Oped: Democrats have 'let down' the American people

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

By a massive landslide right? Not just barely?



And they show such typical leftist yellow cowardice. Still waiting for them to "Get us out" Dook?

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

By a massive landslide right? Not just barely?



And they show such typical leftist yellow cowardice. Still waiting for them to "Get us out" Dook?

I'm amazed how much you don't understand Washington. Truly amazing.

Where did I say they won by a landslide? You yourself in another thread just called them "cut and runners" over the Iraq bill despite their lack of veto-proof power.

Which is it? They either have the veto-proof power and were spinless, or they didn't win by a landslide, therefore cannot force Bush's hand?

Or will you just do your usual crap:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

By a massive landslide right? Not just barely?



And they show such typical leftist yellow cowardice. Still waiting for them to "Get us out" Dook?

I'm amazed how much you don't understand Washington. Truly amazing.

Where did I say they won by a landslide? You yourself in another thread just called them "cut and runners" over the Iraq bill despite their lack of veto-proof power.

Which is it? They either have the veto-proof power and were spinless, or they didn't win by a landslide, therefore cannot force Bush's hand?

Or will you just do your usual crap:

What an intelligent and insightful response.


Beating your horse sounds like a private personal matter dookster.... We don't need to hear what you do behind closed doors.

A Hostage Situation, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times [Update: full column]: There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it's a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders ?- the troops ?- if his demands aren't met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job...

But this isn't a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn't really trying to win the argument on the merits. He's just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

What's at stake ... is the latest Iraq "supplemental." Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: "Whoops! Whaddya know, we're running out of money. Give us another $87 billion." ...

What I haven't seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm's way without first ensuring that they'll have the necessary resources.

As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration's requests, you could say that this wasn't a real problem, ... just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war ?- and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it's an act of hostage-taking.

Actually, it's even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill ... won't even set a hard deadline for withdrawal..., only an "advisory," nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same ?- and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said ... in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ?'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!' "

So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush's threats? ... Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.

The fact is that Mr. Bush's refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, we're already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq ?- now extended to 15 months ?- are breaking the back of our volunteer military.

If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months ?- 21 months! ?- Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

By a massive landslide right? Not just barely?



And they show such typical leftist yellow cowardice. Still waiting for them to "Get us out" Dook?

I'm amazed how much you don't understand Washington. Truly amazing.

Where did I say they won by a landslide? You yourself in another thread just called them "cut and runners" over the Iraq bill despite their lack of veto-proof power.

Which is it? They either have the veto-proof power and were spinless, or they didn't win by a landslide, therefore cannot force Bush's hand?

Or will you just do your usual crap:

Beating your horse sounds like a private personal matter dookster.... We don't need to hear what you do behind closed doors.

It's never been me doing it. You should know that far too well by now.

Unless you've gotten a sudden case of Alzheimer's.

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Democrats have always let down the American people.

I guess that explains why they got voted back into power.

By a massive landslide right? Not just barely?



And they show such typical leftist yellow cowardice. Still waiting for them to "Get us out" Dook?

I'm amazed how much you don't understand Washington. Truly amazing.

Where did I say they won by a landslide? You yourself in another thread just called them "cut and runners" over the Iraq bill despite their lack of veto-proof power.

Which is it? They either have the veto-proof power and were spinless, or they didn't win by a landslide, therefore cannot force Bush's hand?

Or will you just do your usual crap:

Beating your horse sounds like a private personal matter dookster.... We don't need to hear what you do behind closed doors.

It's never been me doing it. You should know that far too well by now.

Unless you've gotten a sudden case of Alzheimer's.

Thats a cute tophat you are wearing and what are you doing with that shaft and horse? Wait... DOn't want to know.

Actually I don't know about you beating your own horse. The Good Reverend is uninterested in your auto-erotic or zooaphilic activities. If you have an exhibitionist need perhaps you can get a webcam and a paypal account. I for one won't be visiting your new site.

Man... Maybe once you will address my points and not get all turgid for the Good Reverend's cod piece. As I have told you many times before. I prefer the company of women. I don't swing the SF way.


You got some scary patholgy thier boy.