy K next time around? I truly appreciate you sentiment on holding both parties accountable and am curious how bad a Democrat has to be before they loose your support.
Swiftee — I would hardly call two letters (one of which objected only to Franken’s attempts at humor) a mass movement. Not much of an “ouch” there, I’m afraid.
Well I sent Al some money after this!
Is nice to see someone with spine.
As a satrist, its a great op-ed piece, and states the issue well.
As a Senate candidate, I just worry when the front-running nominee is self-branding as a form of entertainer.
I have not been pro Al running, but he’s really been very impressive. His intelligence and, well, frankness in this era is very refreshing. We got a fundraising letter that you know he actually wrote himself.
Maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Larry Craig could be catagorized as a performance artist. David Vitter is an avid art patron. A patron of the art of selling tail, but an art patron none-the-less. Mitch McConnell entertains us all with his performance piece, “Obstructionist on a Hot Tin Roof”. And of course we cannot leave out the hilarious antics of our president performing his classic routines, “I’m not literate but I’m the leader of the free world.” and “I’m a deserter and I’ll send young men and women to death and dismemberment in a war I started based on lies.” And who could forget, “Leave no tree behind.” I hear he’s coming out with a new one act, “I didn’t veto enormous tax cuts for the wealthy but poor children are not going to get health care on my watch.” See, being an entertainer is not such a bad thing. It’s the audience you attract, that’s the key.
Swiftee is impressed by 2 possible RW operatives (in all likelihood) writing letters to the editor about Franken’s excellent op ed.
Its reasonably obvious in the comment about “satirists” that at least one letter was somebody appointed to write one. Tsk, tsk - attack strategy?
Big whup, Swiftee. LOL
I can’t fricken wait for Franken and Coleman to debate!!
Um, wasn’t Ronald Reagan an entertainer?
I’ve seen “Bedtime for Bonzo”, it’s hard to classify that as entertainment.
The Dumpster Queen endorses Angry Al.
“I have not been pro Al running, but he’s really been very impressive.”
Will Ken
WeinerAvidor be doing a photoshop to commemorate the moment?I don’t actually know what that means, so I’m just going to, um, move on and say Richard, you are a prince.
Tom Swift quotes commenter Eva and attributes the quote to me:
“I have not been pro Al running, but he’s really been very impressive.”
Failed School Board candidate and embarrassment to the Republican Party Tom Swift (aka Swiftee) attributes commenter “Eva’s” comments to me (Eva Young). We are different people. I don’t know the Eva who posts here using just her first name.
Tom Swift has never been known for his logic. A commenter named Tom could very easily comment in support of Al Franken. Does that mean that Tom Swift (who comments as Swiftee) supports Al Franken.
Eva Young (aka Lloydletta)
Lloydletta’s Nooz http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
Ah, well, I see. My sister in Eva-ness is the Dumpster Queen? Always a pleasure to be able to discuss things intelligently.
One of the things that impressess me about the right-wingers who comment on these blogs is how kind they are. The sort of pepole who vote to deny health insurance to poor kids,and send other people’s kids to war but won’t pay for their body armor.
That op-ed actually changed my mind about Franken. I wasn’t sure about him before, but now he has my vote. I’ll be sending him a few bucks for his campaign.
Matt,
If the war is disastrous and is going as bad as all of you say that it is, why did Hillary, Obama and Edwards all say that they can’t promise troops will be out of Iraq even by the end of their first TERM???? That’s December of 2012 for crying out loud! Only Bill Richardson promised that he would have troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009.
Actually it’s January 20, 2013. Why don’t the leading Democrats running for President promise to remove troops from Iraq immediately?
Eva - Failed School Board Candidate Tom Swift refers to me as the Dumpster Queen because I started the Dump Michele Bachmann blog:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com
Eva Young
Will Ken Weiner Avidor be doing a photoshop to commemorate the moment?
Ken Weiner Avidor says no.
Al Franken is amazing. His op-ed only confirms this. I strongly feel he should be our nominee and I have no doubt if given the chance he will beat Coleman come 2008.
Ah, a noble pursuit to be sure.
All I know is that if Broom Wellstone is not elected, we are all in for hardships.
Either way I could careless, just letting ya know.
