Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do. The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/...ection_ap_poll
Printable View
Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do. The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/...ection_ap_poll
Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.
Nothings changed.
Republicans lost seats because of Immigration (male voters) and scandals (female voters), not because of public confidence in democrats.
LMFAO!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Are you the only person on the planet this clueless? Or are there others?
Even a right-wing stooge such as yourself must know that your defeat was for the most part a referendum on shrubya and the mess that he created in Iraq, Gomer.
The truth? You can't handle the truth!
That may or may not be accurate. The Dems ran moderate to conservative candidates in many places where any progressive caucus candidate would have been trounced.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
Combine that with historical mid-term numbers and it isn`t that big a victory.
This midterm was certainly not as large a victory for the dems as it is a rebuke for the RINO`s:
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office
Bill Clinton,Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.
Not to worry, pilgram...we will continue to respond and remind you that you most definitely are a friggin' idiot. An idiot with all the intellectual prowess of a soft cheese....although AllanahStarrNYC seems to prefer the term moron when referring to you *smirk* ...Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Ofcourse the Demagogues have a plan. How could you possible they wouldn't? It is to destroy the very fabric of this nation using our own laws against us. What else do Demagogues profess other than an utter hate & contempt for anything American?
Tfan wrote:
Well, like they say in my parts, it takes one to know one.Quote:
Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.
Tfan also wrote:
Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.Quote:
Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.
GW Bush, who does belong to the US elite, has been a failure as a businessman, a failure as a sports team owner and a failure as a president. The jury is still out on whether he will prove to be a failure as a family man.
Secondly, whoever said that the US has to "make war"? What the fuck? The US is supposed to make peace between nations, not attack on a whim and sacrifice 3000 innocent soliders and God knows how many civilians.
The general public does not want to make war. It wants to make peace and bring an end to war. And if you haven't realised that this is the reason the Republicans lost seats then I am wasting my time even typing this.
And, by the way, why aren't you out there fighting?
Quote:
Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.
Really? You mean like Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry...etc.
Quote:
Tfan wrote:
Thanks WMC. I can't be bothered by responding to idiots.
The mid-term numbers I used , are they completely false ?Quote:
Well, like they say in my parts, it takes one to know one.
A-hem! The liberal Center for Responsive Politics pegs Pelosi's net worth as being somewhere between $14,746,108 and $55,085,000.Quote:
Tfan also wrote:
Yeah. The general public still doesn't trust the liberal elite to make war.
Firstly, the liberals are not "elite". They come from every level of American society, just like the conservatives. And, unlike GW Bush, most liberals were not born into wealth and eased into university. Many, again unlike GW Bush, made the right decisions in life and made their own wealth.
"The Pelosi`s estimated their total assets to be worth $25 million to $102 million last year, with liabilities of $6 million to $31 million. Assets are reported in broad ranges on the disclosure forms, making it difficult to determine a lawmaker's exact net worth. (she owns property in Napa Valley and employs NON-Unioned workers).
Members of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, which includes some of the wealthiest lawmakers in Congress, have built significant personal fortunes by capitalizing on the region's pricey real estate market and investing heavily in the stock market." http:/ww.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/26/BAG7B7CDMQ1.DTL
About 20 out of 50 in Congress ranked the richest are dems.The top of the list is jean pierre kereee at 675 million(RollCall).
Yes,in both parties they do come from all stations in life but the hypocracy is that Pelosi uses non-union labour and not surprisingly,
[i] "Secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Conversely,Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure. "[/i]
( Arthur C. Brooks,Syracuse University. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books)release date,Nov.24.
What branch of the service did Bill and or Hillary Clinton serve in before entering politics? Didn`t Clinton attack Yugoslavia,bombarding it with more than 15,000 sorties?Quote:
And, by the way, why aren't you out there fighting?
You believe in abortion? Why aren`t you out there killing babies ?
WMC and guy one:
So long as we're namechecking famous politicians and political families, I will add a few:
The duPonts, who set up the famous manufacturing firm had two candidates for the Republican nomination for President. Then there have been the Lodges and Cabots who have produced US ambassadors and Republican senators galore. They were regarded as the cream of Boston's elite. And now we have the Bush family.
Then again, some "elite" families have not been politcally fixed. True, the Kennedys are famous Democrats but Maria Shriver is not a Democrat. The Roosevelts have had famous Democrats and famous Republicans. That is why it is difficult to draw the line.
But if you look at the voters, the truly wealthy seem to prefer the Republicans whereas the disadvantaged are mostly liberal. That was the jist of my point which you did not fathom. In any case why generalise? There are rich republicans and rich democrats, are there not? Equally there are good and bad liberals just as there are good and bad conservatives. The point though is that recent bad conservative policies have done a huge amount of damage.
Also, WMC wrote:
There is no such thing as believing in abortion, because abortion is not a religion or an idea. What you mean is that I "support" abortion, right?Quote:
You believe in abortion? Why aren`t you out there killing babies ?
