Yes, as a Democrat I am extremely disappointed in Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid ...

[harveyc]

and the 110th Congress.

I see that many think we should not be critical of members of our Party.

Not when our soldiers are dying in a war we can't win. 76 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the 110th Congress took office.

Also, tell that to Ned Lamont where during his Senatorial election bid in 2006, 1 out of 3 Democrats threw him under the bus for that bushevik war mongering Lieberman.

Of course Shrub is the reason our soldiers are dying in Iraq, but the Congress has the power to stop this madman and they were elected and promised to end this failed war, "immediately."

The Congress can pass a binding resolution and/or defund this war in Iraq, instead of wasting time on non-binding toilet paper for the Capital restrooms. They are "slow walking."

It is time to stop playing politics with our soldier's lives and get them out of Iraq.

We can have all of the hearings, investigations and impeachments we want after our soldiers are safely out of Iraq.

There is also this notion that we have to fund our soldiers in Iraq to protect them, i.e. political cover for the Congress to approve the 2008 Iraq supplemental in a few weeks. This is so nonsensical as to be delusional.

How is keeping our soldiers in Iraq and being killed everyday protecting them? Also, how can you have hearings and investigations on something you paid for and bought.

The time is now to get our soldiers out of Iraq, enough BS!

[Caution]

1. And what do you think they can do beyond what they have done?

In less than 100 hours they completed the initial agenda, they have started the investigation process and they have already started sending strong messages about the war.

They can not order Bush to pull the soldiers out of Iraq as they don't have the power to do so.

Please explain exactly what they should do?

[harveyc]

3. Instead of wasting time on ...

a nonbinding resolution on Iraq now, they should have begun work on a binding resolution when they took office.

They also should have told Shrub, they would no longer approve additional Iraq supplementals, e.g. the 2008 supplemental.

With these two steps, there would be no alternate but for Shrub to start withdrawing our soldiers from Iraq.

[blondeatlast]

8. Yes.

They had so much power then. :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

40. It's very simple

Congress has to appropriate funds for the 2008 military budget. Since Democrats control the committees they can simply refuse to let any funding bill reach the floor that includes money for the continued operations in Iraq other than pulling out. Either Bush signs our bill or the military goes without funding.

They refuse to do that for political reasons...

Personally I'd rather save a few hundred soldiers' lives than win an election.

[enough already]

55. We won't lose elections if we do it

On the contrary, by showing some balls and standing up to this madman, who the country HATES by the way, we'll guarantee huge majorities going forward. End the fucking nightmare now.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I agree, I think it will cripple the GOP

Their authority will be completely undermined and that will make them look weak in the eyes of the public.

But you won't have much luck convincing people that just because "Democrats don't support our troops" worked in 2004 doesn't mean that it will work in 2008;.

[katmondoo]

2. The're doing fine. Hang in

[harveyc]

6. Not to be rude but ...

tell that to the families of the 76 soldiers we have lost since the 110th took office. They have done NOTHING to end this war.

[paulk]

77. you are full of shit

GW Bush is the one responsible, not the Democrats.

[liberalnurse]

4. Yadda, yadda yadda.........

YAWN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please look outside the box. Strategy is in play here in the Democratic Congress. We just simply can not come out with guns blazing...Because we will simply shoot off our foot. They are deeply aware of what you think and feel. Progress is not achieved on impulsive acts.

[Botany]

5. You know if you hit you left hand w/ a hammer enough .....

...... then the right will seem so much better because it is not bleeding with
broken bones.

Points:

* Pelosi and Murtha just went to Iraq to see about what is the best
way for us to get out of the war.

* Reid's parliamentary maneuvers as far as Pat Roberts blocking the
pre war Iraqi intel is going to come back and bite bush and Cheney
hard in the ass. Sen. Roberts is so scared that he dropped off the intel
committee that Sen. Rockefeller now chairs.

* After the pre war Intel comes out ..... looks like it will start this week
moves to de-fund the war and real movements to impeach bush/Cheney
will start.

* Members of Congress DON'T have the authority to order troop movements.

[harveyc]

9. "Slow walking" ...

The Congress has the power to pass a binding resolution to end the Iraq war.

