U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 07, 2007 06:37 PM UTC
100 Comments
Here’s what I like about Salazar’s stance. One, it shows, again, he isn’t a hard-left peacewreath hippie (great phrase) and he represents our voices well by staying in the center. Two, he recognizes that partisanship is not helping. Three, his prescient instincts are correct, the Dems must not overreach.
Work the problem. Work the issue. Stop the war.
As far as Tupa and Gordon’s little resolution, I’m sure it will echo through the hallowed halls of DC, like a loud fart, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
You say “Work the problem. Work the issue. Stop the war.”
I guess I wonder how you see this playing out. Bush does not want to stop the war. How is Congress going to convince him by promising him exactly want he wants (as much funding as he asks for, forever) up front?
My initial, gut reaction is that Salazar is much smarter than the leaders of his party and the wingnuts on the left.
Will Senator Udall make the same declaration? If he does, we won’t need to hold an election.
If he does, what will Senator Schaffer declare?
Working the problem means making constructive suggestions on how to better execute the war and end the insurgency. But ending the insurgency is going to be even harder now that the Shiite leader has declared war on America.
The big question is how Senator Clinton will vote on funding the war. This week’s profile of her in The New Republic suggests she’s going to have a hard time deciding whether to act like a president or a thoughtless candidate appealing to the wackos backing Obama and Edwards.
At this point, I’d say there’s a 60% chance she’ll go wacko lefty.
and read this:
Is this what you want to fund? Is this how to “win”? Is this how you support our troops?
OK, you can put your blinders back on.
Our troops are lucky. They get rotations home. How many of our soldiers got rotations home during previous wars. Very few. Big improvment, wouldn’t you say?
Name me the war where any military force believed it was well-armed and trained.
Name me the war where 16 were wounded for every person killed in action? In previous wars, the ratio was 1:1 or 2:1. This is a cheap war in terms of the number killed.
Name me the war where we were fighting a world attack on our country and culture and on our soil as well as around the world, despite traitors who encouraged our enemies hourly.
Name me a war where the stakes were greater than they are today, where the last resort was the surrender to religious terrorists who wanted to change our way of life and rule the war. Why is this war less important than WW I and WW II or the Cold War.
You can’t answer, I’m sure.
Rotations home – this has become more common recently as transportation has become faster and cheaper. Troops were rotated out of the line even back in the Civil War and it was scheduled in WWII.
In Vietnam troops had rotations and then were moved back to the US or Europe. So rotations are now standard, for us and every other 1st world country.
As to believing it was well armed and well trained – how about Iraq I? And when VIetnam started the army thought it would walk over the Vietnamese. Same for Granada, Panama, Haiti, & Kosovo.
In WWII the ratio was between 5 and 10 wounded for each killed. The ratio is even better now but you have to go back to the Civil War to get 2 wounded for each killed.
So yes, medical technology is improving and they are moving the surgery up to the front lines. But what does saving more lives have to do with if we should be fighting?
What traitors are encouraging our enemies? If you say anyone who questions the war is a traitor then in your world-view we have given up our freedoms already and then what are we fighting for?
Not to mention that if you view questioning the war as traitorous then you need to call Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and many others traitors. Are you?
Stakes greater than today? The revolutionary war, the Civil war, WWII all easily much more important. We can withdraw from Iraq and concentrate on keeping the terrorists out of our country and be very successful at it. 9/11 happened because we didn’t know we are at war. Nothing since then even with the incompetent Bush administration in charge.
I’m not saying we should withdraw in every way from the Middle East but we could and civilization would continue to advance. Don’t oversell the capabilities of the terrorists.
Your casualty figures don’t jibe with those in the Wall Street Journal, but that’s ok.
As for rotations, a lot of it’s about transportation, which has improved tremendously since Vietnam, Korea and WW II.
Criticizing the war effort is needed domestically, but when the Speaker takes it upon herself to usurp the President’s role abroad and to speak for the country instead of having the President and his ambassadors do so, that’s crossing the line, especially when the views of the President and Speaker are so different.
The Speaker is making it easy for our enemies to divide and conquer.
All wars are important. This is the first one in which we are so vulnerable to attacks on our homeland, and that makes it so much more dangerous.
Ask the residents of Boston and New York in the 1770’s about the British troops quartered there.
Ask the residents of Washington DC in 1812 about how protected they were.
Ask the residents of Gettysburg about incursions in the Civil War.
Ask the residents of Hawaii how Dec 9, 1941 was. Or all the shipping sunk less than a mile off the East coast.
We’ve been vulnerable in every war.
