Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Hand of Friendship

As you know, the Democrats and the Republicans - primarily George W. Bush - are locked into an Iraq-War confrontation. Either there will eventually be a lockdown of the government, as there was in 1995, or the two sides will stop frothing at the mouth, get together, talk things out and compromise. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the first to extend her hand of friendship to the president in order to be able to start the discussion.

The Senate approved the war-funding bill, with timelines leading to an exit from Iraq. Democrats have done this because they claim to have a mandate from the people to bring our troops home. After a House-Senate Conference agrees to the final wording in the bill and passed again by both houses, it will be sent to the president. He is almost certain to veto it. Bush claims he will not quit Iraq until he achieves victory.

Both sides are locking horns. In an interesting op-ed in the L.A. Times, Ron Brownstein says that neither side can win:

Tuesday's dramatic Senate vote on Iraq may have finally sent the message to Bush that he cannot deal with congressional Democrats solely on his terms. But congressional Democrats cannot force Bush to accept their terms either, even though both chambers have attached a 2008 troop-withdrawal requirement to the legislation funding the war. Bush has indicated that he will veto any mandated withdrawal, and the past week's votes show that House and Senate Democrats are far from the two-thirds support they would need to override him.

Democrats have been asking for discussions with the White House about the Iraq War. Today, Nancy Pelosi expressed her attitude extremely well on CNN:

On this very important matter I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just to say to him: "Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role, we want you to respect ours. This war must end, the American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war, let's see how we can work together."

The voice of reason. How will Bush answer? I hope he follows Pelosi's advice.

The two branches of government must respect each other, treat each other as equals and work together to do the people's business. To avoid closing down the government they must reach some kind of compromise.

What kind of compromise? The most likely compromise would probably be a dillution of the troop drawdown schedule. Liberal Oasis says that this may be OK, provided there remains in the bill the banning of permanent bases:

... banning permanent bases is an unequivocal policy shift, ensuring the eventual withdrawal of all troops and rejecting permanent occupation.

Liberal Oasis feels that no matter what a passed-and-signed bill says about troop withdrawal, Bush will do as he pleases. But without permanent bases he will have a hard time maintaining his current policy.

This sounds right to me. But what I hope happens next is that Bush publically accepts Pelosi's "hand of friendship."

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 28, 2007 5:27 PM
Comments
Comment #214193

Paul
I agree with a pullout of the troops in Iraq, but not all at once but a gradual pullout given a start date of Mar. or Sept. 2008. I personally don’t want another picture like the one when we pulled out of Viet Nam.

Posted by: KAP at March 28, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #214194

“The two branches of government must respect each other, treat each other as equals and work together”

Yes I agree….work together. That would mean the legislative doing their job while the CIC does his job. Unfortunately, we have a congress attempting to micromanage a war. Pelosi has lost all control with factions popping up all over the House. Has a bill ever been passed that contains so many pet projects? Votes are getting expensive now days. What does a DC tourist initiative have to do with the Iraq war?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at March 28, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #214197

The Senate did NOT, as Paul says, approve the war-funding bill.

They voted to include a time table to the bill that they are considering. (Actually, to be more legalisitic about it, they voted NOT to remove an amendment with a time table).

It still has to pass before it goes back to the House, and if even a couple Senators who want the timetable but not the huge amounts of pork in that bill vote against it, it might not even get that far.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 28, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #214198

Curmudgeon & LO,
Of course, the bill is not in its final form yet. But when you refer to “pork,” are you referring to the $1.3 billion for levee repair in New Orleans? Or the $969 million to prepare for avian flu, & develop a vaccine? Or various proposals to provide relief to farmers due to drought, e-coli, and other natural disasters?There may be a small amount of “pork,” but you are repeating talking points, and pointing to a handful of millions in a $122 billion bill.

Please explain the concept of “micromanagement.” That is also just a talking point, noise without meaning, as far as I can tell. Alhtough, when it comes to the Bush administration, any form of governance, management, or planning whatsoever is probably viewed as unnecessary.

Posted by: phx8 at March 28, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #214209

Phx8, the items you mention are only a drop in the bucket. The pork lard bucket.

