"The President’s surge has failed and there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq."

[bigtree]

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Text of Jan Schakowsky's Democratic Radio Address

“Good morning. This is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

“The President’s surge has failed and there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq. This is what I learned on my summer visit to that ravaged country.

“After arriving in Iraq in August, it didn’t take long to see that the surge failed to achieve its main goal – reducing the violence so that progress could be made on key political benchmarks. At a meeting with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Barham Saleh, our six-member Congressional delegation was informed that the night before, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi had left the government. The week before, the Sunnis had pulled out their Cabinet members. What was left of the Parliament was on vacation, and Dr. Barham said that a political settlement ‘won’t be done this September and it won’t be done next September.’ But he never did say how many Septembers it would take.

“Later, while dining on lobster tortellini in the air-conditioned elegance of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s home in the Green Zone, General David Petraeus, commander of our forces in Iraq, made the case with charts and pointer that the security situation had improved somewhat during the surge. And yet while we were choosing between coffee, tea, or espresso to go with our dessert, outside in the 120 degree heat on that very day, August 6, four U.S. soldiers were killed by an IED blast in Diyala, one British soldier was shot in Basra, six street cleaners were blown up, 33 Iraqis were killed in a residential neighborhood in Tal Afar, and 17 bodies killed by death squads were discovered.

“Outside in the scorching air, our young men and woman in uniform were sweating under their body armor during, what is in fact, the bloodiest summer of the war, driving on roads that our delegation flew over in Blackhawk helicopters because the driving was too dangerous for us. There they were, doing their valiant best to carry out a misguided mission, risking and too often losing their lives, while we looked at a chart telling us that in one place, in one month, after four and a half years, there had been a slight drop in violence. There was no chart showing that overall sectarian attacks around the country had nearly doubled from last year. And there was no chart that measured the more than 3,700 of our troops that have been killed and the more than 27,660 wounded, many profoundly and for life.

“Neither was there a chart showing the enormous cost of the war, now up to $3 billion a week, $12 million every hour – enough to fix all the broken bridges in our country, expand health care coverage for our children, help our students afford college, develop renewable sources of energy, and make our streets safer.

“And as we finished our strawberry cake, our troops were out in the real world and not there to hear General Petraeus tell us that the United States would be in Iraq for another nine to 10 years. That means children who are now 8 years old, who were 4 years old when the war started, could yet serve in Iraq, according to General Petraeus.

“Nine to ten years. That was not the timetable I nor most Americans had in mind, but General Petraeus acknowledged that as a military man, at the end of the day, he takes his direction from the civilian leadership. If the civilian leadership in this country determines that the war is to end and the troops come home, then that is what will happen.

“I took his statement as a challenge. The Congress of the United States is reconvening on Tuesday. Most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans have come to the same conclusion – the best way to protect our troops is to end this war in Iraq.

“With the President stubbornly continuing to stay the course in Iraq, I urge my Republican colleagues to join with Democrats and the vast majority of Americans who are demanding a new direction in Iraq and refocusing America’s efforts on fighting the real threats of terrorism around the world.

“This is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Thank you for listening.”


http://www.janschakowsky.org/SchaBLOGsky/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/512/articleId/463/Text-of-Jans-Democratic-Radio-Response.aspx

[Enrique]

1. one of the best statements I've seen

I hope a lot of people hear it.

But I think they're not going to give her such good food next time. She burned her bridges with the menu planners in Iraq.

[bigtree]

5. It's unlikely that these men who will advise us on Iraq have any idea

about 'conditions on the ground'. If they do, their arrogance rivals that of leaders of any dictatorial regime anywhere in the world. They are truly in their own private kingdom with their own personal protection force maintaining their reign in comfort and style. It's good to be a knight and a knave in Iraq.


This is priceless . . .

". . . while dining on lobster tortellini in the air-conditioned elegance of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s home in the Green Zone, General David Petraeus, commander of our forces in Iraq, made the case with charts and pointer that the security situation had improved somewhat during the surge. And yet while we were choosing between coffee, tea, or espresso to go with our dessert, outside in the 120 degree heat on that very day, August 6, four U.S. soldiers were killed by an IED blast in Diyala, one British soldier was shot in Basra, six street cleaners were blown up, 33 Iraqis were killed in a residential neighborhood in Tal Afar, and 17 bodies killed by death squads were discovered."