Wellstone 2008
Keep up the good work Broom
Chris,
This war IS awful, but at least the most moderate democratic proposal has us leaving some day, unlike Bush! Would I prefer it to be sooner? Hell yes, Immediately? Damn straight. Will that happen? Probably not.
Bush wants to position things so it will be almost impossible to withdraw, and then if a Democratic President does remove the U.S. from Iraq it will be the Democrats fault in the right wing revisionist history that we “lost Iraq” when the war was lost the minute we invaded.
Your talking points are weak, your logic flawed and your President is a buffoon who is more concerned with his place in history than the wasted lives of our brave men and women and the deaths of untold numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians.
The Iraq war isn’t a war on terror, it’s a war on sanity! We must allow hundreds or thousands more soldiers to die because we allowed thousands of soldiers to die? How does that make any sense?
Rick, why do you hate America, our troops, puppies and kittens?
“I don’t know the Eva who posts here using just her first name.”
There’s *two* of you??
(head explodes)Gaaa!(/head explodes)
Promises, promises.
Rick,
Your response is pretty lame to say the least. If Americans are wholeheartedly opposed to the war, the Democratic candidates for President should propose to end the war within 6 months of taking office. They aren’t making that pledge. That’s not Bush’s fault either. You did hit the nail on the head about one thing, whether you realize it or not. The Democrats want the war to end before Bush leaves office so they can blame him for losing the war. But when they take office, they won’t end the war - not even within four more years of it. It’s more than apparent that Democrats are playing politics with the war and that might explain why Reid and Pelosi’s approval ratings are half of Bush’s.
My post is lame? This from the king of lameness, Sir Lamelot the Lame,
Mr.Lamey McLameyson.
Who’s playing politics with the war? Do you read any of the national polls. EVERY MAJOR POLL SAYS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE OPPOSED TO THE IRAQ WAR!
If not for cloture in the Senate and the veto authority of the President the troops would be home and you know it.
Oh yeah. almost forgot, Chris = Tool.
Richard,
For the record, love America, love puppies, respect and admire the troops. Do hate cats though, nobodies perfect.:-)
rick,
I thought you were more intelligent than to blame Republicans for not stopping the war. Congress can refuse to appropriate another dollar for the war. It takes a simple majority to vote spending up or down. And there are no cloture votes on budget bills. The Democrats control both houses and it would be easy to say no more funding for the war. You claim the American people are so opposed to the war. Wouldn’t it be in the interests of Democrats to not fund it.
And you still didn’t answer the question: Why do Hillary, Obama and Edwards all say that they cannot be certain troops will be out of Iraq by January 20, 2013?
Why is it surprising that Democrats don’t have the political will to end the war when they didn’t have the political will to oppose the war authorization?
Everything Congressional Democrats have done over the last five years in regard to the war has been politically calculated; they have allowed the polls to guide their actions. If they pursued what they wanted to do — which is to pull out immediately — the political fall-out would be enormous, which is why the Congressional Democrats are content to let this issue languish until the next President enters office.
My prediction is that there will be a significant number U.S, troop in Iraq throughout the first term of whichever person is next elected President. Leaving will not be easy no matter what the status is of the Iraqi state. The only thing that scares the Democrats more than supporting the war is pulling out our forces and having the blood-bath that some predict come true. All of those who support immediate withdrawal should simply understand it won’t, can’t and shouldn’t happen and try to figure out the next best alternative. How about dividing up the country, helping to police the boarders let each group find its own path. I say all of this as somebody that strongly opposed the war from the beginning and think the Bush administration has done an amazingly bad job managing the war.
KH,
I agree with you that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would be irresponsible. I also agree with you that the next President, regardless of party, will not withdraw forces in the manner and at the levels advocated by the anti-war Left because the repercussions of such a decision would be too dire. If that’s the case, then the question becomes: if the next President is a Democrat, will such a decision be accepted by the anti-war base? (I know it won’t if it’s a Republican.)
There’s an old saying, “Perfect is the enemy of good.” Nobody in Democratic party is advocating a “precipitous” withdrawl of the troops. But, a drastic change of tactics is warrented. Drawing back the troops, as the majority of Iraqis wish, and a much more vigorous diplomatic effort might have the best effect of reducing violence and give the government a chance for success. At the end of the day though, if the Iraqis choose violence and chaos over stability and peace, there’s nothing our military can do except get out of the way. If there’s a bloodbath, that blood is on the hands of all who’ve supported this war.