And amidst that pork, we have even more pork. Are you aware amidst that $1.3 billion that is supposedly for New Orleans, $100 is actually earmarked for the Democratic and Republican political conventions?

That’s right. Fifty million dollars for the Republicans. Fifty million dollars for the Democrats.

Now what’s that doing in the “Katrina Relief” section of this bill, you might ask? A 100 million dollar tax-payer handout to the two major political parties?

But more importantly, what’s Katrina Relief doing in a military spending bill?

This bill is a sick joke, and if the Senate actually passes it, I for one will applaud when the President vetoes it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 28, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #214210

I meant, obviously, $100 million. Not $100 (which would also be more than they deserve).

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 28, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #214215

Where’s the 50m for the other parties?

When will they just give us the pork back in our tax returns?

1.3B for N.O. ??? Why don’t they just give each registered voter a mill or two?
…and they wonder why so many people defrauded? the government to get those $2,000 cash cards? Of course THEY will be prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law!!!

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 28, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #214224

Paul,

What exactly is Pelosi offering here? All I see are platitudes and political speak, until someone actually makes a real effort to change and not just a public show then I might give them credit for doing something.

The proof is in the pudding.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 28, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #214242

Bringing Democratic and Republican political conventions would bring an enormous amount of revenue to the city. How much revenue would an independent convention generate? Any? I have never heard of cities vying to host a Libertarian convention, but hey, I suppose it could happen.

Are the funds going towards permanent improvements? Infrastructure?

This is an Emergency Supplemental Bill. It happens to cover Iraq, but only because the Bush administration & Republicans chose to fund the war this way, in order to avoid counting it as part of the annual federal budget deficit. By doing it this way, they could claim the tax cuts were working, and pretend the war did not really cost anything or involve any economic sacrifices, when in reality Iraq has been cratering the budget.

Want to talk about utterly wasted taxpayer money to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Take a look at Iraq. Case closed.

Posted by: phx8 at March 28, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #214247

This is what PORK really looks and smells like:





washingtonpost.com
For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges Too Far

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005; A08

Republicans in Congress say they are serious about cutting spending, but they learned yesterday to keep their hands off the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the veteran Alaska Republican, was dramatic in his response. “I don’t kid people,” Stevens roared. “If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state … I will resign from this body.”

Coburn’s measure, offered as an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill, failed 82 to 15. The Senate also narrowly defeated spending an additional $3.1 billion on emergency heating-bill assistance for low-income people, a major priority for many Democrats, who said they would try to attach the increase to other bills this fall.

Although the Coburn amendment lost, it struck a chord among lawmakers as they face increasing belt-tightening pressure. Katrina and the war in Iraq have created billions in unexpected expenses, and Republicans as well Democrats would like to trim other programs to offset the cost. But yesterday’s debate showed even an obscure budget item has its patrons.

One of the Alaska bridges, dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere” by its critics, would connect one small town to a tiny island. It received $223 million in the highway bill that Congress passed this summer. The second bridge, named “Don Young’s Way” in honor of its patron, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), received about $230 million — but that is just a down payment on a cost that could hit $1.5 billion.

Coburn had wanted to shift all the money to the I-10 rebuilding project, which is expected to cost $500 million to $600 million. Because of restrictions in the way highway dollars are distributed, Coburn’s amendment would have redirected $75 million to the Pontchartrain bridge while unfunding the two Alaska bridges.

“I believe that we should spend taxpayer dollars where they are most needed,” Coburn wrote fellow senators asking for support.

The amendment became a cause celebre on the left and the right, with watchdog and conservative groups reporting updates on their Web sites throughout the day. The Club for Growth alerted readers early yesterday on its Web log, or blog: “As of last night, the opposition is putting up a big fight. They sense this amendment, if successful, as establishing a precedent. A precedent where all pork is vulnerable and no lawmaker is safe.”

Later in the day, the Heritage Foundation circulated a paper, “The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment,” and noted, “fiscally responsible members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.” Even the Sierra Club backed the amendment, noting, “We must fix the nation’s existing infrastructure first.”