[bananarepublican]

39. Why doesn't she mention that over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since '03? n/t

[Enrique]

46. my guess is that she doesn't think that would help her cause

to end the war.

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[sendero]

3. I have one giant quibble with this...

... "reducing the violence so that progress could be made on key political benchmarks"

The violence is not the reason that political progress has not been made, it is the exact opposite - the violence is BECAUSE political progress has not been made.

[bigtree]

6. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out Bush's 'goal' or rationale

and arguing that he failed to produce. She never shared that goal.

[sendero]

9. She should state is as Bush's goal...

... not as an assumed fact.

It's a lot like the "we fight them there so we won't have to fight them here" argument. That is, total bull.

[bigtree]

11. I don't think she did state it as a fact. She stated the rationale as Bush presented it.

You assumed it was a fact. That's just poor reading, not any failing of the congresswoman.

[sendero]

12. Ok...

... on second reading I will concede that is probably what she meant, but she could have done a better job of saying it. Adding the word "stated" would have made a lot of difference.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. She needs to urge her fellow Dems to end the war

Too many of them are still not understanding it needs to end and they don't seem to know how to end it.

[bigtree]

7. It's not her fellow Dems who are standing in the way of that.

[sendero]

10. Oh yes it is..

.... and you can prevaricate all you want to, the house controls the purse and the Dems control the house.

It most certainly IS the Dems who are standing in the way.

[bigtree]

13. The majority of Democrats have voted for legislation with an end date

and are still prepared and willing to do so again. That's not prevarication, that's a fact.

The majority of republicans have voted against timetables for withdrawal. That's a prevarication.

I can't understand the point in misrepresenting the will and efforts of the majority of our Democrats.

[sendero]

14. MAJORITY ..

.... won't cut it. When the Republicans have something important to get done, they get 100% party vote. Why can the Dems NEVER do that? Saying it's only a few Dems who are the problem doesn't help, they are STILL DEMS and we STILL HAVE INEFFECTIVE LEADERS in the house and the senate.

And one of the lowest approval ratings from the public. If you think that 18% approval rating is because of the Republicans, you are NUTS. The American people put the Dems in there to do something and they cannot.

If they don't DO SOMETHING very soon, you can kiss 2008 goodbye, Americans are RAPIDLY coming around to the Nader (who I can't stand) point of view that neither party is worth two shits.

[bigtree]

15. They are as 'effective' in their Iraq legislation as the balance of power in this Congress allows

There hasn't been much daylight between Democrats on timetables. There are more than enough votes to pass legislation, but not enough in our majority to advance them beyond Bush into law.

Let's not go back and re-debate their efforts so far. I'm right there with the harshest skeptics of our leadership as I wait to see what opposition they'll manage when they return from their break. The administration doesn't deserve a dime to continue in Iraq. That's where I've begun my advise to my legislators on how to address the hard sell coming from the White House. We'll see how they do.

[sendero]

17. Well...

... we agree on this "The administration doesn't deserve a dime to continue in Iraq".

With the GAO report making it abundantly clear that the surge isn't doing anything like what was promised, which any moron could have predicted correctly, it's time for the Dems to stop messing around and end this war.

[tblue37]

31. The Republicans get what they want because their leadership

has access to the NSA tapes that are used to blackmail the rank and file into doing BushCo's bidding.

[sendero]

44. Anyone who allows themselves to be blackmailed..

... deserves to be blackmailed, period.

If they have something THAT BAD in their closet, they are no better than the Republicans. That dog won't hunt.

[Poiuyt]

45. Democrats in Congress are VERY united

in their opposition to starting impeachment hearings

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Oh good grief; take your blinders off

The Dems voted to fund the damn war. They gave the worst president ever FISA. They refuse to impeach in spite of overwhelming evidence. THEY ARE HAVING ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS ARRESTED for coming to their offices and demanding they end the damn war.

Wake the fuck up. The majority of our Dems have drank the terror war koolaid and are giving this liar in chief everything he needs to continue this war.

Read the presidential candidate's platforms. The only difference between the Dem and the pukes is the Dem candidates are actually discussing Iraq. But read their platforms. Hillary doesn't want to end the war; she supports leaving troops in Iraq.

So yes, OUR party has some work to do before we can see an end to this war. Many Dems are standing in the way and allowing 3 of our soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis to die every day.