As to Pelosi in Syria, I have yet to hear of a single thing she said that could be construed as speaking for the country. Do you have a quote?????
Were doing likewise, right?
She didn’t do anything other MOC’s haven’t done. And I think that not only is it OK, but a very good move to try to regain some of the dialogue we used to have with our enemies. Talk never hurt.
that was waged on an entirely false premise.
IKE took us in there as a means of showing support for the french. After all, IKE was close to the french since he had helped liberate them. Likewise, JFK involved his a bit more because NK WAS getting support from China and USSR. There is truth in that. Of course, JFK had just told general McNamera that we were going to pull out, and then he was shot (either piss poor time or just ….). Johnson like W. seemed to be enamoured with a war that he did not have to fight so he engaged further. Johnson moved it up based on parts of lies, and then kept us in there during his time USING lots of lies. But we did not go in because of lies.
Johnson like W. seemed to be enamoured with a war that he did not have to fight so he engaged further.
There are indeed parallels between Shrub and LBJ. This is an excellent reason why Texans should be ineligible to serve as president.
I understand the humour, but I do not quite agree. I would argue that Poppa bush was from Texas (though technically from mass), and he fought AND conducted a war in the right fashion. That is, tell all the parties why we are going to war, what we are to do, and when we are going to stop. In addition, find real experts and allow them to do the job.
I would say that LBJ, Nixon, Carter, reagan, Clinton, and w have ALL done it wrong. Nixon did a bunch wrong, but he had a few things correct on it. As much as I liked Carter, his interfering with the hostage release was his 2’nd biggest mistake (his first was appointing Miller as Federal Reserve chairman rather than volker from the git-go). reagan was a total idiot about this, and Clinton was none to bright, either (but he did far better than what the republicans give him credit for). w. and his admin are just the worse there has been
Carter interfered with the hostage situation? Wha’???????
It was Reagan and Bush that in all liklihood did that. They had no authority to negotiate with the Iranians. Carter was the president, as I recall, no?
In the attempted rescue, Carter dictated to the military what equipment they could use. He tried to limit them so that they would limit the side causalities. It is something that is nice in theory, but bad in implementation. Reagan did the same with his 2 little invasions, but it did not backfire on him. However, he pulling out of the middle east because we were attacked was a total disaster. Clinton did a carter WRT to Somalia. He tried to limit the equipment that could go in, for fear of a heavy hand. w. and his ilk now try to micromanage the military. Yet few of them have military experience (far less than JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Carter) and the few that have, were more akin to w’s ; absolutely worthless. In fact, about the only one that they had worth a hoot was Powell and his entourage. I do miss that man. he had something that w and his ilk need to learn: leadership, honour, and intelligence.
If what you say is true, I can now understand your original comments. But I also have to say that I’ve never heard of that.
It sounds like perhaps the Prez should no longer be Commander in Chief if they can’t make these kinds of decisions, no?
And then of course there is GW……..
I agree. In fact, I believe Powell is the only guy who is capable of figuring out how to “win” in Iraq right now, although it wouldn’t be pleasant.
…it was the lie of the Gulf on Tonkin alleged incident that puts it in the category of a war built on a lie.
Remember the old adage, you run to the ideological pole of your party in the primaries, then to the center in the general election.
I see a 75% chance that HRC will go wacko lefty.
We should just keep funding until we are out of money or Humvees, or ghetto kids that believed the recruiters?
This isn’t a left/right issue, although often made into one. If you just keep feeding the monster, it will just keep demanding more.
Republicrat Salazar.
Ah, I see you are still trapped in Vietnam mentality. “Ghetto kids.” Geesh, if you only knew ANYTHING about the military you would have some credibility. Give it a break. You almost sound like John (I have three purple hearts) Kerry on this rant.
but as to your last sentence, this useless little resolution won’t be loud enough to create an echo.
Salazar is either an independent who thinks like most moderate people, or a shrewd politician who knows how to maintain his edge by not alienating moderate voters.
Sen. Salazar is disappointing the wacko lefties. Poor babies.
Political change moves at its own speed and has lots of twists and turns. But I think the democrats have done better than we could have ever hoped to date. And I think they will continue to do so through the 08 election.
It’s a great & proud time to be a Democrat
The Dems have hung together and put benchmarks and deadlines in their funding. They know that they will be accused of not supporting the troops, but they have stayed tough.
Smart Dems see President Pelosi surrendering to Syria, committing a felony by visiting Syria and sounding like a billionaire who just must have that scarf, regardless of what daddy says. :shemakesTomDeLaylooksweet:
On every important national security and economic issue, the Dems are imploding so much faster than anyone could have nightmared.