Congress can also defund the Iraq war.

This trumps the authority to order troop movements.

[Sgent]

69. They can do neither

because they can't get the 60 votes in the Senate.

What they can do is withhold appropriations -- but that won't be effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year -- which starts in either August or October (I can never remember which).

[enough already]

56. Just what do you think Pelosi learned over there on her hand-held tour?

Did she learn that things are better than she thought? Not bloody likely. So de-fund it now and save the lives of those people stuck there in chimpy's war.

[Fovea]

7. You and I need them to be drag racers

and the House and Senate need them to be bus drivers.

But I do think we could meet in the middle and have them drive like harried soccer moms.

[harveyc]

11. Ms. Pelosi used the term "immediately", how fast is that? ... n/t

[Fovea]

14. Did she use it in a sentence that also said

This is a bill to defund the entire Iraqi theater within 90 days unless the troops start a phased 3 month withdrawl 'immediately?'

She could have invoked incapacity for Bush and started immediate impeachment proceedings on Cheney based on the Libby evidence presented so far.

But I will be happy if they just get the damn congressional hearings revved up to speed and get these bastards under oath, say this week sometime. That could start the impeachment as soon as March without bending the constitution further.

That could stop the Iran invasion and the 'surge' in its tracks.

[liberalnurse]

20. Tell me......I'm assuming you are or have

had the pleasurable experience of being an elected official, say at least a state level representative???? You seem so direct and confident in your criticism of our Congressional leaders. Share with us your resume'. We may be able to follow your rationale for assault with clarity then and be able to join you in your mission.

[peacetalksforall]

10. Well, you could put on your 'using the imagination hat' on and think

about what's involved in pulling them out and write our leaders with some ideas on how it could be done faster.

It's a very sticky situation.

Another element adding to it all (for me) is the thought that this administration has:

. realized they can't let more of our kids get maimed physically and mentally or killed
. however, they need the military to protect and secure the corporations that they refuse to abandon
. therefore, they need this 'new army' that George brought up in his SOTU.

What will really be interesting is how our leaders handle that request. They should be holding hearings right now to make sure that if sending more kids means that he is going to unitaerally claim they are part of his 'new army' and make them sign new papers.

[harveyc]

12. The Congress will have to vote on ...

the 2008 Iraq supplemental shortly.

Hearings won't mean anything if Congress approves it.

Congress will then be nothing than a partner in the Iraqi war.

Why doesn't Congress just end the war now and stop wasting time and our soldiers lives, as promised?

[PuppyBismark]

17. Last time I checked, anything Congress Passes, shrub has to sign

It is time to get real here. Unless both houses of Congress have 67% of the votes, shrub can veto anything sent to him. So, at this time, they are doing what they can given the realities of the Constitution. Remember that document, the one Shrub keeps trying to ignore when it is convenient for him? We all need to do what can be done and keep our eye on the 2008 elections.

[harveyc]

19. Shrub can't veto ...

something he doesn't have.

If the Congress votes to defund the 2008 Iraq supplemental, what does he have to veto?

Plus, I don't think he can veto a resolution of the Congress.

[Pyrzqxgl]

51. No, but he can ignore it!

[Bjornsdotter]

13. Pulling out of Iraq

....can never be instantaneous. They are working to reach that goal and unfortunately it does take time.

Let them do their jobs, it takes more than a couple of weeks.

Cheers

[harveyc]

16. I understand, but

the Congress found it possible to start working on a nonbinding resolution in this "couple of weeks."

That doesn't even start to end the war in Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. Just politics.

That isn't what they promised and our soldiers keep dying in Iraq.

[Bjornsdotter]

18. And

....IIRC they never said that they would remove the troops from Iraq in the first 3 weeks.

It takes time, if you know a way to speed up the removal have a go.

cheers

[harveyc]

26. Of course, nobody said ...

we could remove all of the troops out of Iraq in three weeks, but we could have already started the process of getting them out of Iraq.

Also, if it was clear that we were going to withdraw, via binding resolution and/or defunding, the soldiers could be protected in Iraq, by disengaging, until they were withdrawn.