[leftchick]

19. I agree and wtf does "a new directon in Iraq" mean?

fucking weasel words. Also let's not forget the Lieberman Iran bill voted 97-0 by our courageous leaders! :puke:

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07192007.html

Another Step Toward War with Iran
Democrats as Leviathan

By JOSHUA FRANK


The Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.

<snip>

The Democrats don't really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they desired to end the war they would have halted its funding long ago. Likelise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.

The amendment, H.R.1585, written by Sen. Joe Lieberman, repeats the same round of vacant lies the neocons have been advancing for quite sometime. Iranian influence in Iraq is now becoming the accepted reason among American political elites as to why US forces are failing. The Lieberman amendment also claims that Iran is providing a safe-haven for al Qaeda fighters, even though the group is allegedly blowing up Iraqi Shias daily.

American soldiers aren't being killed because of Iran; we are losing because there is no such thing as real victory for the US in Iraq. There is only death.

[bigtree]

21. She said: "The best way to protect our troops is to end this war in Iraq."

That's what the fuck a 'new direction' means to her.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. She wants to leave troops in Iraq

Step away from your TV and read her platform.

[bigtree]

25. Now I see, I thought leftchick was talking about the congresswoman, you thought Hillary

and wouldn't ANY Democratic president be accountable to a working majority of their own party?

"Step away from your TV" :rofl:

edit: . eh

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Oh sorry for the confusion

but I will still encourage you to read Hillary's platform on Iraq.

[bigtree]

20. I don't have any blinders on. How incredibly condescending

Bush and his republicans in Congress are the ONLY obstacle to ending the occupation. One veto-busting majority of republicans voting for legislation with *an end date, and the troops start coming home, 'funding' and all.

The majority of our Democratic legislators are committed to completely ending the Iraq occupation and all military and monetary maneuvering that goes with it. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Oh is that why they gave bush FISA??

Get back to me in 2 weeks. If the Dems have ended the war, I will apologize. But today, the condenscension I see is coming from the party loyalists who refuse to see what their Dems are actually doing. I should say NOT doing.

The progressive caucus sent a letter to bush telling him no more money for Iraq unless it is to bring our troops home. Let's see the rest of our Dems sign on to that - and keep their word. That would be a good start.

[bigtree]

26. A MINORITY of Democrats joined with republicans to allow that to pass

It was idiotically enabled by the leadership in both houses, I would fire them for that alone, but that doesn't look like it's on the table.

And, I'm as skiddish about the leadership on their next move as many are right now BECAUSE of that idiotic leadership move allowing the republicans a vote on their FISA bill.

I'm pretty sure this congresswoman is a member of the progressive caucus. I think I recognize her from the very first debate in the House.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. The leadership sucks

As much as I have criticized the repukes for marching in lockstep, I sure wish the Dems would do that on at least a few issues.

[Raksha]

34. I have already taken my blinders off.

That 97-0 vote in the Senate was the last straw. For months I've agonized over what could be wrong with our Democratic "majority." Are they cowards? Are the complicit...and if so, WHY? Are they being blackmailed...and if so, with what exactly? Could it be the worst possible scenario mentioned in another thread, that impeachment is off the table because Bush has his finger on the button? Horrifying as that is to contemplate, it doesn't explain the 97-0 vote on the Lieberman bill. It's clear that Bush is going to get his war with Iran and the Dems aren't going to lift a finger to stop him.

I'm a lifelong Democrat--a third-generation Democrat, in fact. I hope I don't get banned from DU for saying this, but if someone wants to start a Progressive Party, I'm joining it without so much as a backward glance. My days of voting for the lesser of two evils are OVER! I see now exactly where that has gotten me.

[brer cat]

8. Recommended. n/t

[Senator]

18. Only Impeachment Can "End The War" (or accomplish anything else)

Begging Republicans for political handouts just makes them look weaker and weaker.

--

[bigtree]

22. bullshit. There's no possible way you can guarantee Bush wouldn't escalate his militarism

as Congress diddled with a process that (so far, without some outside prosecution or outside investigation) has republicans poised at the end to acquit the administration on all counts.

[Usrename]

32. No, what you are saying is bullshit.

Republicans can't run away from Bush fast enough. Not many would vote to support his crimes.

It's total and complete bullshit to say that anyone would defend these monsters in a public trial. Total bullshit.

It's the Dem leadership that is protecting Bush/Cheney and their war. Our party leadership loves this war. They want more!