Typical of the right-wing nuts
Felony or even treasonous was outing Plame. Heinous (borderline criminal) was gagging Edmunds. Based on the pleadings of the 5th, it would appear that there is numerous crimes in the ongoings of Gonzolous. High crimes is W. supporting and funding a declared terrorist group MEK.
But Pelosi going on a trip WITH other republicans is NOT felony. In fact, this goes on ALL the time. In fact, there are republicans AND dems who have visited North Korea and Iran over the last year.
Lack of knowledge seems to be a common problem for neo-con wing-nuts.
The hard left defends Pelosi’s felony by saying Republicans do it, too.
But this was a case of the Speaker of the House, the third in line for the presdency, presenting the enemy with aid and comfort, not a hack member of Congress.
The sublties may be too much for you to understand.
:patpat:
Obviously that subtleties is escaping you.
Her going there offers as much aid and comfort as having the 3rd in line of Iran or even Al Qaeda come here. After all, how would we act if Iran or Al Qaeda sent a 3’rd in line who has no real power, come her and tell us that we are screwed up, but they would like to see us straighten up our attitude? It is the exact same thing.
Sadly, you righties like to use such slander and mis-logic. BTW, I am a Libertarian and I am defending her in the same context as the other republicans that go there. You negotiate with enemies. Do you think that I am a hard core leftie? Ask a few here. They will be happy to tell you that I am further from their position than you( I just happen to agree with them WRT personal freedom). So what you really want to say is not that left wing are wackos, but that only you neo-cons have the right thinking. There that will help you with your logic.
….it’s selective amnesia with a heavy dose of hypocrisy tossed in for good measure. Once upon a time the left wing nuts were big on hypocrisy and nearly had a monopoly on it. But the times have changed and both side work it well.
The Left is so out of touch with the facts and reality.
that told a journalist that we, the Dems, are living in a reality based world. (He went on to explain how the WH creates their own, alternative reality. Explanation: lies.Z)
wishful thinking!
Kens’ has been standing a little stronger since the 2006 election. Maybe knowing you aren’t the only target of the right has helped him here.
I appreciate his stance on this – he makes it clear what Bush is doing with his false bravado and infantile bargaining tactics. A vast majority of Americans in polls support the Democratic position and goals.
Bush is harming our military and making our country less safe. It ain’t that hard to see and Ken wisely points out the obvious. The die-hard 29%-ers are in their last throes but their defiant leader Bush has yet to see reality.
Talk about a “Profile in Courage,” something the Kennedys and other Dems haven’t shown in 40 years, Bush is it.
He’s showing the guts and commitment to win the War on Islamic Terrorism, which the Dems want to call an inconvenience, and to pacify Iraq.
A majority of Americans, risk averse and intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, not to mention casualties, don’t have the same foresight nor courage. Typical.
Kennedy did not show courage? He was in WWII. He stood up to the USSR and made them back down from putting Missles in our backyard. He kept dropping the deficits from WWII. He started Peace crop and NASA.
W. barely graduated from college. He did everything he could to avoid ‘nam. He has ran up a MASSIVE deficits. He has created more terrorists in 3 short years than Al Qaeda has in 30. He has fowled up a “cake walk”. He is one of the MOST corrupt presidents we have ever had. He committed treason by outing Plame and lying about it. And you call him a profile in courage? You neo-con righties truly are whackjobs. For the sake of our nation, I only hope that the republicans LOSE huge in the next election and we can fix the damage that you have caused.
Now, the only problem is will dems elect somebody who will be a good leader AND is electable. Sadly, I am becoming convinced that few, if any, of the republicans presidential candidates are good leaders.
Read the first sentence again.
Put down the Koolaid…….that stuff is destroying your mind!
And how can you claim a committment to win the war on terror when it is prosecuted so horribly incompetently? The entire campaign in iraq has been akin to the Union fight in the battle of frediksburg in the Civil War – criminally incompetent and terribly harmful to the attacking army.
It’s not guts when you keep sending kids into the meat grinder to no effect other than to generate more terrorists.
W. is now pushing the ANTI-PIRACY on china. They think that forcing China to start shooting its citizens will help America. What is needed badly is for China to untie their money from ours. They have it at a fixed ratio that makes it impossible for us to compete against them. If it was allowed to float, then the markets would straighten out. But W. is showing his (and the republicans) normal leadership. That is absolutely none, save trying to help their own friends in high places of monster companies.