And, there is a curious twist to the story: Many residents of Alaska appear to support forfeiting the bridge money for hurricane relief. “This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol for our beleaguered democracy,” reads a typical letter to the Anchorage Daily News.

Young, who made sure his state was one of the top recipients in the highway bill, was asked by an Alaska reporter what he made of the public support for redirecting the bridge money. “They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” he replied.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 29, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #214249

Paul:

On the liberal side, I think the “dumbest” language I hear is that we must end the war. We don’t have the power to end anything. All we have the power to do is to stay or withdraw. The war was going on before we entered Iraq, and will continue after we leave.

I think the democratic proposals are too premature. The Senate confirmed our current commander General Petraeus . Democrats voted overwelmingly!! Since that time, every democratic proposal has undermined his plans. Why send someone into battle only to pull the rug out from underneath him?

A year from now after this surge has worked or not worked I might have a different opinion. There is an implied endorsement in my mind of General Petraeus’s tactics and mission. He should be given a chance.

I think Bill Clinton was correct about this last election. He stated that the Democratic party was not given a mandate but a chance. The Democratict party did not run on anything!! I think if the Democratic party governs well, it’s numbers might increase in 2008. Right now they are over playing their hand.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 29, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #214256

Do you liberals really think that the Democrats would dare tell President Bush that if he will not accept troop withdrawal in this funding bill that his dear soldiers will get squat? Sorry, Craig, they are not over-playing their hand, they are simply bluffing, and doing a pretty poor job of it! Will they actually risk refusing to fund the guys in uniform in the midst of a war? That would be political suicide if they want the votes of anyone that has a family member in harm’s way over there. The American people can not possibly be so stupid as to let the Democrats send an unsignable bill to the President, (unsignable based upon any accepted military strategy alone), have him veto it, and then blame the President for not funding the troops. I have been surprised before, but they simply can not be that stupid.

JD

Posted by: JD at March 29, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #214258

JD,
Although I would like to see Bush veto the bill, and Congress withdraw funding, I doubt that will happen. It would make sense for Bush & Congress to negotiate, but I doubt that will happen either. Bush never worked with a Republican Congress in any significant way- his interest in the business of governance is minimal, overruled by his interest in politics- so most likely the Senate will send the bill back to the House, & Bush will veto the final form of the bill.

Since Congress will not be able to override the veto, a “clean” bill might pass, with Congress making the provision that no funds will be available after spring of 2008, that there will not be an additional bill.

Craig,
There is no chance the surge will work. While it might slow the violence in Baghdad, violence in the rest of the country is as bad or worse than ever, and there are simply not enough troops to do the same for Samarra, Fallujah, Ramdadi, Tal Afar, and so on. The fundamental political problem, the unwillingness of Sunnis to be politically dominated by Shias, will remain.

Since an effective Iraqi military has not happened, the obvious short-term solution would be to turn to other countries in the region. Unfortunately, we burned those bridges a long time ago.

Today, at an Arab conference, Bandar from Saudi Arabia declared the US was engaging in an illegitimate occupation of Iraq. He seeks a withdrawal, though not a precipitous one.

It is remarkable to see the Saudi royal family turn against Bush, and support the Democratic position. They are astute politicians, and they see which way the wind will blow.

Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #214261

phx8,

The Democrats could do as you say, but Bush could again veto that. Bush has the upper hand here any way you slice it. What is troubling is that money is running out now. The Administration says it only has the funds through April to continue the war. The Democrats are claiming that the Pentagon has the authority to shift funds from other accounts and keep the war funded through June. Is it wise for Democrats to force the Pentagon to start shifting funding from other accounts earmarked for other military uses just so they can continue quibbling with the President and getting headlines? Was it not the Democrats for the last four years that accused the President of spreading the military too thin and hurting our readiness in other areas of the world for his own political purposes? Sounds like that is exactly what they are doing with this bill and Pentagon accounts!

JD

Posted by: JD at March 29, 2007 1:59 AM
Comment #214262
There is no chance the surge will work. While it might slow the violence in Baghdad, violence in the rest of the country is as bad or worse than ever, and there are simply not enough troops to do the same for Samarra, Fallujah, Ramdadi, Tal Afar, and so on.