[bigtree]

36. I still maintain that without some outside prosecution, republicans would acquit in an impeachment

That's based on their obstruction of EVERYTHING so far.

And it's an outright lie that Democrats are 'protecting Bush/Cheney's occupation. The majority of our party has voted repeatedly for an end to the occupation. They are still prepared and willing to vote for legislation containing an exit date. Bush and the republicans have blocked those efforts. That makes them responsible.

[Usrename]

47. No one is going to side with Bush in any impeachment proceeding.

And Speaker Pelosi is in complete and total control of the agenda in the House. The Repuglicans have no say.

[Senator]

33. I'm not "guaranteeing" anything beyond the reality that "objecting"...

...is far better than failing to object. As objection/accusation is the first step of any process of accountability and/or redress.

Had that objection come sooner, perhaps while "Congress diddled" with non-binding resolutions, we might not have had the escalation (surge) that we are now just discovering is permanent.

But do remind me again what failure to impeach "can guarantee?"

And how that's not just billsh*t.

===

[bigtree]

37. the binding ones were blocked as expected, so it's crap to harp on the non-binding efforts

Both binding and non-binding legislation has been blocked by Bush and his republican enablers in Congress. There are no guarantees that any of the efforts by the slim Democratic majority will stop Bush, but it's still bullshit to pretend that an impeachment that relied on Democratic charges generated by our party alone, without the benefit of some outside prosecution, would assure that Bush ended his militarism. I think he'd escalate it as sure as his republican enablers would provide the votes to acquit him.

[Senator]

40. "blocked as expected" ?!?

And I'm the one accused of spending time BS-ing?

We are only in charge of ourselves. We are not in charge of other people. We can either object/impeach, or fail to object/impeach.

We are not responsible for what others decide to do. Choosing not to take what action we can for fear that "he'd escalate" is just a form of Stockholm Syndrome. And we are not responsible for Senate conviction/removal. At this point in the process (at the House level), we are only in charge of accusation/objection.

The only thing with a "guarantee," that will "assure" anything is the failure to impeach. That will assure a minimum of 16 months more of what we've had for years now -- and could well have for years ahead. Because unless and until there is objection/impeachment, the "enablers in Congress" are not limited to republicans.

Sorry to "harp on" reality. But I'm only in charge of myself.

---

[bigtree]

41. yeah, they were blocked by filibusters and vetoes as was predicted

did you miss that?

It makes no sense at all to ignore the balance of power in this Congress and pretend that Democrats could overcome Bush's obstinacy with their votes alone. Even with that prospect of Bush's veto, Democrats have voted with enough of a majority to pass their Iraq legislation containing an end date on to the president. It's Bush and his republicans who have stood in the way of that effort. No matter how much blame one can heap on Democrats, it is still Bush and his republican enablers in Congress who are blocking an exit from Iraq.

I don't think impeachment is the panacea that folks pretend; especially not a process undertaken in this Congress which relies on charges generated in-house by Democrats alone. I think that 'objection' you want would be a hollow one without some outside prosecution or investigation which would galvanize enough republicans to convict. I think there is a very real prospect of an acquittal by republicans who refuse to provide the necessary margin of votes to convict if the charges are seen as generated solely by our party.

But, I really don't want to continue to debate the merits of impeachment. I think it would be a blast to impeach Bush and his minions. I just have doubts about all of the claims of the effects of an impeachment on Bush's ability to proceed with his militarism. The point you first raised, and the one which I want to respond to, is that any old impeachment is the only way that Bush can be stopped in Iraq. I think that assertion is without any basis in fact, evidence, or precedence. I strongly disagree.

[Senator]

42. yeah, as will everything except Impeachment

And beyond that, even a veto override (which seems to be the DC Dems' pipe dream) will be blocked by "Rule By Signing Statement" ...

...as predicted. Just now by me.

So you see, it is you who are "ignoring the balance of power" by pretending anything other than impeachment is an (unspecified) option. But we are not "debating the merits of impeachment." You are dismissing it out of hand without any mention of an alternate strategy or possible outcome.

You even agree with the point I first raised, by citing the "balance of power" that makes anything other than impeachment/objection impossible. By definition then, as the only action possible, the only thing that "can end the war" is impeachment.

Or did you miss that?