W. is absolutely spineless and the republicans lack ANY true leadership for America.
…then that’s what he would have been doing all these years instead of invading a country that was ruled by a secular dictator who was a natural enemy of the fundamentalists who despised him, Sceptic.
Before the Bush invasion there was no real AlQaeda presence in Iraq and secular, Sunni ruled Iraq was a counter to the power of Shia, religous fundamentalist ruled Iran. The Sunni Wahabi schools that bred the terrorists were funded by Saudis, not Iraqis. AlQaeda’s main operating base is now in Pakistan, not Iraq. The main source of violence in Iraq is inter and intra-sectarian violence among Sunni and Shia Iraqis, with foreign elements adding only a fraction to the equation. Oh, and the Taliban are retaking more and more of Afghanistan where we should have stayed and concentrated our efforts in the first place.
Your hero, Bush has neglected to fight the Sunni terrorists or to deal effectively with Shia Iran who both threaten us, in favor of a war of choice based on neo-con pipe dreams against the country that posed the LEAST threat. ALL the danger the situation in Iraq now poses to us and to the region is a direct consequence of Bush’s ignorance, arrogance and disdain for inconvenient facts. His war brought the terrorists he says we need to fight there in the first place, though it is hardly their main base. The Democrats who went along out of fear that the big bad righties would call them wimpy and unpatriotic if they didn’t have nothing to be proud of here either but they had no power at the time in any case. Many Democrats, especially in the house, did NOT go along.
Prior to 9/11 we were having no trouble containing the degree of threat Saddam posed, he had nothing to do with 9/11, yet Bush made only the most half-hearted effort in Afghanistan against AlQaeda before committing the lion’s share of our military and treasure to an invasion of Iraq. He was in such a hurry, he sent our troops in under-equipped, under-trained, with no plan for what to do AFTER the destruction of Saddam’s regime. In spite of what Rumsfeld so famously said, there was no pressing need to invade Iraq with “the army you have, not the army you’d like to have.” In fact there was no need at all.
As for saving the Iraqi people from Saddam, our war is killing them at a faster clip than even he ever managed and most people with education and a little money are leaving in droves, becoming insecure, often destitute refugees in Iran, Jordan, Syria, etc. They have less clean water, power, electricity, you name it than they had during the his regime. They are afraid to send their children to school and don’t have the benefit of 100 soldiers, Apaches, Blackhawks and snipers to protect them when they need to go to market. Hundreds of the Iraqis who worked with us as translators have been rewarded by being murdered or forced to leave the country.
Bush has needlessly led us into this dead end from which no plan can any longer extricate us in any way that bodes well for anyone. More troops, less troops, no troops, the end result will be an ugly, tragic bloodbath. Thing is, it’s already an ugly tragic bloodbath and it belongs to your boy Bush. Up until now, congress has given him everything he’s asked for, so he has NOTHING to complain about and NOBODY else to blame.
History will see his Iraq war as the greatest strategic blunder of the age and Bush as the president and leader of the free world who did more devastating damage to this country and the world than anyone could have thought possible. Future generations will wonder what the hell the American people of our day were thinking.
Totally disagree with your spin.
Saying I’m off base without backing it up with facts is all you righties have anymore. That’s trouble with the talking points you all learn by rote from media chuckle heads like Limbaugh. No experience with fact-based reasoning.
Call me a peacewreath if you must (whatever that is) but I don’t see Salazar’s position as either courageous or smart.
It isn’t smart because he is undercutting his own party’s negotiations at the start. You dont tell the other side that they will get their way at the end. Make them sweat first.
It’s not courageous because “support the troops” isn’t a particularly risky position. It’s more like a “no duh” position, frankly.
I *do* agree that Salazar gets a political benefit from this. The maverick positioning is often popular. But is he *right* in his position? The voters want us out of Iraq. Carefully and safely, yes, but out of there, and not in ten years. Bush does not want out of Iraq. So how is this to be accomplished? Not, I propose, by removing the most powerful tool the Congress has from their bag of tools.
He will always be 1 cm. to the left of the exact middle here in Colorado which basically puts him dead center of the American populace.
The fact that he took a couple of weeks to calibrate his statement and then came out like this means he sees being firmly against the war but still funding as dead center.
That is a big shift from 2 months ago. At this rate in another 6 months Ken (and the country) will be demanding congress cut funding.
I’m not wild on Salazar but he serves as a useful indicator.
This is Salazar once again just looking out for Salazar. Why not just bend over and wave the white flag to the bush administration with your hands around your ankles!