That’s my read as well. Even if the extra 21,000 troops calms the situation in Baghdad, it doesn’t help the rest of the country. Unless Bush wants to send another 210,000 troops for decades, the surge is pointless.

BTW, did you see where, the same day McCain is telling us how great things are going, the US embassy in Iraq is ordering everyone inside the Green Zone to start wearing flack jackets and helmets whenever they leave a building.

Wednesday morning, embassy personnel received a bulletin citing the “recent increase of indirect fire attacks on the embassy compound.” It included strict instructions: Body armor and helmets would now be required for all “outdoor activities” within the sprawling embassy complex, even short walks to the cafeteria. There would be no group gatherings outside, including at the famed Palace Pool. No “nonessential” visitors would be allowed in the compound.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 29, 2007 2:03 AM
Comment #214273

AP,

Don’t you get it? Those are just signs that the insurgency is in its “last throes”! :>

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 29, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #214281

‘The fundamental political problem, the unwillingness of Sunnis to be politically dominated by Shias, will remain.’

Exactly who is over there trying to resolve this ??
Any Iraqis?

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 29, 2007 9:20 AM
Comment #214287

The fundamental political problem, the unwillingness of Sunnis(strike>DemocratsRepublicans to be politically dominated by ShiasRepublicansDemocrats, will remain.’

Exactly who is over therehere trying to resolve this ??
Any Iraqis?

Posted by: tomd at March 29, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #214289

Nobody Tomd.

That’s the only thing they work together on - keeping each other in power.
The diehards on both sides don’t get it, or won’t admit it.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 29, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #214296

Looks like the President is going to be alright on this one; the dimocrats can’t even get their own party on the same page with their “retreat & defeat” plan.


“Party baffled by its own war plan?”

“For all the fanfare surrounding the announcement of the House Democrats’ Iraq war plan, few members seem to understand the specifics in the bill or when it would actually bring troops home. The confusion added a layer of comic relief to a tense debate between factions of the Democratic Party as groups held dueling press conferences yesterday. “

Posted by: rahdigly at March 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #214298

Rah,
How embarrassing. The link is to an article dated March 9th. Today is March 29th. Maybe you are in a very remote location, where news reaches you weeks after the actual event? But it is amusing to look back a few weeks, and see just how completely and utterly wrong the Moonie-owned Washington Times got this story.

The House passed the bill, the Senate passed the bill 51-47, and now it goes back to the House for its final form.

Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #214299

“…The confusion added a layer of comic relief to a tense debate between factions of the Democratic Party as groups held dueling press conferences yesterday. “


People just now realizing that ?? They’ve been doing that for months!!!!

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 29, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #214302

The point is the President is going to veto this (ridiculous) bill and that the Dems were in dissarray. Pelosi (actually) had to bribe her party with “earmarks”; the same earmarks that the dems were complaining the repubs did when they were in power. The exception here is the repubs didn’t use earmarks to “trump” the troops or mess with their funding.


How about some of you try and defend the dems with how they “support the troops” after this ridiculous “bill”.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 29, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #214303

The House passed the bill, the Senate passed the bill 51-47, and now it goes back to the House for its final form.

I believe there will be a conference report which goes to both chambers simultaneously.

Posted by: Steve K at March 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #214317

rah…. our support for the troops is unquestionable !! It’s getting really old hearing that the Dems don’t support our military just because we don’t buy into the BS rhetoric flying around the Reps. There is money in the bill for the troops, in fact, more than Bush had requested, and they are not going to suffer….no clothing pulled off them, no tanks taken away, no shortage of ammunition in spite of all the hand-wringing, cry-baby tactics from the right. THE MONEY FOR THE MILITARY IS THERE, and if Bush vetoes it, then it is all on his hands.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 29, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #214318

This state of affairs is utterly depressing. I don’t even know what more comments here will accomplish. The only moral and acceptable action is to withdraw our troops from Iraq IMMEDIATELY. However, with this corrupt BUSH administration more Americans are going to die for another 2 years. That loss of life is what the “President” should veto, but unfortunately the “President” is George Bush, total idiot fascist terroist bastard, so Americans will continue to die until he is out of office and spending his blood money!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at March 29, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #214322