[hashibabba]

15. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the Democrats, if its

warranted. I'd like to see the Congress move faster, too. But they've already put a nonbinding resolution out. Next they're going to put out a binding resolution. Then they are talking about redeployment in six months. And they're talking about defunding the war when they can (I believe that's in the fall). Unfortunately, they can't just go in and put the cuffs on Cheney and Bush tomorrow. These things do take time--at least more than three weeks.

Try to be a little patient and understanding, these things take time whether you like it or not. They're doing a lot more than the Republics did with their time. To me, the Dems are on the right path.

[Lost-in-FL]

27. AMEN!

[Hippo_Tron]

41. I'm all for what you've suggested except I don't think they will do that

Nancy Pelosi said that cutting funds is off the table. A binding resolution and cutting the funds starting in the fall would be wonderful. But all evidence suggests that what they really intend to do is let Bush have his surge and just let things stay the way they are until 2009.

[beaconess]

21. Why don't YOU run for office?

since you're so certain of what they should be doing, why not get into the ring yourself, instead of armchair quarterbacking?

[harveyc]

22. I voted ...

for people who said they would end the war in Iraq immediately, their top priority.

I am not airmchairing anything, only going by what was promised last November.

The Congress could have started on a binding resoultion to end the war in Iraq while doing the 100 hours agenda.

[beaconess]

23. Did you vote for Pelosi or Reid?

And did they promise in November to start a binding resolution to end thewar during their 100 hours agenda? Did anyone? If so, who?

[harveyc]

30. No, but I did ...

vote the straight Democratic ticket where I live and the Iraq war was, by far, the main issue.

There are 2 ways Congress can end the Iraq war immediately, as promised, binding resolution and defunding. If there are other ways the Congress can stop the war in Iraq immediately, please inform.

Other than that, then I don't know what "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq." means.

[partylessinOhio]

24. I completely agree with you and so do many others in America.

This Week on ABC scrolled the names of 47 troops who died in Iraq and whose names were released this week by the Pentagon. As I recall their ages ranged from 20 to 48. Why did they have to die? How many more will follow.

Pelosi, Reid or any of the other Democrats have not given any concrete promise that they will do anything to stop this war, stop the killing, stop funding the war or stop the expansion into Iran.

The first 100 hours promise was just window dressing. None of it effected me did it effect you and/or the average American?

Our Constitution does not give supreme power to one person. It does give us a system of checks and balances.

Bush and his war can be brought to a hasty end but these politicians do not have the will and courage to do so.

They need to be voted out and replaced in they fail us in very short order.

[harveyc]

29. Keep up the fight!

Sen. Feingold, Rep. McGovern, Rep. Kucinich and even Sean Penn know this to be the truth.

Window dressing and "slow walking" are costing our soldier's lives in Iraq.

Congress has the Constitutional power to end this war, now, and yet many seem to be coming up with excuses as to why they can't.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. It doesn't take 100 hrs to fix 8 years of a bad administration

harveyc said... There is also this notion that we have to fund our soldiers in Iraq to protect them, i.e. political cover for the Congress to approve the 2008 Iraq supplemental in a few weeks. This is so nonsensical as to be delusional.

Listen, our soldiers need to eat, they need medical supplies, support, ammunition for their own defense, fuel for their vehicles, allocate funds for transportation back to their units, etc, etc. You are just showing total lack of understanding about the military. You have as much knowledge about our military than the chicken hawks who got us in this quagmire. We cannot just pack our bags an leave. 150,000 units did not got into Iraq overnight. You need to educate yourself about things like this before you type such ridiculous post. To give you an example, the WH and the Pentagon planned the "surge" without Congress approval. That should give you an idea that Congress has little to say about "deployment". The Democrats need to get the Republics to vote for resolutions against the war and funding first. That is happening. At least someone is PLANNING.

One thing I agree with you, I WANT THE TROOPS BACK HOME!! I WANT MY FRIENDS BACK!! And I don't want my friends returning to Iraq. A friend of mine is getting ready to leave AGAIN to Iraq leaving behind a whole mess of his own family troubles.

[harveyc]

28. Approving the 2008 Iraq supplemental will ...

continue the Iraq war until the 2008 elections.