Chris:
Every measure that has been proposed that includes a timetable for withdrawal or any restrictions on troop levels etc has been blocked by the Republicans or vetoed by Bush. Cutting off funding is no guarantee that Bush will remove the troops. He is much more likely to leave them right where they are, Congress be damned and force Congress to appropriate the money.
The political calculation by the Democratic leadership is that cutting off the dollars will be spun by the right (as you full well know, and I suspect will crow about on this blog) that Democrats don’t support the troops. This will play into the Republican hands for 2008 and reinforce a perception that Democrats are weak on defense.
Personally I would support cutting off the funding for the Iraq war and call the bluff of the President. But I don’t make those decisions. I have however expressed my views to my elected officials.
You continue to attack the periphery of every issue and never address the issue itself. your posts are tiresome and boring. You endlessly repeat the RNC talking points that are probably emailed to you daily.
As to why some Democratic candidates don’t have a plan to get us out immediately see above.
Defend the Republican candidates plan for Iraq for a change if you can. I have told you what I would prefer, what’s you idea? How would you extract us from Iraq, if at all.
Rick,
I would have liked the surge to have been implemented about two years ago myself. There has been a change in Iraq since the surge and the change has been reflected in the views of Democrats like Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I don’t support putting unreasonable or unconstitutional restrictions on funding or forcing withdrawal. What is withdrawing from Iraq going to accomplish? Why are you so opposed to having troops fighting terrorism in Iraq yet you seem not to voice one concern that we still have troops in Bosniz after 14 years. You say I spout RNC talking points. I don’t see any talking points in the questions I raised. But you spout irrational MoveOn.org talking points. It’s pretty amazing to see you twist and turn yourself into pretzels to justify what Democrats are doing.
Richard,
As nice as it would be for those of us that were against the war from the beginning (I assume you were but hope you will correct me if I am wrong) to simply extricate ourselves from any responsibility for it’s results things don’t work that way. Our taxes paid for the bullets and bombs while the policies and votes of both parties laid the ground work for the invasion. It seems that many Democrats want to deny our communal responsibility for what has happened. It is as childish as a quarterback blaming a loss on the kicker for missing a last second field goal when the quarterback had thrown 4 interceptions. I would hope that a neo-socialist like yourself would understand this rather than simply wanting to pick up your ball and go home.
KH, of course we share responsibility but to continue the insanity of our present course would be the greater crime. It’s not out of any sense of avoiding responsibility that the anti-war movement gains momentum but an attempt to correct the idiocy of our president and his minions. This is much more important then a sporting event. And since we’re speaking of responsibility. When does the responsibility of the Iraqi people kick in? When does the responsibility of the armed forces and police that we’ve trained become important? If they don’t want peace, we can’t force it upon them. Withdrawing our forces sends the signal we’re not going to occupy Iraq longterm. 6 months to a year much of the American force can be home. In that time frame the Iraqi government can either succeed or fail. We’ve done all we can and we’ve spent all the blood we can afford.
Chris:
You still haven’t explained how we extricate ourselves from Iraq, unless of course you don’t want us to. This war was lost when Rumsfeld didn’t send in enough troops in the beginning. Their idealogical slavery to their preconceived notions of how the war would go along with a total lack of planning for the occupation along with dismissal of any ideas that didn’t fit their plan. No amount of surge now can change the facts that we simply don’t have enough troops to secure Iraq, never had, don’t have now. They don’t exist. You can’t hold a country with phantom divisions. I think Joe Biden is the only candidate that has outlined a clear plan for what is the inevitable partition of Iraq.
You bring up Bosnia, the U.N. is still there after 14 years. How is Iraq different, deeply divided religious factions fighting a civil war. However in Bosnia at least the killing and ethnic cleansing has stopped. When you create a power vacuum, as we did in Iraq, it will be filled.
Shinseki was right and he was fired by Rumsfeld and totally humiliated when Rumsy didn’t even show for his retirement ceremony, unheard of for a retiring Chief of Staff for the Defense Sec not to be there.
There is no answer to Iraq other than to declare victory and get out. Our troops have accomplished all the stated goals for entering this war, of course they were all lies so even by achieving those goals, they are stuck there. Weapons of mass destruction, weren’t there, remove Saadam, done, have elections, done. How long do we have to stay in Iraq to fulfill Bush’s fantasy of living up to the war hero that is his father? He skipped the war of his generation and now has mired in Iraq for reasons that exist in only his mind.