“The only moral and acceptable action is to withdraw our troops from Iraq IMMEDIATELY”

Does that mean the Dem plan isn’t moral or acceptable Kim?
From what I hear, the Dem plan doesn’t call for an immediate withdrawal at all. So in effect, American troops are going to continue to die while Bush is President and while the Dems control the house and senate.
Or is this another one of those “its different” things? You know, where the left basically does the same thing but its ok because its the left doing it.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #214325

Okay you 30%ers…..I would really, truly like to know just where your line of tolerance is. Exactly how long are you willing to sit back and follow blindly this imbecillic leader as he takes us over the edge???!??!!
Check this out..

AAI/Zogby Poll Finds that Four Years Later, Arab Opinion Troubled By Consequences of Iraq War WASHINGTON, March 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — While Americans continue to debate the U.S. position in Iraq, four years after the invasion in March 2003, Arab countries remain deeply concerned and fearful of the long-term regional damage caused by the conflict. This is according to a Zogby International (ZI)/Arab American Institute (AAI) poll of five Arab countries released today.

Among the findings were statistics that indicated a number of countries polled now view the U.S. role in Iraq as being more negative than Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Of particular concern to Arabs polled in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon is the degree to which the war has emboldened neighboring Iran and the heightened danger that Iraq may unravel in a civil war that could spill over into the broader region.

While it’s not surprising that Arabs polled responded negatively regarding the U.S.’s role in Iraq — ranging from 68% in Saudi Arabia to 96% in Jordan - - their opinions were also very negative regarding Iran’s perceived role. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, more respondents expressed negative attitudes towards Iran (78%) than towards the U.S. [See Chart 1.]

“The Bush Administration finds itself in a bind of its own making, created by entering into this conflict without a clear understanding of its consequences,” said Dr. James Zogby, president of AAI. “But this same bind has also placed our Arab allies in an equally difficult situation — one with even more troubling options.”

The poll, which was conducted between Feb. 26 and March 10, 2007, surveyed 3,400 Arabs in five countries. The margin of error of in Egypt and Saudi Arabia was +/-3.5% and in Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon it was +/- 4.1%.


(3/28/2007)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 29, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #214332

…and what leader do you blindly follow Sandra?

It appears the Dems realize an immediate pullout is not the right thing to do but they still have their base believing that is what they are doing.

‘While it’s not surprising that Arabs polled responded negatively regarding the U.S.’s role in Iraq …’

Does that mean they think the Iraqis need to step up?

‘…their opinions were also very negative regarding Iran’s perceived role.’

Does that mean they know Iran is causing trouble?
That Iraqis need to step up and - I agree - the US needs to get out of the lead in Iraq.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 29, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #214336

bug, I don’t, and don’t think I ever have. The last time this country was in such dire straits, I wasn’t old enough to vote, and no doubt I was pretty much ignorant of political issues.
I don’t think that many of us are confusing proposed dates set at months from now to mean an immediate withdrawl, and I’m pretty sure that most of can grasp the concept of the withdrawl being metered.
Your other questions are directed at the authors of the quote I put up and I can’t answer for “them”. It seemed pretty clear that their close proximity to such an unstable situation was of great concern. Can you blame them?
So, Im guessing from your last statement that perhaps you are not part of that 30% yourself? Or maybe you’ve stepped over the line and left the count a bit shorter.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 29, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #214337

I wonder if they ever poll the soldiers serving in Iraq when they come up with that 30% number?
One would think their opinions would be important, considering their close proximity to the situation and knowing how it really is.

Naw, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Those marching against the war in our cities would know alot more than those soldiers would.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #214339

kctim

‘Those marching against the war in our cities would know alot more than those soldiers would.’

And I am positive they make sure and listen to both sides before coming to any conclusion.

Sandra,

‘Your other questions are directed at the authors of the quote I put up and I can’t answer for “them”.’

Right. But you used it to make a point.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 29, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #214350

“Okay you 30%ers…..I would really, truly like to know just where your line of tolerance is. Exactly how long are you willing to sit back and follow blindly this imbecillic leader as he takes us over the edge???!??!!”