If the Congress votes to defund the 2008 supplemental, they can easily approve the necessary funding, separately, for the transition of our soldiers from Iraq.

I don't see this even being an issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Then put strings on the 2008 supplemental

The troops will be funded on the condition that the President pulls them out in six months. If Bush refuses to sign it and our troops don't get their supplies then we blame him for not supporting the troops.

[enough already]

57. They can eat here at home, where they're not being shot at n/t

[KingFlorez]

31. They don't have executive authority, they can't pull the troops out

And there isn't going to be a solution right away, the Congress has been in less than a month.

But, thanks for your "concern"

[harveyc]

32. Sorry to disagree but ...

If the Congress had worked as hard passing a binding resolution to end the Iraq from day one, as they did with the 100 hours agenda and this non-binding resolution toilet paper, our soldiers could be on their way home right now.

Authority to move troops is not a perquisite for a Congressional resolution nor the Congress' power to control the purse strings.

[snowbear]

33. harvey.. if you're a Democrat, then I'm the Queen of Sheba...

Hellz Bellz... it's only been what--- 3 days since you finally stopped saying "Democrat party"?

You -- a Democrat?

..."tell that to Ned Lamont where during his Senatorial election bid in 2006, 1 out of 3 Democrats threw him under the bus for that bushevik war mongering Lieberman

So... that must mean that 2 out of three Democrats in Connecticut DIDN'T vote for the little weasle and voted for Ned Lamont. TWO out of THREE!!!!

Why bitch at the entire Democratic party for what 1/3 of one state's voters did? Why aren't you bitching at the Independents and the r-THUGS in that state that really took droopy jowls over the top?

I've never seen you post ONE positive thread about the Democratic Party harveyc.

But while you're bitching about Connecticut, don't forget congratulate the Democrats in Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio!

I don't think you're mad at Speaker Pelosi, I just think you're mad that your lil' buddy lost his gavel:

[harveyc]

35. I never said "Democrat Party", search it.

You just got caught in your own little web you are trying to spin.

Ignore the fact that US soldiers are dying while you are playing internet sleuth.

Good job!

[KingFlorez]

49. You expected the war to end in just a month?

Congress is barely settled in.

[Richardo]

34. Yeah, They've had their month in power - let's try someone else...

:eyes:

[snowbear]

36. OhhHh good one Richardo !!!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




Oh, and by the way Harv..

I am extremely disappointed in Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid

It is SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI and SENATOR HARRY REID!

What's this "Ms. Pelosi" and "Mr. Reid" crap?

[harveyc]

37. Did you find where I used "Democrat Party" yet?

Waiting ....

[snowbear]

39. You can wait all day toots....

I know you said it... they know you said.... and I ain't searchin' nuttin honey.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harveyc]

63. WoW! A deleted message here ,,,

I am sure the Mods can settle this then.

Did I ever use the term "Democrat Party", as accused, or not?

Fair is fair.

[partylessinOhio]

44. Democrats giving carte blanche approval to Pelosi and Reid is no different

than Repugs giving it to the Decider. No difference!

[harveyc]

38. They had and have time ...

for a 100 hours agenda and nonbinding resolutions. Right?

How about a binding resolution to actually end the Iraqi war as promised?

[zulchzulu]

45. This simplistic, overwrought and naive statement brought to you by...

...people who think that a problem that would take at least 6 months to complete can get done in a week...

Problem Pixie Dust


That's right. Problem Pixie Dust.

Just sprinkle on a problem and it just goes away magically. All without any consequences or any repercussions!
You can tell other people they still have problems and should get....

Problem Pixie Dust

[harveyc]

46. I think you are very "long" sighted here ...

The Congress is going to have to debate and vote on the 2008 Iraq supplemental starting in a few weeks.

The voting for supplementals occurs in March or April.

If the 2008 supplemental is approved by Congress, there will be no end to the Iraqi war by the 110th Congress.


In US District Court, Campbell v. Clinton, 1999:

"Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces."


Tell me some more about Pixie Dust.

[zulchzulu]

47. How can you expect Reid and Pelosi to start troop exits before 100 hours?

Listen, I'd say 99% of people here at DU want the troops out.