W. has brought in Gates and Gates is not Rummy. While we should have brought in a large number of troops from the gitgo and worked with the local, I think that Gates is now heading down this path. Basically elevate the troops in problem areas and try to appease those that we have been fighting.
The real problem now, is that the press and the admin has been worthless on truthful reporting what is going on over there (mission accomplished). But it is obvious to me that some changes are happening. I think that it will take time to determine if this is working, and I would prefer to give Iraq this time.
Now, with all that said, I would like to see the dems go after this admin and all those that have been liars. Sadly, there is a lot of them still in this admin.
Yes Gates is starting to do some of the things we should have done at the start of Phase 4.
No it won’t help – that boat has sailed. We still have tens – hundreds of Iraqi dead each day and 2 – 10 Americans dead each day. They still cannot provide security and definitely cannot build and provide services.
We could spend 800 years like the British have done in Ireland – but I don’t think we can stay and end the civil war in 50 years. They are bound and determined to have their civil war and we can’t change that.
I suspect that you are correct. But I feel that it is important to give them a chance to see what the Iraqi’s do. Sadly, it is obvious that in 3 short years, W. and his ilk have done a much better job of recruiting for Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgents (they are not the same group), than OBL has done in 30 years of work. But I would like to think that the Iraqi’s want their freedom (including from us) AND peace. But it seems that if we give this at least another 6-12 months and see what happens.
That reminds me…..Where IS Osama bin Laden these days and when exactly are we “gonna smoke ’em out”?
It was mission accomplished long ago. You are just trying to split hairs about him, the lack of winning the war in Iraq, the monster deficits. It is funny how facts get in the way of seemingly sound logic, like declaring W. (and reagan) to a be great leaders. I wonder how many highways will be named after Bush. Oh, wait. Bunches. W36; W80, etc. I think that we should name major parts of Pakastan, Iraq, and perhaps even the DOJ department after W.
The Lefty Wackos blame al Qaeda recruiting on W? That’s like blaming the Germans’ recruiting on FDR. Blind hatred does strange things to your mind.
the terrorists streaming into Iraq since the invasion, not the ones who joined up before 9/11.
Humm, subtleties and facts may be too much for you to understand. He was quoting my stuff. Even disregarding that, there was nothing about 10 years and it was straight forward. Basically, W. has done more for Al Qaeda over the last few years then OBL has done in 30.
Hopefully, it is blind hatred has done strange things to your mind. Otherwise, I will worry about our education process.
I guess hatred can blind one to the facts. That’s what I see in this thread. Lefties hate Bush so much that he can do nothing correctly. He’s a 100% failure.
Conservatives see a man who had the right idea but blew it in the execution, doing some things well and others poorly.
Guess who has credibility. It’s not the hard left haters.
a bit of venom yourself this morning. Relax a bit, it is only Monday.
Conservatives see a man who had the right idea but blew it in the execution, doing some things well and others poorly.
Eh? Those conservatives aren’t posting that here. And amidst all your “liberal whacko” posts I didn’t see you saying that either.
Let’s think about this rationally. I happen to agree mostly with your statement – that Bush blew the execution. I disagree that Bush had the right idea to invade Iraq, unless his goal was something other than combating terrorism. The Pentagon reports that there was no connection between Saddam’s regime and Al-Quada. It doesn’t appear that anyone in the administration ever really believed this.
I knew that back in 2003 but still thought it would be good if Bush accomplished his other stated goals – build a stable and democratic state in Iraq. But I knew it was a bad idea to divide our efforts – the terrorists were primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that was where we needed to focus our efforts.
Now that we’ve fucked up Iraq it’s our moral responsibility to fix it. Unfortunately I don’t know if that’s realistic at this juncture. Will 21,500 troops be enough to accomplish the most important objective – secure the country? If not, what then? And how much should we be expected to spend to continue being there?
I don’t think unilaterally withdrawing by X date is the right thing to do. And we need to see what actually happens in the next few months. But I think people can be forgiven for having no confidence in Bush. He’s done damned little to earn it from anyone. And I believe that people can also be forgiven for wanting to withdraw. Now that it’s obvious that fighting terrorism was not the reason for invading Iraq, and that the true reason remains obscure (we can speculate but that’s not the same as knowing), people are right for not wanting to fight a war that isn’t about what Bush said it was.
The fact that you refer to me as a leftie shows ignorance and where the hatred lies. For the most part, I have critized W. and his policies. You have have come back with trying to call me names “leftie” and/or “whacko leftie”, as though it is a bad thing. I have told you before that I have little to do with dems other than being against bad leadership AND hate the assult on our rights.
