Cynical Nation

Listen to him carefully. He is right. We should pull out of Iraq now.

I did listen and conclude that he is a raving lunatic.

Well he is not that much of a lunatic when you compare him to Dick Cheney (or even Bush).

Call the vote. Let Kucinich spew. Just get them on the record and call the vote.

I just got e-mail from Howard Dean (not exactly sure how I got on his mailing list) talking about how shameful the Republicans are and how we should all send messages of support to Jack Murtha. Well the GOP did him one better, Howie. They're calling an up-or-down vote on exactly what Murtha claims to want.

Now CRB, about watching C-SPAN... why didn't you call your sponsor?

I have a new found respect for the patience of the Bush administration who actually have to deal with these idiots on a daily basis.

How do half these dolts get elected in the first place?

'Splain me this. House Democrats are reacting to this maneuver with outrage and disgust. I guess they clearly don't want this resolution voted on. So what *do* they want exactly? That Murtha and others should grandstand and beat their chests about a troop drawdown and to attack Bush 24 hours a day? But that Congress should never allow it to come to an actual vote, because doing so would be a "dirty trick?"

Oh, my head. And they are still talking...

This is such BS.

F it, I can't take it anymore. Someone please fill me in on how the vote turns out in the morning.

The Republifascists called for an immediate vote to end any debate. They didn't want anyone going on record with the truth, and they didn't want to go on record lying for liar Bush -- so they pulled another one of their famous nuclear option stunts.

Maybe they can just add "You can't critisize Bush!" to their unconstitutional Patriot Act. You know how the terrorists really win? Just look at the Patriot Act.

As I understand it, the resolution for troop withdrawal was written by those who oppose it. So that sounds to me like an essentially dishonest manuever.

What the GOP could *do* exactly is let those, like Murtha, who propose pullout actually get to be involved in writing a resolution that they would support. Then there could be an honest debate.

The republican party is going down. The desperate attack of the republicans on Murtha reflects their weakness.

Another Vietnam hero who happens to be republican (Chuck Hagel) has also similar views. I am wondering how they will react eventually against him. Will they do to him what they did to McCain in the past? You can expect anything from this Rove/Cheney-operated gang.

> As I understand it, the resolution for troop withdrawal was written by those who oppose it. So that sounds to me like an essentially dishonest manuever.

It's no more dishonest than Murtha's resolution. His was so vaguely crafted that even Bush could have supported it, and was calculated to get as many yes votes as possible. The Republican version was calculated to get as many no votes as possible. Welcome to politics, PE.

Your politics. I still say that writing a resolution that you do not support is dishonest politics. If Murtha's proposal is so vaguely worded that it is not worth passing, then bring that up in debate. At least you would be debating a proposal written by those who favor the proposal.

> Your politics.

No, just politics. It's an ugly business and you don't have to like it, but both sides play it. You might find the idea of drafting a resolution you disapprove of distasteful, but stuff like that goes on all the time, PE. It's akin to a party leader switching his vote from "aye" to "nay" at the last minute so that he can bring the matter to a vote at a later time. Crap like this has always been done by both sides.

...Or voting for a bill you don't believe in because it has some pork in it that you do like.

Let's turn it around and ask why Democrats voted for a war they now say they didn't support?

That's easy. They voted for it because Bush lied.

You forgot "and people died!!!1!"

C'mon, it's not THAT hard to remember. Get with the fucking program.

Nobody really cares if these meat pawns die. People die all the time. But when the leader of the alleged "free world" lies and steals like a common criminal, that's noteworthy.

It is. We're lucky that hasn't happened.

"Maybe they can just add "You can't critisize Bush!" to their unconstitutional Patriot Act. You know how the terrorists really win? Just look at the Patriot Act." (BH)

The vote was a great idea. The Democrats, most of whom voted in favor of the war a few short years ago, now want to act as though they didn't get access to "up to date Intelligence."

Now that's a lie. I KNOW that first hand. I Know that EVERY single Senator and every single Congressman had access to the very latest Intel in the spring of 2003. That's a fact.

Now they want to claim they were deceived and that the troops should be pulled out right NOW. That's what the Village Idiot of Congress (Kucinich) argued for...when the vote came, of course, even Dennis "the Menace" Kucinich didn't have enough backbone to vote YEA.

And, just a gentle reminder, there's NOTHING, at all Unconstitutional about the Patriot Act. If anything, it doesn't go far enough.

It merely allows law enforcement to use the same tactics ALREADY USED on suspected drug dealers on suspected terrorists...and allowing the CIA & NSA to more openly and fully communicate and cooperate with the FBI and local law enforcement - A GREAT IDEA. If that had been effect before 9/11, local law enforcement would've had a mountain of evidence on which to go after Atta and "his boyz."

Only a complete dolt would consider the Patriot Act, as written, to be Unconstitutional. It's been gone over dozens of times and there's nothing remotely Unconstitutional about it.

I still say that writing a resolution that you do not support is dishonest politics.

LOL.

"Now that's a lie. I KNOW that first hand. I Know that EVERY single Senator and every single Congressman had access to the very latest Intel in the spring of 2003. That's a fact." (JMK)

CORRECTION: Make that "second hand," as I was not personally present when any such material was accessed.

Every member of Congress had the same access to the very same information the President had...information that even had the Clintons (both of them) supporting the invasion of Iraq...virtually the same information that John Kerry had access to in 1998 that had him calling Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq "Not enough," calling for the consideration of an invasion, some five years prior to the one that occurred in March, 2003.