The answer is yes, in certain circumstances. So why am I not out there killing babies? Becuase you're asking a crap question. Becuase that's not the point of abortions. Abortion is not "killing babies". Abortion is about a woman's right to choose (provided, I believe, the embryo is not developed) and not something that men, who aren't the ones who carry and have to nurture babies, can decide.
And who told you that I approved of Clinton's bombardment of former Yugoslavia? However, the circumstances were different (there was a civil war on and the US had NATO's backing), the bombings helped to end the trouble eventually (although lives were lost) and now there is peace. Also, Yugoslavia never felt so much like a business operation as Iraq did.
Here's a thought though: If the US government knew that Saddam actually had WMDs d'you think they'd attack him? Hell, no. That is why, despite the huffing and puffing, the US will never attack North Korea. That is why they're trying to stop Iran before it develops nuclear weapons becuase if they don't, there will always be a risk of Iran deploying WMDs if the US continues its military presence in the region.
Clinton was no saint. But nobody was as bad as this current government of yours. And the few billion people around the world who believe this can't all be wrong.
The US has a coalition in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by LG
Since you don`t believe in the division of labour,and if you believe in abortion, shouldn`t you should be out there peircing the skull of babies,opening it`s head and sucking it`s brains out with a wet/dry vac?
It`s not human? Hypothetical, if your mother considered you not human, decided to have your brains vacuumed out and you could have a veto power vote,would you say , "ok sure suck my brains out and kill me" ?Also,where would you be now if subjected to a brain vacuum or abortion?
One would imagine that he hopes it would turn out better for him than it did for you... :PQuote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
*smirk*
LMFAO......
-Quinn
I know,you`re just upset that your socialist pal Pelosi is stumbling about like a political drunkard,all the while you thought she was going to be your saviour. And your Code-Pink boy Murtha !? :P That unidicted so-conspirator is so corrupt the dems already turned on him ! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
Leaves a sour taste in your mouth huh?
Not exactly.That sour taste is my load of spunk you just drank after being power-fucked and pasted yet again ! :lol:
Is it just me, or does our shrillest right-wing closet-case sound gayer than J. Edgar Hoover's diary? :roll: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Closeted
It`s you :PQuote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
WMC splurted out:
And I say:Quote:
The US has a coalition in Iraq.
Bollocks with your coalition. The coalition of the willing should be renamed the coalition of the coerced. Most nations did not even offer any military power to your coalition. Of the total troops, the US and UK provided over 90%.
And most of your coalition buddies have either withdrawn by now or are planning to do so soon. So don't talk to me about a coalition. I got your coalition right here in my crotch.
As for the rest of your post WMC, it does not even merit an answer.
Americans have more confidence in Democrats than Bush
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans have more confidence in Democrats than President Bush on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues, as the minority party prepares to move into the congressional majority next year, a new CNN poll shows.
The poll comes as Democrats begin to outline their goals and policy agenda for the 110th Congress. While Democrats enjoy comfortable leads on issues ranging from Social Security and Iraq, Bush has a 46 percent to 45 percent edge on the issue of terrorism.
The poll also showed that Americans believe former President George Bush was a better president than his son, current President George Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/po...ker/index.html
I have to tell in this case "chef" Mike is right they did lose as a direct result to lack of leadership in the middle east conflict but and there is a but the Dems have not verbalized a clear plan. If they are not careful they will also lose the presidential bid. you don't win elections by only stating what the other party or candidate does wrong. You must come up with a clear concise plan. I hope soon i wouldn't mind to move back home sometime before i die lol
The Majority Party has no plan?
Actually members of the newly elected majority party have floated numerous ideas regarding the civil war that shrubya created in Iraq.
Here's a position paper circa March 2006 to get you started, pilgram...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0403-28.htm
Very amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
CommonSocialistDreams. Great site and a great plan.
A change of direction,meaning reverse,meaning QUITTING .
Same old tired socialists who pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese.Now wanting to do the same in the middle east and cede the field to islmo-fascists.
Yeah, I`d say that`s a brilliant plan,worked well before. :P
LMFAO...uh huh...
Keep drinking that neocon kool-aid, pilgram...or otherwise you might actually have to deal with the world as it really is...
The Vietnam Analogy That Doesn't Hold
Nation: Bush Citing Vietnam As A Lesson For Iraq Policy Is Ludicrous
President Bush has said many dumb things in defense of his Iraq policy. Citing the Vietnam War as a model, however, is perhaps his most ludicrous yet.
This past week found the President sitting before a bust of the victorious Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, seemingly unaware that the United States lost its war with the Communist-led country. Having long and vehemently denied parallels between the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, he nevertheless admitted now to seeing one.
"Yes," Bush said. "One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is ... just going to take a long period of time to — for the ideology that is hopeful, and that's an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate.... We'll succeed, unless we quit."