Declaring that W. has the right idea is amazing. Good intentions and bad roads and all that. The simple fact is that W. is just like haggard or so many of the other hypocritical “righties”. The simple truth is that he claims to want peace, but invades countries that have NOTHING to do with the real effort. He claims that he needs to allow certain items such as spying and that it will only be used for terrorism, but from the git-go it has been used as an assault on the American citizens (in fact, If you even knew a little bit of the inside info, you would have realized that the patriot act would never have worked against OBL; it was a pure attack on “ciminals” while allowing the DOJ to bypass our rights). The invasion of Iraq was worthless from the git-go. Poppa Bush had it right. He basically, allowed one person to hold the seat but not do any damage beyond the borders to keep Al Qaeda AND iran at bay. Lincoln, IKE, and Poppa Bush are who republicans should emulate, not Reagan’s and W’s. These 2 are great examples of the absolute WORST kind of leadership that American will ever have (hopefully). W. does not have a CLUE about where he is taking America and every time he turns around, he makes the worst choice possible.
Conservatives are now backing away from W. Most likely they are afraid of what it means for the next election. But this shows that even the half-way intelligent republicans are admitting that they KNOW that w. is a major failure. You on the other hand are like Rush. You are rah, rah rah, shish boom bah. Gooooooo WWWWWWWW (Oh, perhaps, you learned that cheer from W?).
Seriously, you need to step back and re-evaluate not what you think that man says, but what he has done. His actions should speak louder than his words. Just being president is NOT that great.
BTW, if you wish to throw more insults my way, do not worry about it. I get it from dems who back Fitz-gerald and oppose 41; an amendment that I support. The point being that if you feel picked on this week-end, the true lefties here will tell you that I am equal opportunity. Right, Dav and OQD?
AS has only invectives and his Kool-Aid bucket for “facts.” If one of his propaganda leaders said that the sun was going to rise in the west tomorrow, he would pick up that ditto-ball and run with it.
Don’t waste your time. He has nothing to contribute to dialogue.
And there was no good execution to be had.
We should have concentrated in Afghanistan instead of diluting our forces. Our military “leaders” saw glory and failed miserably in what they did. In any private business they would have been canned. (Except for the CEO who got a raise and a golden parachute, just like Bush.)
I know nothing about military strategy, but I would be surprised that there isn’t something in Strategy 101 about not getting too thin.
We’ve been given a new approach about once a year and the daily body count keeps rising. Maybe no one can do it. We presently definitely cannot do it.
I would love to see us out of there now. But now that we have given them more troops, we should give them the time to try. All in all, less than 1 year will show it. In fact, based on history, it will take about 3 months to show what is happening over there.
I have talked to several friends kids who have come back from there. 2 were in the thick of things and they say that we can not win. 1 who was elsewhere in the middle east, says it is totally winnable. personally, I believe that the 2 were correct. But I have always thought that with enough troops and less pissing off these ppl that this was winnable. I just wonder if bringing gates and more troops is enough? Of course, this is from an admin who said that rumsfield was the brightest miiltary mind of the last 100 years. That either made them total idiots for allowing him to leave, or they are incapable of judging military ppl.
But yeah, I suspect strongly that I am wrong to be backing this initiviate and will only see more ppl die.
Shows how screwed up the thinking of the wacko left is. They’re more worried about giving in to Bush than about giving into the terrorists who threaten our country and our lives.
Just nutty.
W. has done FAR more damage to America than has Al Qaeda. His (and reagan’s) deficits have damage our long-term viability. When reagan came to office, IIRC, interest payments were about 1% of our budget. Now they are something like 13%, and will be around 15% by the time that W. leaves office. Worse, he has gutted many programs, while pushing some of the most corrupt programs that we have seen (makes the teapot dome look like shoplifting). OBL got a good lick in on us. But that allowed us to go into Afghanistan and kick him out. We HAD him on the run, until W. invaded Iraq. But his own greed and lack of leadership has turned that into a mess.
Sadly, I would have to argue that lack of intelligence, and good leadership on the part of righties, esp. neo-cons, is what is destroying America.
Hopefully, true Americans can take back the country and stop the ludicrousness that allows monster deficits, massive corruption, spying on Americans that makes Hoover look like a boyscout (or possibly a girl scout :)), a ridiculous fence on the southern border, a massive program designed to spy on normal citizens( that is worthless on terrorists), and even treason. It is time to put the spot light on past presidents (such as reagan), and on W. himself. OBL killed about 3000. W. has killed far more and has left America in peril.
That’s ok. We understand.
