WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security

with not even caring about Osama, doesn't mean the Dems should make any promises. Not one week after (if) we gain power, ALL the media fuckheads will be all over this if Osama isn't caught.

Osama Bin Laden should have been Job #1 after Sept. 11. This just keeps it out there that, going on 5 years, the Bush administration has failed miserably to bring him to justice.

The Democrats should be full bore gunning for Shrub for NOT going after Osama .

After that "I don't really spend that much time thinking about him" quote, the media should have been all over him. I'm talking full Al Gore smear tactics here.

Gawd, almighty, do I have to come down there and run the Democratic party myself?

Don't make me.

Bush failed. This action brings that fact out front.

Any mention of Osama is pure gold. Sort of like asking where the WMD's are.

It takes away any potential for an "October surprise" this year. If the thugs happen to get him now, I think it will look as though they could have all along. A brilliant move IMHO.

Osama should be out there daily from here on out.

Remember his boasts about getting Osama in a few months after he was elected?

Sign me up!

OBL that are currently being wasted and counterproductinve in Iraq.

If a Democrat gets in power in 2008 and doesn't catch Osama by 2012, I'll be asking questions.

Sounds good!

I want a solution to Iraq, it's time for healing, helping the Gulf Coast, not becoming
Republican lite, (Like we want your votes, so we like war), walls along the border and
we love military contractors that will give us money to buy bling bling.

the "caliphate"

except for popping up before elections and Valentines Day, where's he been, if they come
here, we will fight them, but fighting a war in every nation of the world is not feasible
and we will have hundreds of Osamas instead of 1.

OR THERE ARE ANY HUNGRY CHILDREN TO FEED.

GOD I LOVE IT HERE

people burned to death because they could not afford to pay for their gas bill, 5 mid-western states surveyed the cost charged by the gas companies and found that consumers were
bilked out of millions of dollars by the utilities companies; no, let's play Where's Osama
with guns and CIA's agents. Just what we need, and the Gulf Coast is still in ruins, no
time for that, let's play Chase Osama.

In the rural South, and perhaps in other parts of the country, there comes the time
for "The Snipe Hunt." Most all young boys are handed a gunny sack, a light of sorts,
sometimes a whistle, and are taken deep into the woods to hunt Snipe. It's a right of
passage and something which must be done alone.
The snipe hunt by tradition is a rather simple affair. Legend has it..the snipe
is nocturnal and is best hunted at night when it leaves its snipe nest. Webster defines
the Snipe as a member of the Sandpiper family, but to this day no one has ever really
seen a Snipe, much less captured one. At least to my knowledge!! (By the way, the
fact that there really is long-billed bird called a Snipe has almost nothing to do with this
ritual hunt.)

You never shoot a snipe -- not with a gun, slingshot, or bow and arrow. You just catch
them in a gunnysack. Sure it seems rather odd, trying to catch a bird with a gunnysack,
but look at it this way, its another fun activity like chasing down a greased pig, or any
of the other peculiar things guys in the country call fun. I have to admit I was "grown"
before I learned the truth about "Snipe hunting," because when we moved to the city,
there it was again. At camps in the summer, Snipe hunting was at the top of the list of
activities!

HUNT FOR OSAMA WITH A GUNNY SACK

First, they really need a trial, what did we convict him on, a 10 minute press the flesh
news bite by George Bush. We all know that President Bush never tells a lie just like
George Washington and President Bush always presents us with accurate information. Like
when they said Sadaam had Weapons of Msss Destruction, hey, so we now have trials that
consist of no evidence, no lawyers, just reporters and just the facts.

the squid would tell Marines or other navy on their first floats on navy ships to keep an eye out for the International Dateline or a mail buoy. You would see guys sitting on deck with binoculars out looking for the friggin dateline or a non-existent buoy. They might need to start calling it the Osama watch, Bush would not care, he does not think about Osama anymore, statute of limitations and all, I guess.

but Bush saw everything tainted with politics, how would this play, how could we fit this
in to a campaign strategy. What we need to do is figure out what happened and deal with it.
I think the army can do its job, when it's given the support it needs, when it has an effective strategy and when it is given the flexibility to respond. I don't think that
we had that here and still don't. I don't want a democratic leader staying the course
when it's a course that is unproductive, dangerous and a waste of the lives invested into
it.

