Yawn. We've been trying to debate the issues all along. All you could come up with was to call us terrorists and say we hated America. That was crap just like yesterday's vote was. You suck at this stuff.
i agree, and one of the problems of the primary system is some of the most interesting candidates never make it to the general election. we need an alternative, neo-con foreign policy, socially libertarian (not liberal), fiscally conservative, pro-gun control, pro-p*rn, pro-death penalty...
here's the resolution: -- RESOLUTION Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world; Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States; Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance; Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office; Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan; Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction; Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions; Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors; Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology; Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution; Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East; Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq; Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles; (2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom; (3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; (4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq; (5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution; (6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and (7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
That's silly. There is no current threat to freedom of speech causing Americans to die right now. Brave Americans are only dying now because Bush wanted an unnecessary war and lied to get the support for it. In fact the greatest threat to freedom of speech in this country, bar none, is the president and those, like you, that enable him in his effort to shut up dissenters. You've got a lot of nerve to pimp free speech when all you do here is try to quash it.
No, but likening criticism of the president to support for terrorists is. Plus, if you've ever pointed out where I was wrong I'd love to see a link.
Now I'm no Basso, but I came across this and thought it was a strong counter to your argument. Does it prove you wrong? <b>Monsters and the Weak</b> The sun beat like a hammer, not a cloud was in the sky. The mid-day air ran thick with dust, my throat was parched and dry. With microphone clutched tight in hand and cameraman in tow, I ducked beneath a fallen roof, surprised to hear "stay low." My eyes blinked several times before in shadow I could see, the figure stretched across the rubble, steps away from me. He wore a cloak of burlap strips, all shades of gray and brown, that hung in tatters till he seemed to melt into the ground. He never turned his head or took his eye from off the scope, but pointed through the broken wall and down the rocky slope. "About eight hundred yards," he said, his whispered words concise, "beneath the baggy jacket he is wearing a device." A chill ran up my spine despite the swelter of the heat, "You think he's gonna set it off along the crowded street?" The sniper gave a weary sigh and said "I wouldn't doubt it," "unless there's something this old gun and I can do about it." A thunderclap, a tongue of flame, the still abruptly shattered; while citizens that walked the street were just as quickly scattered. Till only one remained, a body crumpled on the ground, The threat to oh so many ended by a single round. And yet the sniper had no cheer, no hint of any gloat, instead he pulled a logbook out and quietly he wrote. "Hey, I could put you on TV, that shot was quite a story!" But he surprised me once again -- "I got no wish for glory." "Are you for real?" I asked in awe, "You don't want fame or credit?" He looked at me with saddened eyes and said "you just don't get it." "You see that shot-up length of wall, the one without a door? before a mortar hit, it used to be a grocery store." "But don't go thinking that to bomb a store is all that cruel, the rubble just across the street -- it used to be a school. The little kids played soccer in the field out by the road," His head hung low, "They never thought a car would just explode." "As bad as all this is though, it could be a whole lot worse," He swallowed hard, the words came from his mouth just like a curse. "Today the fight's on foreign land, on streets that aren't my own," "I'm here today 'cause if I fail, the next fight's back at home." "And I won't let my Safeway burn, my neighbors dead inside, don't wanna get a call from school that says my daughter died; I pray that not a one of them will know the things I see, nor have the work of terrorists etched in their memory." "So you can keep your trophies and your fleeting bit of fame, I don't care if I make the news, or if they speak my name." He glanced toward the camera and his brow began to knot, "If you're looking for a story, why not give this one a shot." "Just tell the truth of what you see, without the slant or spin; that most of us are OK and we're coming home again. And why not tell our folks back home about the good we've done, how when they see Americans, the kids come at a run." You tell 'em what it means to folks here just to speak their mind, without the fear that tyranny is just a step behind; Describe the desert miles they walk in their first chance to vote, or ask a soldier if he's proud, I'm sure you'll get a quote." He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded, then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added; "And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak, that we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak." Michael Marks January 25, 2006
Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because you voted for them to be. You're a murderer. ..... What enjoyment do you get out of inciting this kind of dialogue? Do you honestly feel htat guilty that you have to come to Clutch BBS and do this? I suggest you investigate alcohol abuse if you're that bored.
