• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kucinich - "What are we waiting for?"

bamacre

bamacre

Lifer
Brief speech...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AF4QYlUx74

Does anyone really believe that Congress can't end the war in Iraq. If they cut off funding, Bush can't just leave troops there. The military heads aren't going to let one dumbass make that decision.

I think Congress wants to continue this war, and I mean both parties. They voted for it, they've continued to finance it, and they aren't going to bring the troops home any time soon.

Even though the majority of Americans want this over, as Dick Cheney said, "so?"
 
They never had any intention of getting out or Iraq as quickly as they all claimed. The people who vote for them are stupid enough to buy the BS though and it worked like a Charm. If Obama gets elected don't count on him to get out quickly either. They will find a way to blame Republicans so you guys will still vote for them. Works every time.
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
They never had any intention of getting out or Iraq as quickly as they all claimed. The people who vote for them are stupid enough to buy the BS though and it worked like a Charm. If Obama gets elected don't count on him to get out quickly either. They will find a way to blame Republicans so you guys will still vote for them. Works every time.
Click to expand...

Yep. Their sheep followed them in hopes of manna....but they never left the gated pasture...
 
Originally posted by: sprok
Cause they'll be then labeled as cut and runners and be accused of not supporting our troops?
Click to expand...

So they are more worried about the political fall out than actually "helping" the troops(as they try to claim). That's pretty disgusting if true.... oh wait...it probably is true...
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sprok
Cause they'll be then labeled as cut and runners and be accused of not supporting our troops?
Click to expand...

So they are more worried about the political fall out than actually "helping" the troops(as they try to claim). That's pretty disgusting if true.... oh wait...it probably is true...
Click to expand...
How can they help the troops if the aren't in office? It's better to get them out in 5 years thanks to the Dems than 20 years as it would be with the Republicans.

 
Maybe because the situation there is *still* such a clusterfvck an immediate withdrawal would be disaster (according to the (R)'s anyway)? I think they're waiting to take over the big chair in 01/09 when they can make their own plans.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sprok
Cause they'll be then labeled as cut and runners and be accused of not supporting our troops?
Click to expand...

So they are more worried about the political fall out than actually "helping" the troops(as they try to claim). That's pretty disgusting if true.... oh wait...it probably is true...
Click to expand...
How can they help the troops if the aren't in office? It's better to get them out in 5 years thanks to the Dems than 20 years as it would be with the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sprok
Cause they'll be then labeled as cut and runners and be accused of not supporting our troops?
Click to expand...

So they are more worried about the political fall out than actually "helping" the troops(as they try to claim). That's pretty disgusting if true.... oh wait...it probably is true...
Click to expand...
How can they help the troops if the aren't in office? It's better to get them out in 5 years thanks to the Dems than 20 years as it would be with the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...
They won because they weren't Republicans.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sprok
Cause they'll be then labeled as cut and runners and be accused of not supporting our troops?
Click to expand...

So they are more worried about the political fall out than actually "helping" the troops(as they try to claim). That's pretty disgusting if true.... oh wait...it probably is true...
Click to expand...
How can they help the troops if the aren't in office? It's better to get them out in 5 years thanks to the Dems than 20 years as it would be with the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Those elected to office should be servants for the people. They will not be removed from office if the people want the troops to come home.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
They won because they weren't Republicans.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And they probably will repeat in Nov. :laugh:

 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕
Click to expand...

How is that working out? Two campaign promises that have ended in complete failure.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕
Click to expand...

How is that working out? Two campaign promises that have ended in complete failure.
Click to expand...

About the same as the shrub on convincing his Saudi overlords to increase production.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕
Click to expand...

How is that working out? Two campaign promises that have ended in complete failure.
Click to expand...

About the same as the shrub on convincing his Saudi overlords to increase production.
Click to expand...

Ohh the Bush did it defense big surprise. :disgust:

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕
Click to expand...

How is that working out? Two campaign promises that have ended in complete failure.
Click to expand...
They're finding out that it's easier said than done fixing the damage done to the country by the Republicans and President Shit for Brains
 
The reason why congress hasn?t ended the war is due the fact that they can not get enough republican support in congress. Even though the Dems have the majority they still do not have enough support to over ride a veto from bush.

The sad thing about the US government is that the parties don?t decide what best based on the interest of the people they do it based upon lobbyist support and what the other party is going to do.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhh... they are in office. Isn't that what the claim was in 2006? They had won based on the promise of ending the war?
Click to expand...

I thought they won because they promised to lower gas prices? 😕
Click to expand...

How is that working out? Two campaign promises that have ended in complete failure.
Click to expand...
They're finding out that it's easier said than done fixing the damage done to the country by the Republicans and President Shit for Brains
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have all the excuses for the next 4 years of failure by the democrats.
 
Originally posted by: Byblyk
The reason why congress hasn?t ended the war is due the fact that they can not get enough republican support in congress. Even though the Dems have the majority they still do not have enough support to over ride a veto from bush.

The sad thing about the US government is that the parties don?t decide what best based on the interest of the people they do it based upon lobbyist support and what the other party is going to do.
Click to expand...

Cute slogans but I really don't think you know how this works.

You see the President has the power of the sword "AKA the ability to send our troops to war" where as the Congress has the power of the purse "AKA the money to fund said war".

Thusly, they don't have to override anything from Bush to stop the war. They don't have to pass any legislation. They don't have to do anything fantastic or wonderful.

All they have to do is NOT pass any bill giving more money to fund the Iraq war.

Now considering they have a majority in both the House and Senate if they chose to no bill giving more money to the war would never even be allowed to be voted on if they chose and of course it would never pass unless Democrats voted on it because they have a majority.

So yes, Democrats are keeping the war going.
 
Not so close to an election. Cutting funding to troops in an active war zone with a defiant President who will make a big media circus out of it is a bad idea.

Wait until after the elections, when the Democrats have sweeping majorities in Congress and control of the White House; then they can begin troop withdrawal.

In the meantime, they can let the war continue and lay the blame at the feet of McCain and Bush. It serves as great political fodder against them, since the war is so highly unpopular.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not so close to an election. Cutting funding to troops in an active war zone with a defiant President who will make a big media circus out of it is a bad idea.

Wait until after the elections, when the Democrats have sweeping majorities in Congress and control of the White House; then they can begin troop withdrawal.

In the meantime, they can let the war continue and lay the blame at the feet of McCain and Bush. It serves as great political fodder against them, since the war is so highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

So doesn't that basically mean you are "wasting lives and waging war for political gain" king hypocrite?
 
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not so close to an election. Cutting funding to troops in an active war zone with a defiant President who will make a big media circus out of it is a bad idea.

Wait until after the elections, when the Democrats have sweeping majorities in Congress and control of the White House; then they can begin troop withdrawal.

In the meantime, they can let the war continue and lay the blame at the feet of McCain and Bush. It serves as great political fodder against them, since the war is so highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

So doesn't that basically mean you are "wasting lives and waging war for political gain" king hypocrite?
Click to expand...

It is only wasting lives and money when Republicans do it. duh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top