Assume for a moment that windbourne is correct (he is). Then your reply “Such Silliness” would be a sign of silliness on your part.
Why not try answering his points. Start with the prosecution of the war in Iraq where in phase 4 they basically made the worst possible decision at each and every step. Random choices would have been better.
EA said” It isn’t smart because he is undercutting his own party’s negotiations at the start. You dont tell the other side that they will get their way at the end. Make them sweat first”.
What do you think you are telling our enemies by paassing this stupid resolution? That you are undercutting our military’s position? our negotiations are not supported by your party? That you surrender Iraq to them? That the sacrifices made were meaningless? Yep that is the Democrat way – you defeatocrats are a far bigger threat to the soverignty of this nation than Bush ever was.
Oooooooo….how original.
Maybe once the Iraqi patriots know we are leaving, they might cut back, negotiate, something. What have we got to lose? Another 100 billion dollars and a thousand more of our soldier’s lives? Oh, yeah, we are already doing that.
Your way is working so well, isn’t it?
Kiss their shoes while they slit your throats.
With the throat being by the ground and all, no?
What should we do? Stay there? Our position, currently, is do whatever, we will always be there. The Iraqis need to know that we will not always be there. In fact, we are planning on leaving pretty damn soon, so get your ass in gear and start planning for when we leave.
Sacrifices that were made are meaningless if, and only if, you push the position that they are. The thing is, I hear constantly about how much has been accomplished in Iraq. If you want to take the position that every life lost in Iraq was a waste feel free to try and defend that position, because that is not one I will be taking. Keep spouting talking points as if they have any real meaning.
Oh, by the way, Reagan, was the person that helped terrorism become what it is today. Im not talking al-qaeda, Im talking the terrorist bombing of Beirut. What was his response? Immediate pull out.
Pelosi wants to wear scarves the rest of her life. Too bad she won’t be able to show off her pretty legs anymore.
Do you have anything to back up your ad-homiem attack? Anything at all? Because if not then this makes it look like you know you are wrong and all you can do is try to throw some random garbage as a last chance attempt to not lose the argument.
Sort of like how Bush is handling Iraq.
I try to anticipate what’s likely to happen. The anti-war folks are focused on the past and present, with no thoughts about the unintended consequences.
It’s ironic, they blast Bush for having no plan and not anticipating the consequences, and they have no plan an no comprehension of unintended consequences.
If you look only to the future you can pull a Bush and make up your own reality and then insist it will work. Unfortunately, facts are inconvienent things (Churchill) and you will once again fail with that approach.
He finds his facts the same place Rush does, in his colon.
“Pelose wants to wear scarves the rest of her life.” As if scarves are evil. You had to navigate far up your intestine for that one.
Since we pulled out of vietnam, they have attacked us over and over.
If you read any of my other comments, you will see that I think that pulling out of Iraq At this time is a mistake. The problem is that I based on W’s past actions, I do not think that we can win this. W and his admin will interfere with the military over and over and will prevent them from doing what they should be doing. Roughly, W. and his worhtless chickenhawks are trying to micromanage a war, when all of them were cowards and traitors to start with. They should have allowed the experts to fight this war, like Poppa Bush did.
Reagan did conduct one hell of a “cut and run” exercise there.
Democrats are all about winning the White House and Congress, regardless of the price that will be paid by America.
They are so pathetic.
For speaking the truth? Call it what you want. Actually, they are right. And if being right wins them the White House, well, that’s better than lying one’s way into the White House.
I may be a silly idealist, but I think being right is the proper way to get there.
throwing those terms around hoping that those terms will give them a shot at winning rather than discussing their incompetence and corruption.
Much easier to call the Democrats names than to discuss the issues huh?
Im with you up until “maverick.” Ken is no maverick, just like John McCain was no maverick. Russ Feingold has been a maverick. Ron Paul is a maverick.
My problem is with the term “maverick.” Suddenly breaking rank with your team is not “maverick.” Suddenly breaking rank with your team, and trying to strike a moderate position is not maverick, its trying to play both sides. Maverick is taking a position that no one else will take. Al Gore has been a maverick on Global Warming. Now, its a mainstream position making the maverick label moot. Russ Feingold was the only (?) senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. That was a maverick move.
well said
I shall use “so-called maverick” for this sort of thing in the future.
Pretty much everything you said I agree with I just dont like the maverick label. I hear it so often and this was really the first opportunity to address it in the written form.
Ken’s no where as smart as many of the lefties in Washington who are acting so dumb.