I don’t agree with your premese, but I’ll follow President Bush as long as he is the Commander in Chief. We don’t run this country on polls, but on rhe rule of law. The supreme law says that the President is in charge until his term is ended. I’ll follow him till it is.

Posted by: tomd at March 29, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #214353

kctim….take a look for yourself and see what the soldiers think. This poll isn’t that old, so we don’t know how much, if any, their opinions might have changed.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
tomd, using “the rule of law” and Bush in the same sentence is hilarious !!!!! Bush wouldn’t recognize law if it kicked him in the ass……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 29, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #214356

That is a very good article isn’t it Sandra. I’m happy to see others actually read sources such as that.

With them being over there so long and often, it really was not a surprise to hear they disapprove of how the post war operations have gone.
But for now, only 13 percent said we should have no troops there and 50 percent believe we need even more troops there.
That shows that they believe their objective is still attainable and is also in line with what I am told by friends currently there.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #214363

Sandra:

Good article. It’s about what I would expect. Looks like the cold war all over again only in a different culture.

We probably need to be in Iraq as long as we have been in Germany, South Korea and Japan.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 29, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #214398

tomd, to follow blindly is not patriotic its idiotic. Bush in his own words has told the American people what his intentions are-“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we” GWB 5Aug 2004

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment #214401

Craig,

“We probably need to be in Iraq as long as we have been in Germany, South Korea and Japan.”

While I can understand why we are still in Korea (though the Korean people don’t really want us there, and 35,000 troops isn’t going to stop anybody that is truly serious), I can’t understand why we are still in Germany and Japan (the Japanese people don’t really want us there either).
America certainly isn’t propping up these countries, and they are both fully capable of standing on their own.

Who are we truly afraid of?

If America hasn’t identified it’s friends and enemies by now, we are in it deeper than we think.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2007 10:20 AM
Comment #214414

j2t2,

Great example. How long have you kept that for the right moment to use it?
I suppose you have never had a slip of the tongue?? Where is your glass house?

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 30, 2007 11:37 AM
Comment #214422

Kctim:

50 percent believe we need even more troops there.

The only problem with that is, there are no more troops to send, certainly not enough. There might have been had they been sent right away, but this was going to be “mission accomplished” on the cheap, with absolutely no plan for what happened after you claim the war was won.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #214449

I can’t say that I disagree with you womanmarine.
Just putting a part of the poll out there that I’m sure will be ignored by many.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #214485

Ya’know Bg I to thought it was nothing but a slip of the tongue at first but then when he proved true to those words I realized the error of my ways.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #214565

Bush’s support is weakening…just needed a little jump-start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1175368218-cyyjPeRPtD7iIVo8lP6hOw

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 31, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #214600

Regarding the troops in Germany and Japan;

We have kept a heaping number of troops in both of these locations since the end of WWII. And, we will continue to do so. There is a good map of troop deployment numbers on the Heritage Foundation website.
Iraq will be the same! If Democrats and libs think we are going to pull out completely, they have their heads up their duffs. Iraq is a central location in the Middle East, much like Germany is a central location in Europe, and Japan is a central location in Asia. The U.S. is setting up strategic points, (allies), in the world to keep potential powder kegs from exploding, wreaking havoc with our, and the world’s economies. Everyone with half a brain knows the next great political empire will arise by destroying the economic markets of its enemies, not through massive military operations. Military operations are just too expensive over the long haul. This is why the terrorists hit the World Trade Center; to destroy the American and World Markets. America is moving strategically into a more global economy, and setting up a more stable overall economic outlook for itself in the future by being able to quickly respond to powder kegs when they are ignited. This war was about removing such a powder keg- Saddam Hussein, and fighting terrorists like Al Quaida, but also about strategic planning and overall stability in the Middle East region. There is now no turning back! It is unfortunate that Democrats are so isolationist that they do not understand the need for strong allies in every part of the world. Our allies must know that we will be there to defend them in their struggle to maintain political and economic freedom. Pulling out of Iraq would be a huge embarrassment toward the rest of our allies who depend upon us!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 1, 2007 2:38 PM
Post a comment