Good times. WE were always told to put the ight in the sack and the snipe will just fly in. In North Texas, there are birds that fly at night and are easily seen eating bugs near the lights around baseball diamonds, so every kid assumes "snipes" are those.

I agree with you. Osama is dead or wasn't involved in 9/11 at all. I'm not even sure "Al Queda" exists. The information out there is too copious, and a LOT of it is missing from the "official story", but that is for another forum.

...not this "Delta Force" hypermacho secret bullshit, and you've got a deal.

and are not a bunch of Nick Danger apprentices.

And I want a party whose FIRST PRIORITY is getting out ...
Not a party who is trying to OUT BAD-ASS the Republicans!

"We're bad; we're so bad!"
(Nope. Doesn't do it for me.)

You know, the whole 3,000 dead Americans thing, people jumping out of windows and whatnot really got to me.

Besides- I don't want any more terrorist fodder for the Repukes. Let's end this.

We all feel badly about the deaths of countless innocents but we have been crazed with
fear and made a lot of stupid mistakes.

We should put Osama on trial, present hard evidence that he is the one responsible for
planing, organizing, funding and executing the 9-11 attack. Try him in absentia.
Then whenever he show up anywhere bingo, we have him.

Figure out a solution to Iraq, we have messed with that country big time. They had nothing
to do with 9-11, and we have destroyed their country. We need to be proactive to be
a positive force instead of just throwing money at private mercenaries and defense
contractors.

Find out who is in all these secret prisons run by CIA, the innocents should be released, the secret prisons should be shut down.

Provide free medical care to anyone who responded or worked at Ground Zero who are ill now
from exposure to toxic chemicals, etc.

Appoint an independent commission to investigate 9-11 and punish anyone who was negligent
or in any way provide intentionally provided support for the terrorists responsible in the attack.

Despite all the Rambo movies, Dirty Harry, Terminator movies, you can not shoot up the world
based on your gut, that will solve nothing. We have been misled so far but it's time for
a reality check.

to fuel it's ethanol cars that are built by Ford Motor Co., they have been working
on it for 30 years, their ethanol burns cleaner that corn ethanol and can be mixed with
gas, or be used alone. I wish we had acted more responsibly in the last 30 years instead
of trying to be an ownership society. I hope they make global warming a priority and
stop trying to be Captain America.

If Bush** does a surprise capture of OBL to try to pump up his flagging approvals now, it will only appear he is trying to upstage the Dem proposals. Same with withdrawals.

Dems will need to report progress often to remain credible. A look at how Bush** forfeited that credibility is a good example of what can happen.

Everyone complains that the Democrats "sit on their hands" and "don't do anything". When they come out with a bold statement like this one, then everyone criticizes them. :shrug:

I'm with you. I like it.

That is, according to Afghani Foreign Minister Abdullah last week.

Make a move and >poof< goes Musharraff then fundies have their fingers on the button in Pakistan as well as the USA.

and has been hiding out at the Mayo Clinic getting treatment for his kidney disease. Lots of Saudis go to Mayo.

Instead of relying on focus groups and polls, or on the neolib PPI, Reid and Pelosi should have taken the time to read Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy and the following essay by Martin Jacques:

Published on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 by the Guardian / UK

Imperial Overreach is Accelerating the Global Decline of America

The disastrous foreign policies of the US have left it more isolated than ever, and China is standing by to take over

by Martin Jacques

The promotion of the idea of the war against terror as the central priority of US policy had little to do with the actual threat posed by al-Qaida, which was always hugely exaggerated by the Bush administration, as events over the last four and a half years have shown. Al-Qaida never posed a threat to the US except in terms of the odd terrorist outrage. Making it the central thrust of US foreign policy, in other words, had nothing to do with the al-Qaida threat and everything to do with the Bush administration seeking to mobilize US public opinion behind a neoconservative foreign policy. There followed the tenuous - in reality nonexistent - link with Saddam, which provided in large measure the justification for the invasion of Iraq, an act which now threatens to unravel the bizarre adventurism, personified by Donald Rumsfeld, which has been the hallmark of Bush foreign policy since 9/11. The latter has come unstuck in the killing fields of Iraq in the most profound way imaginable.