Out of those five issues you've cited only two of those are championed by the Republican party as overall and there, fiscally conservative, they only pay lip service too. So technically out of the those five issues on only one issue does the Republican party stand for your views. It seems to me that the Democrats would be a much better fit for you and that your opposition to the Democrats is single issue based.
Yes, but when you consider that Democrats want terrorists to kill Americans, it's a pretty big issue.
Not all Democrats are pro-gun control neither are all Republicans anti-gun control. These days I'm not sure gun control is a huge issue for either party.
Your post might be funny, or amusing, if you didn't use that kind of rhetoric yourself, and claim that you were serious about it.
Kerry, Feingold counter other Democrats, demand pullout by July 2007 Below is a joint statement from John Kerry and Russ Feingold: “For three years, Congress has played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. With the administration’s failure to offer a coherent or effective strategy in Iraq, it is long past time for Congress to offer a plan to redeploy our troops so we can give Iraq its best chance at stability, and refocus on al Qaeda and the terrorist networks that threaten the security of all Americans. “We must redeploy to succeed – and we will put this national security imperative to a test in the United States Senate this week. We need a deadline for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. A deadline gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government, and most importantly, it allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country. “Our amendment recognizes the need to keep an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight al Qaeda and its affiliates and protect regional security interests. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel should remain inside Iraq. The president also must move immediately to work with the Iraqis to convene a summit of Iraq’s neighbors and the international community to forge a lasting political settlement to give all Iraqis a stake in the new Iraq. “A strong national security policy begins with recognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our security and gives Iraqi politicians a crutch to avoid creating stability in their country. As long as 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq indefinitely, that country will remain what a series of mistakes have made it -- a crucible for the recruitment and development of terrorists determined to fight Americans and an obstacle to an Iraqi government capable of governing and securing its country. Our troops have done their job in Iraq. It is time to redeploy – to help increase stability in Iraq, and more importantly, to strengthen the national security of the United States.” The goal of the Kerry-Feingold plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the redeployment of American forces. Their plan calls requires: - The redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. - Only U.S. troops essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities would remain. President Bush has repeatedly said that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. However, that has not been happening. So far, the Iraqis have trained 265,600 security forces – just 7,000 shy of the Bush administration’s stated goal of 272,566. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Pentagon announced that they are sending 3,500 additional U.S. troops from Kuwait to Iraq. - The United States to maintain an over-the-horizon military presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests. - The President to work with the new Iraqi government to convene a summit that includes those leaders, the leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to reach a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance and border security. - The Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on how U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by July 1, 2007. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_Feingold_counter_other_Democrats_demand_0619.html
O.K. calm down, dammit!...I have read the joint statement, and believe it or not...I AGREE 100% with the statement. It sounds reasonable, and a conducive strategy to be there to still help but put greater pressure on Iraq to improve itself. At the same time, it calls for greater attention towards AlQaeda. How can I argue with that. I will still maintain and hold steadfast that intervening militarily was the right thing, and my gun rights is precious...but the statement is strong and I agree without a doubt because it addresses what it does...