What is staying in Iraq going to accomplish, besides more death, more dollars, more political division, more more more and for what?
That is great, Richard. Only it contradicts completely your other statement, remember? The one about getting out of the way and letting the blood be on the hands of those that supported the war.
We should be talking about what we owe the people of Iraq at this point. What do we do for a country where we have completely destroyed most of the infrastructure, violently released decades of sectarian tension, allowed outside forces like Al Qaeda and Iran to gain a foothold, driven out the most educated and capable citizens, and killed tens of thousands of their citizens? Yes, we deposed Saddam which can give us a little credit toward our debt but we are no where near square.
If we as a country really want to do the right thing we will be spending billions on Iraq for decades. We can thank each and every Republican and Democrat that voted for the war along with anybody that did and does support those candidates. Biden, as far as I can tell, is the only candidate that begins to deal with what comes next. At least he is willing to make an effort at making up for his despicable vote to authorize the use of force.
My prediction is that there will be a significant number U.S, troop in Iraq throughout the first term of whichever person is next elected President. Leaving will not be easy no matter what the status is of the Iraqi state. The only thing that scares the Democrats more than supporting the war is pulling out our forces and having the blood-bath that some predict come true. All of those who support immediate withdrawal should simply understand it won’t, can’t and shouldn’t happen and try to figure out the next best alternative. How about dividing up the country, helping to police the boarders let each group find its own path. I say all of this as somebody that strongly opposed the war from the beginning and think the Bush administration has done an amazingly bad job managing the war.
Where, in any of the above, is any mention of rebuilding Iraq?
Rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq is required only if the Iraqis can stop their civil war. A good first step would be to appropriate the entire Bush family fortune from Sr, to Ginny and Tonic and to use that money to help with the rebuilding. A good second step would be aggressive and comprehensive investigations and oversight in the war profiteering that has gone on unchecked for the last 6 years. Thanks for that Norm.
Richard,
You always make every effort to remove yourself from any responsibility and use meaningless partisan rhetoric in place of looking at the real problems going forward. The post you refer to does in no way contradict my fallowing posts dealing with what we as a nation need to do in Iraq. My following posts expanded on the idea that we won’t, can’t and shouldn’t simply leave Iraq.
Remember, we started the civil war so to pretend that the responsibility for stopping it is all on the Iraqis is ridiculous. How we best assist is with out a doubt a complicated question that needs to be talked about but any solution will almost without question involve a lot of resources from the United States for a long time.
I agree that we should look at wasteful and fraudulent spending where ever it leads and prosecute any and all illegal activity. Your comment about the Bush family is of course ridiculous and petty unless you want to include the Clinton, Edwards, and other fortunes controlled by those that voted for the war. I for one could get behind that idea without much problem. I like the idea of holding elected officials responsible for the disasters they create as it would keep them from doing much at all.
In the end the grand standing proposals you talk about don’t really do much to solve the problem because the money that you are talking about is tiny in comparison to the need. They do little other than help Democrats feel better about themselves by distracting from their own responsibilities in Iraq. The same kind rationalization that causes you to bring up Coleman’s role in oversight while completely ignoring any Democratic culpability at any stage in the Iraq fiasco.
Simply leaving Iraq has never been proposed. You blithly claim you’re opposed to that as if anybody has suggested it to prop up you’re strawman. Removing the troops quickly and orderly has been suggested and it has enough chance of reducing violence as increasing it. That’s entirely up to the Iraqis. Our military has done all it can. Leaving these forces in country will only result in more US and Iraqi dead. Removing them will have the effor of telling the Iraqis, “Peace or violence, it’s all up to you.”
Richard,
Many people on this blog have suggested pulling out of Iraq quickly. Many candidates have implied that we should in the same way Bush implies it is part of some War on Terror. After stating that no one says we should leave quickly your next sentence says we should leave quickly. Or at least I assume that is what you mean if our military has done all it can and that our being there will only cause more Iraqi dead. If there is any straw man here Richard, it is, as usual, you. It continues to amaze me how willfully ignorant you are when it comes to the responsibilities and mistakes of your own party.
we started the civil war so to pretend that the responsibility for stopping it is all on the Iraqis is ridiculous.