But, and this is a big but, they can't be pulled out by decree of the Congress, especially when there isn't a majority to order that AND that the basic realistic fact that it would take many months for the troops to reverse out of Iraq. That's a given.

Being mad at Reid and Pelosi at this point shows that you don't understand the basics of how government works nor actually having an idea what they have said about the war and Bush's policies.

I think my sarcastic "Problem Pixie Dust" analogy works perfectly for you. The wars are a major problem and the effects are tragic. But in order to make the war end, there have to be serious incremental steps in doing so and there has to be answers for what countries in the region will help out once our troops leave...which I hate to say will not for at least five years...

Exiting Iraq is going to be a very complicated series of steps in order to not make the entire region a nightmarish genocidal bloodbath with the rest of the World being sucked into its vortex.

[harveyc]

48. Well said ... *applause*

While some in Congress would disagree with you, Sen. Feingold, Rep. McGovern, etc., I believe you have stated the essence of the problem.

I understand how the government works very well, I think you are referring more to the political workings.

No one argues that the Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to defund the Iraqi war. Democrats and Repugs have both said this.

Supplementals only require 50% of the votes to fund or defund, not the 60% in the Senate. Plus, the Prez can't veto something that isn't passed.

No one worried about problems of the Communist "domino's", the Vietnamese people, the region, when we got out of Vietnam. The war was ended and 10'000's of US soldier's lives were saved. Thus, I am not sure your term "tragic" is necessarily true.

What saddens me are the number of our soldiers that are going to be killed in Iraq while these political problems are worked out.

5 more years? ... 5,000 more killed?

I think the expectations of most of us who voted last November were that Congress would end this war asap ... this Congress, not the next Congress nor beyond.

[Richardo]

53. I don't know how old you are, harv, but there was PLENTY of concern about dominoes

...and regional destabilization re: Vietnam. That's ONE reason why it took so long to pull the plug. And while that particular political football was being kicked around thousands of service members were killed and wounded.

I was prime draft age at the time (1975) and I was following developments VERY closely.

[harveyc]

54. and yet, nothing earth shattering happened ... n/t

[Richardo]

58. I'm sure a few million South Vietnamese would dispute that assertion.

[harveyc]

61. I can't find this and ...

I am sure John Kerry and Jane Fonda did not want the Vietnam war concluded if this were going to happen.

[zulchzulu]

65. After the US left Vietnam in 1975...

The Vietnam War with the US can be called the Second Indochina War (the first being with the Vietnamese against the French).

After the US finally left in 1975, North and South Vietnam united and many thousands of South Vietnamese were sent off to "re-education camps" and treated as traitors. Laos was overtaken by North Vietnam, which then spawned a lovely fellow named Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The US supported and recognized the Khmer Rouge.

After up to 3 million people were executed, starved to death or made into slaves, Pol Pot was eventually overtaken by the remaining Vietnam government. After that, a third Indochina war started between Vietnam and China. This lasted a short time before China decided to withdraw.

So it could be said that a fair amount of misery continued after the US left...

[Fenris]

60. That's true, if you were white and living in America.

[Zuiderelle]

71. Depends on your definition of "earth shattering"

Nothing earth shattering happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki either.

[Richardo]

52. .

:rofl:

I expect to see this in LOTS of GD-P posts :rofl:

[harveyc]

50. An interesting article ...

on defunding the Iraq war ... it is not just me.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10285

[mmonk]

59. I'm with you.

Time to start drawing down. The war was started on false premises. Congress can be the constitutional check the founders envisioned. But then there's the lure of all that money...

[AZBlue]

62. Try living more in the reality-based community. It will ease your distress some.

People on DU need to understand what Congress can and can't do before writing inflammatory posts.

[harveyc]

64. I think there are two reasons for that ...

1.) People don't know the Constitutional powers of the Congress and ...

2.) Newbies don't know anything, so they are free game for uninformed and false derogatory posts.

IMHO.

[AZBlue]

78. My comment is based upon your OP, not your time spent (or not spent) on DU.

eom

[ProudDad]

66. I'm not a Pelosi supporter

nor a fan of Reid (especially his anti-choice stance) but...