He’s just found a little wisdom during his journey through life. Hope it grows on him. Time will tell.
that the Republican Party–lockstep and yelling “hoo-ah”–got us into this war, which is not only immoral, but worse, stupid. It is the dumbest foreign policy move in American history, perpetrated by the worst president in American history.
By now, all but the most diehard Republicans know that the GOP royally screwed up.
First, Bush and the republicans did NOT put us into Iraq. It was Bush, republicans, AND democrats that did it. There were very few dems that were willing to say “just say no”. In fact, other than greenies, and truly minor parties, about the only other party that opposed it, were the Libertarians. The simple fact is, they KNEW then that they had mis-information but went along because they were afraid of the polls. Basically, they put their job ahead of doing what was right for the country.
As to the GOP knowing that they royally screwed up, that is also not quite correct. They know that they are about to lose their ass in all polls unless they make somebody the bad guy. That is W. The vast majority STILL believe that W. did the right thing in lying, being treasonous, and all the corruption.
I also supported the war at first. But I also believed that Iraq was close to having nuclear weapons. Without that I believe (who is ever sure) I would not have supported it.
– dave
I wish that more folks would have listened to W. and what was happening. As it is, few paid attention to where they should have, and should be. Even now, folks should be asking a few questions:
That dems are starting to ask some other useful, but minor questions. These are questions that are going to come back to bite America in the future. And all but the last 2 , are easy to determine.
The Democrats are working their way through most of these questions. The thing is they are doing it within the system (unlike Bush) and therefore it takes time. But I think returning the political process to one that follows the rules is equally as important as the investigations.
I wasn’t and a lot of my friends were not.
No one is talking about denying funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say again: NO ONE is talking about denying funds to support U.S. troops. Bush is threatening to veto a funding bill that contains a deadline for involvement in a conflict that has no clearly identifiable enemy.
It’s a bit hard to fathom why Salazar puts out such a statement at this stage in the proceedings. Is he cozying up to Republicans? To his dear friend and ex-Democrat Lieberman?
The question of whether Salazar wields influence in the Senate is a matter of interpretation, no doubt. But if he does, it’s hard to detect. Is going against the leadership of his party on the deadline issue (the deadline issue, not the funding issue) before the threatened veto a known route to influence other legislation in the future? This sounds like a brand new theory, as yet undemonstrated in Senate history, where memories on mega-issues like this one run long.
And one wonders about Salazar’s assessment of where the center is now situated in Colorful Colorado, where purple (mountain majesties…oops, that’s another tune) seems to be morphing into azure blue, what with a Democratic governor, state legislature (twice in a row), and four out of seven US representatives…and a GOP Senate seat in severe jeopardy in ’08. The numbers, not anyone’s opinion, say that CO’s center isn’t quite as far to the right as some on this list would like to imagine, thinking of the good ol’ days.
The Left is all about Dems vs. Bush.
Ken Salazar is showing he’s about America vs. the enemy.
Stark difference.
I didn’t have time to reply to Emma’s question to my original post, then Skeptic answered, Windbourne started, and the next thing I know, I’m reading 90 posts of hardcore partisan rhetoric.
I admire Salazar for doing this because it reflects how I feel about the war. I don’t want us there, but don’t want the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot by threatening a no funding option. This would hurt more than help, IMO.
When I said work the problem, this is what I meant.
Gates is helping implement Phase 4 of the war, as I think David said above. We need to stay there and try the policy for two years or so. Will it create democracy in Iraq? No, but we may get some security.
Regarding the timeline issue, this is a choking point for the Dems. Why announce a time when you’re going to leave? Why not work with the administration and say, off the record, we’re going to work with you for one/two years and we’ll reduce troop capacity by 80% at that time. In the meantime, you’ll give us legislation on healthcare, immigration, deficit reduction and whatever else polls well.
The war is a major issue, but one of many. Don’t fight the administration on the war, yet. Weaken the Republicans further by showing that the Democrats are strong and moderate and then win the Presidency in ’08. THEN do whatever the hell you want with the funding for the troops.
Until then, get busy, gettin’ busy, if you know what I mean.
but I have played RISK and Battleship a few times. Aside from Congressional funding or the Prez calling it quits, doesn’t Gates have a say in how and when the war is ended?
which weakens the Dems’ position.
You know, most people don’t like the idea of the Bush and Congress showdown. Common sense says pass the appropriations – with no timeline. The issue is too complex to be playing chicken right now. Work with Bush and in a year we begin withdrawal after they’ve prepared everyone.
BTW, whenever I win at RISK, I jump up and shout, “I RULE THE WORLD!!”
“I’m King of the World!” has now been taken.