It’s not ridiculous to insist they stop blowing each other up, especially when we get blown up with either side.
Quickly and orderly are the words I’ve used. I’ve also said as soon as possible. I haven’t said simply leave, those are your words. Also cut and run, those are the words of your masters. Prove to me with facts and figures please the fear you and the republicans have that there will be a substantial increase in violence when we leave. That’s really only one possibility. As likely as a decrease in violence. What’s most likely is violence at the same level. If that’s the case then our presence is doing exactly what? School me please. I know your screed on “both party’s at fault but the Democrats are worse because they blah blah blah” so please leave that off. While we’re at it. You stated where the Democrats were culpable in the lack of oversight over the last 6 years. Tell me please all the comittee chairs that were Democrat prior to 2004?
Richard,
As no matter how much you seem to want to make me a Republican it just isn’t going to happen. I seems you have a much easier time when things are given to you in simple packages so you can react as you are told but fortunately the real world doesn’t work that way.
The reason I personally fear that the withdrawal of our troop in even aquick and orderly fashion may cause additional problems is looking at history. Our occupation is the latest chapter of western imperialism that has caused the current state of inequity and oppression in Iraq. When we look at what has happened in other areas when the oppression is removed there is often long and bloody conflicts that last decades. This has been true in most of Africa, ex-soviet-block areas like Yugoslavia and Chechnya, a number of countries in south east Asia, etc.. I truly hope that that will not be the case in Iraq but we have to be prepared if it is and agree as a nation what our response will be. Europe often left destruction in the wake of their imperialism and have mostly refused to acknowledge what they owe many of the affected areas. I think we need to do better.
You say I mentioned Democratic culpability specifically in oversight during the last six years when I said no such thing. I did say “The same kind rationalization that causes you to bring up Coleman’s role in oversight while completely ignoring any Democratic culpability at any stage in the Iraq fiasco.” where I talk about you inability to accept your parties culpability “at any stage in the Iraq fiasco”. It seems that the only way you can make a point Richard is to simply make things up. You must be a politician or at least work for one in order to be so fundamentally dishonest.
Yes, Republicans as a whole are more responsible for the war than Democrats. They are also far more responsible for the mismanagement of the war than Democrats. I have on this blog (and MDE) stated such to Chris or any other pro-war Republican. The problem I have with the Democrats is the variation of what they to how they have voted, do vote and will vote.
“The same kind rationalization that causes you to bring up Coleman’s role in oversight while completely ignoring any Democratic culpability at any stage in the Iraq fiasco.”
Any stage of the Iraqi fiasco means the oversight stage.
The problem I have with the Democrats is the variation of what they to how they have voted, do vote and will vote. ???
Richard,
Why is it that none of the front runners of the Democratic Presidential contest are proposing to get out of Iraq in FOUR YEARS, let alone six months or less????
Chris,
“Why is it that none of the front runners of the Democratic Presidential contest are proposing to get out of Iraq in FOUR YEARS, let alone six months or less????”
Because the quagmire the Republican party misled us into is so fucked up we’re going to be stuck there for years if we don’t significantly change the strategy, pally, and the way it’s been going we won’t be able to change much untril we boot your party’s sorry asses out!
Just as an example of what a real change in strategy would be, one idea would be reinstalling the draft, then kicking out all the private contarctors, then send in enough troops to actually win the war, then get the fuck out when we’re done with this bullshit.
But, of course, if we pull out the contractors, they lose money, and the economy-on-a-credit card collapses, right?
You righties are going to be paying for this for many, many years down the road past 2008, no matter who wins, face it. You people are backed into a corner and are totally screwed. The tragedy is, along with you, the American people are also screwed. We’re ALL going to have to pay for YOUR bullshit for many many years.
Keep trying to smear and spin, Chris O’Reilly. The only people you’re spinning and smearing anymore are people like you.
Nitro,
I love how you talk about smear and spin when you are the biggest smear merchant that posts on this website. Your obscene language and name calling is as big of a joke as the fallacious claims you make. Whenever you call me names, I know I’m winning the debate because it shows you cannot come up with a logical response to my argument.
You are demanding that we pull out of Iraq tomorrow yet none of the frontrunners in your party think that’s a good idea. I wonder if you will support them next year if they can’t promise to be out of Iraq.