They've pulled off a PR Coup that may make it easier for those in Congress who are more interested in doing the right things than their own personal power to fulfill some of our wishes.

Pelosi picked a set of issues that would resonate with the vast majority of the real citizens of the U.S. but would still be easily passed in a House and Senate still on a knife edge -- much more "conservative" than "liberal". Don't forget that the Congress is still WAY to the right of U.S. public opinion.

Now, Conyers, Waxman, Miller et. al. will get to work and build up the case against the bushies. This will be designed to bring even more of the public over to the side of peace and justice and make it easier to get the rest of the agenda passed.

Just be a little patient and keep the pressure on...

[harveyc]

67. It will be hard for ...

Conyers, Waxman, Miller, etc. to build any case if the Congress approves the 2008 Iraq supplemental which will be submitted to Congress in one week (from tomorrow).

If the Congress funds this war again, Congress bought it.

It is time for principles and convictions to end the slaughter of our troops on Iraq. That will strike a cord with the American people.

[JNelson6563]

70. Spoken like only those who

have no clue how it all works! Keyboard commandoes unite!

:toast:

[erpowers]

72. Sorry

I understand what you are saying, but the not defunding the war idea is not just political cover. If the Democrats do not fund the war soldiers will be left without guns, bullets, and vehicles. Bush is the type of guy who would perfer to leave the troops in Iraq without the proper equiment and then blame the deaths on the Democrats. You must remember this is the guy who sent the troops to war without the proper material then threaten to veto a bill which gave them the material they needed if the bill revoked the tax cuts for the wealthy. In 2008 Bush was able to use the troop issue against the Democrats. If he was successful in blaming the Democrats for trying to not fund the troops when he almost vetoed a bill that would have funded the troops he will most definitely be able to hurt the Democrats if they vote to defund the troops now. You could kiss the Democrats winning in 2008 goodbye. Furthermore, it might take a while for the Democrats to win again at any level.

[harveyc]

73. An excerpt ... previously referenced article ...

"We are told that cutting off the funding for the war means not "supporting the troops," but this is another bipartisan lie: the money for ongoing military operations in 2007 is already in the pipeline: HR5631 <.pdf>, the Defense Department appropriations bill authorizing spending on Iraq and Afghanistan for this year, passed overwhelmingly, 394-22, with the full support of the Democratic leadership. So what is Nancy nattering on about?

The idea that, if Congress cuts the funding, the GIs will soon run out of bullets and body armor is complete BS. That's what they want you to believe so they can sit on their hands while the casualties pile up and the war spreads beyond the boundaries of Iraq."

[erpowers]

74. Defunding the War

Could you please tell me where soldiers will get bullets, guns, and vehicles if Congress does not provide money for the war? I am not for the war, but at some point the soldiers will run out of materials if more money is not given. I would like it if another way could be found to stop the war.

[harveyc]

76. Rep. Dennis Kucinich ...

"If we truly care about our troops, we’ll get them out. It’s the phoniest argument to say that a cut-off of funds will leave troops stranded in the field. There’s always money in the pipeline to pay for an orderly withdrawal. But those who favor continuing the war or escalating the war are using the troops as a tool to further policies that are against the interests of the troops, against the interests of American people, and against the interests of peace in the world." ~ November 16, 2006

[FreeStateDemocrat]

75. There is no excuse for there not being a total full court press on passage of minimum wage increase

[onenote]

79. promised to end war "immediately". Want to provide a link?

You state that Congress was "elected and promised to end this failed war, 'immediately.'

Want to provide a link for the use of "immediately" in quotes? Want to provide links to a majority of the House and Senate Democrats pledging to end the war "immediately."?

I want the war over yesterday if possible, but I'm not going to pretend that the elections created the mandate you claim it did.

[harveyc]

80. Sure ...

--- Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/10/BAGJGMSTAQ1.DTL

[blondeatlast]

81. Well, then, her magic wand was in the shop that day.

It's all just so easy to pull hundreds of thousands of troops out of an occupied country--we just snap our fingers and *poof*.

Would that my wish for good health were as easy as ending an already illegal occupation begun by another.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[harveyc]

82. Congress could have, at least, started on ...

this "immediate" problem, so far, NOTHING!

Geez-a-loo.