Bush seems not to have noticed that we succeeded in Vietnam precisely because we did quit the military occupation of that nation, permitting an ideology of freedom to overcome one of hate. Bush's rhetoric is frighteningly reminiscent of Richard Nixon's escalation and expansion of the Vietnam War in an attempt to buy an "honorable" exit with the blood of millions of Southeast Asians and thousands of American soldiers. In the end, a decade of bitter fighting did not prevent an ignominious U.S. departure from Saigon.
Now, however, Vietnam is at peace with its neighbors and poses no security threat to the United States. Many of the "boat people" have returned as investors, and successive American Presidents have made visits to the second fastest-growing economy in Asia. While Vietnam is still run by its Communist Party, eventually post-war leaders on both sides have accepted that peace is practical.
The lesson of Vietnam is not to keep pouring lives and treasure down a dark and poisonous well, but to patiently use a pragmatic mix of diplomacy and trade with even our ideological competitors.
The United States dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than it unloaded on all of Europe in World War II, only hardening Vietnamese nationalist resolve. Hundreds of thousands of troops, massive defoliation of the countryside, "free fire zones," South Vietnamese allies, bombing the harbors ... none of it worked. Yet, never admitting that our blundering military presence fueled the native nationalist militancy we supposedly sought to eradicate, three U.S. Presidents — two of them Democrats — lied themselves into believing victory was around some mythical corner.
While difficult for inveterate hawks to admit, the victory for normalcy in Vietnam, celebrated by Bush last week, came about not despite the U.S. withdrawal but because of it.
Iraq and Vietnam are not the same country, yet both have long experience with imperial meddling, and fiercely resist it. Bush has said Iraq "is in many ways, religious in nature, and I don't see the parallels" to Vietnam, but that is just another sign that he probably cut most of his history classes at Yale.
He — and apparently the mass media, as well — seems to have forgotten that the United States tried to stoke a religious war in Vietnam by intervening to install a Roman Catholic exile in power in this primarily Buddhist country. The struggle to overthrow that U.S. puppet dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, began with Buddhist monks immolating themselves on the streets of Saigon.
To be sure, there followed a decade of constant talk about bringing democracy to the country we had occupied and a never-ending series of elections and new power arrangements that followed the U.S.-engineered murder of Diem, who (like Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi) had been deemed by U.S. officials as "the George Washington" of his country. At least Chalabi is still alive to complain, as he did to The New York Times this month, "that the Americans sold us out."
But the final collapse of our puppet regime in Vietnam did not produce the domino effect of other nations surrendering to communism any more than a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will inevitably lead to the spread of terrorism. This is why the wiser voices in the Bush dynastic circle — Daddy Bush's clean-up crew, led by James Baker — are calling for involving Syria and Iran in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Iran is to host a summit with Iraq and other nations in the area, while on Monday Syria and Iraq resumed long-broken diplomatic relations.
The lesson of the Vietnam debacle is that yesterday's enemy is more likely to become today's trading partner if we remove the specter of U.S. imperialism and leave the fate of Iraq to the Iraqis.
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
We 'cut and ran,' but look at Vietnam now
Al Neuharth, USA TODAY founder
President Bush stood and spoke in front of a bust of Ho Chi Minh, the notorious North Vietnam Communist dictator. He died midway through the Vietnam War, but his followers forced us to "cut and run" 31 years ago.
Bush said, "Vietnam is an exciting place. It's a place with an enormous future." Later, when asked what lessons Vietnam might have for Iraq, he replied: "We'll succeed (in Iraq) unless we quit." He vowed again that he won't do that.
Despite his firsthand look at a peaceful and prospering Vietnam this past week, Bush still doesn't get it. The "it" is:
Vietnam was the most tragic international blunder in our history. From 1965-75 we lost 58,193 U.S. servicemen and women. And we lost the war.
Iraq is a somewhat similar, albeit smaller, misadventure. In three and a half years we've sacrificed more than 2,800 troops, and the toll keeps mounting.
Hawkish Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of State when we pulled the last of our troops out of Vietnam, said this week that "military victory" no longer is possible in Iraq.
On Oct. 4, 2002, I wrote in this column: "Congress is 'debating,' but President Bush and his hawkish cohorts are demanding a virtual blank check to wage war in Iraq. They'll probably get it. That's a mistake."
Then, most of you approved invading Iraq. Now, polls show 56% of you think that was wrong.
You should make sure members of the new Congress understand that unless they get us out of the mini-Vietnam mess in Iraq that the old Congress helped Bush create, they too will be toast in 2008.
Feedback: Other views on Iraq and Vietnam
"Mr. Neuharth errs on one point: Iraq, not Vietnam, is 'the most tragic international blunder in our history.' The strategic consequences will be worse."
— William E. Odom, retired Army lieutenant general and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
"Of all the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, the high cost in American blood and treasure is indeed the most disturbing."
— Robert K. Brigham, history professor, Vassar College, and author of Is Iraq Another Vietnam?
article and footnotes-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/..._and_ran_.html
Well said, chefmike, well said.