---

[bigtree]

43. there is no perfect way to confront the WH crimes and abuses

but it's clear that just initiating a partisan impeachment in this Congress isn't some slam dunk which trumps all of the myriad of other levers of accountability Congress is also mandated by their oath to uphold and exercise. The two contemporary examples of impeachment were both preceded by months and months of hearings in Congress by the Whitewater and Watergate committees. The Whitewater effort had a wide-ranging, outside investigation/prosecution. Watergate had convictions and an admission in court by John Dean before the Watergate committee was even formed.

I'm not just relying on my own personal bias for or against *impeachment. I'm looking at history and the balance of power in this Congress where the republican opposition has already demonstrated the depths of their obstinacy.

I'm also looking at the ability of both Nixon and Clinton to continue their military operations during those impeachments. Did you miss 'wag the dog?'

[Senator]

51. Impeachment is perfect

In that it is the only thing available. You said yourself that the "balance of power" clearly "trumps all of the myriad of other levers of accountability."

But the "history" you cite is wrong in that Clinton was not impeached over Whitewater and Nixon was not impeached over the Watergate break-in. Whether or not the regime will be able and/or willing to continue their military operations during an impeachment is the reason it needs to be done now.

It's anything else that's just "wagging the dog."

===

[bigtree]

53. those investigations provided the pretext and outside prosecution

that provided a convincing pretext for those favoring an impeachment.

Accused of wagging the dog, Clinton escalated his Iraq bombings as the impeachment proceedings began, declaring that the hearings couldn't and shouldn't hinder him.

[Senator]

55. With outright admission, you don't need "pretext"...

...whatever that means.

But are you accusing President Clinton of war crimes? The way that sentence reads, it seems that you accuse him of escalating bombings just because there were hearings. Only republicans believe that.

You'd better clarify your point.

===

[bigtree]

56. there is no possible way that I can account for your parsing of my words

And it's not surprising, or new to find someone here who's run out of their argument and resorting to a bullshit attempt to paint a poster as some republican sympathizer. It would be funny if that tactic hadn't become a sad and self-defeating trend here at DU.

Your conversation has just become intellectually boring and inane. I hope that's clear enough for you.

[Senator]

58. well, you could try

But if you think doing so would be too boring and/or inane, I understand.

--

[Usrename]

49. You are just wrong about this!

Bush did veto the Democratic war funding authorization that would have called for a scheduled withdrawal.

But that veto had no force to maintain funding of the war.

The Democratic leadership chose to fund this surge. Nothing at all made them do it. It was their choice, their preference; they love this war.

Nothing and no one made them do it, except their love for the whole Bush doctrine, including borrow-and-spend and tax-cuts-for-the-rich.

You are just kidding yourself if refuse to admit that the Repuglicans couldn't do half of their crimes without a complicit Democratic party.

[bigtree]

52. they love the Bush doctrine? and you think I'M kidding myself?

that funding came after the failure of ALL strategies to confront Bush to get the necessary amount of support to put them into action or law.

It made no sense at all to refuse to fund the priorities Democrats had been hollering that Bush and his republicans had been neglecting. That limited funding bill isn't what's keeping the troops in Iraq, though. If Bush had enough money 'in the pipeline' as folks insisted, he had enough money to continue his escalation for the period the bill covers without relying on the portion of the funding bill that actually was destined to eventually trickle down to Iraq. Bottom line . . . one veto-busting margin of republicans voting for legislation containing an exit date and the troops come home, money and all.

[Usrename]

54. It's just a total fantasy that you have about the evil republicans.

If the Supremes had not acted to install Bush in the White House, Joe Lieberman would have been a heartbeat away from being a democratic president.

What is this big difference you see between Bush and Lieberman? It only exists in your imagination.

There are those in our own party leadership (just like Lieberman used to be) that love this war.

Quit making excuses for these people and open your eyes. Lieberman is not an aberration in the Democratic Party.

Pelosi chose to allow the vote to support funding Bush's surge. She was not forced in any way to do it. She wanted to do it. Maybe if the PARTY LEADERSHIP had allowed her to have her choice of Murtha, instead of Hoyer, as Majority Whip she would have acted differently. But still, she chose to have the vote to support the surge. Nothing and no one forced her.