You say Iraq is a quagmire. If Democrats believe that’s true, isn’t it a good reason to get out within six months of a new administration? You say Republicans misled us to get into Iraq. Funny how Hillary Clinton voted for Iraq and has voted to stay in Iraq and makes no promise to get out of Iraq in FOUR YEARS. Who is misleading us?
Nitro, I’m sorry the truth angers you off this much, but sometimes the truth hurts. And the truth is that we’re going to be in Iraq for the indefinite future because it’s in our interests to be there.
P.S. Nitro,
Your idea about Iraq: ie. reinstating the draft and kicking out contractors has been rejected by all serious military leaders in our country. Your idea is no idea. You flunked military strategy so try again.
Chris,
“You are demanding that we pull out of Iraq tomorrow yet none of the frontrunners in your party think that’s a good idea.”
I am? When did I do that.
“Your idea about Iraq: ie. reinstating the draft and kicking out contractors has been rejected by all serious military leaders in our country.”
Like whom? Can you give me some examples of who’s rejected that?
Don’t you want the cook, or the mail sorter, or any American in Iraq to be trained to pick up a gun and use it if they have to?
What about the salaries of the private contractors vs. what we pay our troops? Our troops are protecting people that are making many times what their salaries are. How do the troops feel about that?
What about having our military having to protect civilians in a war zone? What about the missing billions of taxpayer dollars handled by these contractors that has disappeared? Is there any accountability, or is that just too embarassing for righties to discuss?
What about any strategy at all that is not simply using Iraq as a divisive issue used to win elections? Do you know how to even think about Iraq in those terms?
Quit being such a closed minded one dimensional reptile brain for once, and actually think, Chris O’Reilly.
But you won’t, you can’t, you must spin-to-win, by trying to paint Democrats with your brand new theme of “none of the front runners of the Democratic Presidential contest are proposing to get out of Iraq in FOUR YEARS, let alone six months or less” as a bad thing.
You know what, maybe it’s time to think about intelligently getting out of Iraq, not throwing around desparate smear attempts to win elections. Maybe there’s a lot of Democrats who think we need to pull out in a manner that doesn’t cause undue harm to Iraq. Maybe that takes some time, Chris O’Reilly.
But the bottom line here is, I used my scenerio as an EXAMPLE, not saying that’s what we have to do. You ignored that fact so you could spin what I said, as you always try to do. You do that to everyone you disagree with here, you spin them, distort what they say, and try to win arguments that way. Your leadership has taught you well. The lies, they trickle down to the bottom don’t they.
We Democrats have a pretty big umbrella. That’s not at all like the Republicans, who think and say exactly the same thing as all their pundits do. That’s what you’re not understanding here, Chris O’Reilly. In the arena of ideas, the more creativity and open mindedness, the better.
It’s up to us to find leadership who will actually listen to us all, and our ideas, and decide what is best, rather than only listen to a few and ignore eveyone else.
Richard,
“The problem I have with the Democrats is the variation of what they to how they have voted, do vote and will vote.” Should have read, the problem I have with the Democrats is the variation of what they SAY to how they have voted, do vote and will vote. If you need me to let you know how the Democrats have been complicit in the war you simply haven’t been paying attention. They didn’t need to be on a committee to be complicit. Anything from voting for the initial authorization, which was as shameful an act as I can imagine, to their repeated votes for funding without any conditions. Their double talk about wanting to bring our forces back while having no plan for how to do that in a responsible manor (Biden the possible exception).
The incompetence and cowardice displayed by those votes are matched only for their support for the other “war on terror” B.S. like the Patriot Act. Even if their votes wouldn’t have changed the outcome they needed to make them rather than play politics with our constitution and the lives of our military personel. Now they are stuck defending bad policy because they voted for it. In the end they are, like most Republicans, more worried about getting elected than doing the right thing. Hell, I doubt most politicians or their supporters can tell the difference between right and wrong any more. They simply react to the polls and do as they are told. Kinda like you Richard.
You’re right KH, I get my marching orders directly from the DNC and you’ve discovered me. Now, having established you’re right and I’m wrong, let’s pay for it. I would like to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts and add to that a 50% increase in the income tax rates for the top 10% wage earners. Of course we’re going to have cut way back spending on the military and close most of our bases. Corporate rates are going to have to go way up as well. Capital gains taxes will be a moot point because all cap gains is going to be appropriated, going directly into the war coffers. Oh yeah, every 18 to 25 year old is going into the military, no exceptions.