Seeking a Better Debate By William Rivers Pitt The Republican majority in Congress labored mightily last week to derail and distract any discussion of an exit strategy from Iraq. In the House of Representatives, a debate aimed at whether or not to establish a timetable for withdrawal collapsed under a rhetorical onslaught from the Right. In order to adequately describe the experience of watching the so-called House "debate" on June 15th, it is necessary to crib a line from Harper Lee: enduring that utterly empty proceeding left one with the sensation of sinking slowly to the bottom of the ocean. On the same day, the Senate saw Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) abscond with a measure soon to be proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) which would have virtually all American troops removed from Iraq by year's end. McConnell's theft ensured that the measure died a swift death. The debates in both chambers were redirected by strategy memos, prepared specifically for Republicans by Republicans, that outlined stay-the-course talking points. In the House, Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) distributed a memo that required GOP members to bring 9/11 into the discussion as often as possible while attacking Democrats as weak and vacillating. The debate was redirected in this fashion with dreary regularity. In the end, a measure to establish a timetable for withdrawal was defeated by a vote of 256-153. In the Senate, a similar strategy memo was distributed by the Pentagon in preparation for debate over the McConnell measure. The initiation of the Senate debate was unexpected, a tactical move similar to the one brought against John Murtha (D-Pa.) when he proposed a withdrawal plan this past winter. McConnell's measure was a deliberately paler shadow of the plan soon to be proposed by Kerry, which guaranteed its ultimate defeat by a vote of 93-6. The presentation of Iraq talking points delivered by the Pentagon brought a scathing denunciation from Senator Kerry. "This is disgusting proof that Republicans are thinking about the politics of Iraq instead of a real debate about the security of our troops," said Kerry in a statement released on Friday. "This is how we got into the Iraq mess in the first place. American soldiers are being killed every day in Iraq but somehow Donald Rumsfeld's crew at the Pentagon has time to write ridiculous talking points that won't do a thing for young Americans caught in the crossfire. Add this to Karl Rove's partisan cheerleading and it's pretty clear where their priorities are. Pathetic. Rumsfeld needs to get focused on our troops, not pages of hollow words and talking points." The empty debate in the House brought down a similar denunciation from Congressman Murtha. Murtha was inspired to respond after presidential adviser Karl Rove delivered a weekend speech in New Hampshire, during which he painted Democrats as cowards. "They may be with you at the first shots," said Rove, "but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles." Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, would have none of it. "He's making a political speech," Murtha said of Rove's comments during Sunday's edition of "Meet the Press." "He's sitting in his air-conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan. We've got to change direction, that's what we have to do. You can't, you can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell these troops they're carrying 70 pounds on their back inside these armored vessels and hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says, 'Stay the course.' Yeah, it's easy to say that from Washington, DC." An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake, and further believe that a withdrawal of our forces is absolutely necessary. Anyone observing what took place in Congress last week cannot deny that the Republican majority has no intention of seeing those desires brought to fruition. The so-called "debate" was little more than an endorsement for more of the same in Iraq. So long as these people are in the majority, the dying and the waste and the immeasurable danger to our national security generated by this occupation will continue with no end in sight. Congressional Republicans felt confident in their ability to deflect any serious talk of an exit strategy last week because of division within Democratic ranks on the issue. Last week, this Republican confidence was rewarded. The division has paralyzed the Democrats on Iraq to date, and is reflected in the recent release of the Democratic platform for the upcoming midterm elections. Titled "A New Direction for America," the platform outlines plans to increase the minimum wage, fund stem-cell research, cut student-loan interest rates by half, defend a woman's right to choose, along with a variety of other line-items that will be brought to the fore should the Democrats re-take the House. "This," said minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) upon the release of the platform, "is a unified Democratic message." Indeed. Every item listed on this platform conforms to the basic, fundamental ideals championed by the Democrats. The word "Iraq," however, appears nowhere in the document. The closest they got to addressing the principal issue of our day was one sentence: "Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security." That was it. This week, however, is another matter entirely. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have extended the debate with legislation calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a shifting of forces to other nations, with a small contingent remaining in Iraq to train Iraqi troops. The resolution requires Bush to establish a redeployment plan for troops remaining in Iraq after 2006. Senator Kerry is also pressing ahead with his resolution to have virtually all American troops withdrawn from Iraq by December 31st. The Republican-controlled Congressional debate last week was a farce, a cruel insult delivered on the very day the number of American troops killed in Iraq reached 2,500 souls. The continuing debate this week offers far more substance, thanks entirely to those Democrats who have established a strong legislative agenda on the issue. The Democratic Party is working out how and when a withdrawal from Iraq should take place, but they are united behind the fundamental premise that an exit strategy is absolutely required. The Democratic measures being offered in Congress serve to push this all-important debate in the proper direction. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062006R.shtml