[bigtree]

57. Lieberman is not a Democrat, no matter what he says.

Pelosi has proven herself incompetent, in my view, as she allowed the FISA bill to progress, But I'm not going to agree that the limited funding bill, which was passed after ALL of the different strategies to confront Bush FAILED to gather the necessary amount of support to put them into action or law (including the defunding scheme that would have members sit on their hands, refuse to pass any spending bill, and not direct Bush to do a thing) *is the reason our troops are still in Iraq.

But it's just not the case that refusing that one limited Democratic supplemental (which contained money which likely hasn't even reached Iraq yet, as well as other Democratic priorities for the safety and well-being of our troops) would have caused Bush to notice or care enough about any shortfall to cause him to end his escalation or his occupation. It just didn't make sense to me to deny the troops equipment like armored vehicles and armored vests while Congress was gridlocked on their exit. It was clear when Bush vetoed the timetable legislation that the troops were going to remain in Iraq for some period. The spending legislation recognized that and I think it was proper. Besides, if Bush had money 'in the pipeline' as critics of the spending bill claimed, he then had the money to continue with or without the limited supplemental.

The entire argument about that one supplemental being responsible for the continuation of the occupation is a curious effort to take the responsibility away from Bush and his republican enablers in Congress and put it on the backs of our party, the majority of which has voted repeatedly for an end to the Iraq occupation by a date certain. The fact remains that it is Bush and his republicans who are SOLELY responsible for leaving our troops in Iraq, as one veto-busting margin of republicans joining with our overwhelming majority of Democrats committed to ending the occupation in voting for legislation containing timetables for withdrawal and our troops come home; money and all.

[Usrename]

59. Six years ago Lieberman was our party's candidate for VP.

What has changed about him? Oh, I get it. He's been exposed as a Bush tool. Oh yeah, and he is the only one. Yeah, right. Dream on.

[bigtree]

60. the overwhelming majority of our Democratic legislators do what we sent them there to do

pointing to the few idiots who managed to get elected under our party banner and claiming that handful represents our party is nonsense.

Lieberman was a poor choice for Gore. That doesn't make him the spokesman for Democrats.

[Usrename]

61. Keep telling yourself that.

If believing in evil republicans vs good democrats is all you are capable of, that's too bad.

You seem to be smarter than that.

Which of these imaginary democratic leaders, that you believe in, actively supported Ned Lamont in his general election bid against the evil traitor Lieberman? Hillary? Nope. She supported Lieberman. Obama? Nope. Lieberman is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama+mentor+Lieberman">Obama's mentor.

Who are these imaginary leaders in the democratic party that supposedly think Lieberman is not one of them? Name some names. Knock yourself out.

[bigtree]

62. Hillary only gave support to Lieberman in the primary

It's ridiculous to measure the party by how they may privately feel about Lieberman. I measure them by their actions. Iraq is the most important issue to me right now. The overwhelming majority of our party has voted repeatedly for an end to the occupation in sufficient numbers to pass legislation out of both bodies of Congress. The ONLY obstacle to enacting that legislation has been the republican party and their refusal to rebuke Bush on Iraq with any vote on any bill. I keep telling myself that because it's so.

As for the ideology and actions of the two parties, there is an overall, demonstrated divergence of interests and actions. You don't have to be 'smart' to measure that.

[Usrename]

63. The results of their actions are the opposite of what you say.

Only 41 votes were needed to stop the Alito nomination.

42 senators voted that he was unfit to sit on the court.

Yet there he is.

What is it that you were claiming about their actions?

I don't see anything here that supports your fantasy. But if you are enjoying it, don't let me wake you. Shhhh.... it'll all be ok...

[bigtree]

64. you sound like you're supporting some other party

How effective have THEY been in advancing your concerns into action or law?

[Usrename]

65. Yes!

Republican bad, Democratic good.

I get it.

[librechik]

29. That disappointing September Report won't matter at all--if we are engaged in Iran. n/t

[Imagevision]

30. ->Patreaus has already stated to Couric he plans to ask Bush to extend the surge time-frame

[Disturbed]

35. 15 Years of US Occupation in Iraq?

HELL NO!!!

[cali]

38. I fear that our Occupation of Iraq will be longer than that

Just reading about our "Embassy" there, convinces me that we won't be leaving for decades.

[NewJeffCT]

48. 15 years? Try 50

They're already pulling out the World War 2 comparisons and how we still have troops in Germany today, over 60 years after the end of that war.

I'm not kidding, either.

I wish I was.

[Quantess]

50. I wish I could give it a rec.

Time for a kick.