You continue to prove my point by changing the subject each time you have no answer. You have already show yourself to be from the socialist authoritarian wing of the Democratic party so your stances on economic issues are no in question.
I’d be all for drastic reductions in military spending right away. As for forcing every child into some sort of slave labor without any true threat to our boarders I will have to assume that is the pro-war fascist in you coming out again since the harder it is to recruit soldiers the harder it is to fight a war. If you are worried about the children poor being killed in Iraq in numbers disproportionate to those of the wealthy I suggest a rout other than slavery. How about we pay them well? How about as much or more than the private contractors for places like Blackwater. Making the war more expensive to fight and forcing us to pay for it as it happens will reduce the chances of us doing this again.
Paying for our mistakes will demand the complete redesign of our tax code along with drastic reductions in federal spending in all areas. Enough of the corporate and personal pork that gets people elected. Let’s create a tax code that is simple enough that people can understand so it won’t end up the corrupt mess we currently have. Get rid of the income tax and go with a national sales tax that exempts all food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses under a certain dollar amount. Toss in a contract tax of around 25% that would make a contract legally binding in the federal courts. Add to those a constitutional amendment that limits federal spending to the income from the previous year and we would start to see some accountability from Washington. I know you probably won’t like these because they wouldn’t give you or your favorite politicians the power to punish you enemies while enriching your friends.
All that along The steps you mention are more of the same crap that got us to where we are today. Oversimplification, bigotry and demonization of businesses and anybody that makes money from investments will not get us anywhere other than further in debt. That and all of your ideas would be laughed at by any economic scientist with any current amount of respectability. They are nothing more than political fear tactics. Socialists tend to use corporations like the neo-cons uses terrorism.
Maybe you should join the far right Republicans and start some sort of authoritarian party. You can combine love you have for slavery, manual labor and high taxes with the war mongering of the far right. It’s a match made in heaven.
KH,
I think Richard was being somewhat sarcastic in his most recent comment.
Nitro,
I don’t think so. He has answered question about international trade, economics and other subjects in very similar ways. If he was I would be more than happy to retract my comments regarding his views.
I’m really not changing the subject, looking for a little more meat on the topic. You want to stay in Iraq, you better have a plan to pay for it. I want out of Iraq so all I have to pay for are a bunch of tickets home. I really do feel bad for the Iraqi people but I am a firm believer in the historical maxim, “People get exactly the kind of government they deserve.” Saddam stayed in power because the Iraqis would not throw him out. The civil war in Iraq rages on because the Iraqi people not only allow it but facilitate it. Bush is the most incompetent, corrupt president in US history. On that point, I think we agree. He needs to be held criminally liable for launching the war in Iraq. I think we agree on that as well. Democratic culpability is certainly there but not nearly to the level that the Republicans share responsiblility for letting their man run roughshod over any and all congressional oversight. And lastly, I was being sarcastic but I wouldn’t dream of having you retract a thing. That rant is absolutely precious.
I’m sure Cris will be happy to know you are in favor of leaving the Bush tax cuts in place.
Oh no, but that’s fodder for another thread perhaps. I am all in favor of the latest tax surcharge to pay for the war. A war tax will help get some shared responsibility discussions going. 15% tax on the wealthy to pay for the war is a start but not nearly enough.
Richard,
I have an idea - since liberals are supporting expanding the SCHIP program to families making over $80,000 a year, let’s tax liberals 15% to pay for it.
The war in Iraq is about $150 million a year. The federal budget is $2.9 trillion. If you’re concerned about deficits, maybe Congress should spend less in other areas.
I’m all for the war surcharge tax as long as it pays for nothing but the war and that it ends when the war ends. It is always best to make costs of our governments actions as transparent and direct as possible.
And Chris, even if you meant to say $150 billion a year instead of million your estimate is low. More recent estimates are around $200 billion of direct costs and do not include the on going expenses of caring for returning veterans or any ongoing aid to Iraq.
Chris,
The Iraq war is costing us 177 million per DAY.
Chris,
You fell for the $80,000 mislead. You are either completely gullible or intentionally misleading. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/83000-schip/
President Bush opposes largesse to wealthy Americans? Since when?