Hyde alludes to a new "unformed" world and "a phalanx of aspiring competitors". On this he is absolutely right. The world is in the midst of a monumental process of change that, within the next 10 years or so, could leave the US as only the second largest economy in the world after China and commanding, with the rise of China and India, a steadily contracting share of global output. It will no longer be able to boss the world around in the fashion of the neoconservative dream: its power to do so will be constrained by the power of others, notably China, while it will also find it increasingly difficult to fund the military and diplomatic costs of being the world's sole superpower. If the US is already under financial pressure from its twin deficits and the ballooning costs of Iraq, then imagine the difficulties it will find itself in within two decades in a very different kind of world.

Hyde concludes by warning against the delusions of triumphalism and cautioning that the future should not be seen as an extension of the present: "A few brief years ago, history was proclaimed to be at an end, our victory engraved in unyielding stone, our pre-eminence garlanded with permanence. But we must remember that Britain's majestic rule vanished in a few short years, undermined by unforeseen catastrophic events and by new threats that eventually overwhelmed the palisades of the past. The life of pre-eminence, as with all life on this planet, has a mortal end. To allow our enormous power to delude us into seeing the world as a passive thing waiting for us to recreate it in an image of our choosing will hasten the day when we have little freedom to choose anything at all."

That the world will be very different within the next two decades, if not rather sooner, is clear; yet there is scant recognition of this fact and what it might mean - not least in our own increasingly provincial country. The overwhelming preoccupation of the Bush administration (and Blair for that matter) with Iraq, the Middle East and Islam, speaks of a failure to understand the deeper forces that are reshaping the world and an overriding obsession with realising and exploiting the US's temporary status as the sole global superpower. Such a myopic view can only hasten the decline of the US as a global power, a process that has already started.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0328-25.htm

Published on Monday, March 20, 2006 by the New York Times

'American Theocracy' - Clear and Present Dangers

by Alan Brinkley

The American press in the first days of the Iraq war reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad, which, as a result, was looted of many of its great archaeological treasures. Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory — that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. ("Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath," an oil analyst said a couple of years ago. "You can't ask for better than that.") Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.

And while this argument may be somewhat too simplistic to explain the complicated mix of motives behind the war, it is hard to dismiss Phillips's larger argument: that the pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years been one of the defining elements of American policy in the world; and that the Bush administration — unusually dominated by oilmen — has taken what the president deplored recently as the nation's addiction to oil to new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of "petro-imperialism," Phillips writes, "the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force," and which "puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs."

Phillips is especially passionate in his discussion of the second great force that he sees shaping contemporary American life — radical Christianity and its growing intrusion into government and politics. The political rise of evangelical Christian groups is hardly a secret to most Americans after the 2004 election, but Phillips brings together an enormous range of information from scholars and journalists and presents a remarkably comprehensive and chilling picture of the goals and achievements of the religious right.

He points in particular to the Southern Baptist Convention, once a scorned seceding minority of the American Baptist Church but now so large that it dominates not just Baptism itself but American Protestantism generally. The Southern Baptist Convention does not speak with one voice, but almost all of its voices, Phillips argues, are to one degree or another highly conservative. On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0320-31.htm



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/ref=nosim/002-9576208-9263266?n=283155

and how are we going to deal with what the experts say is the real threat global warming
while we are trying to play lords of war in the Middle East. Everyone who has a brain
says that there has to be a DIPLOMATIC solution to the Iraq, that the military
has done everything it can.

Let's bring them home, give them a hero's welcome, and prosecute those responsible for this war!

terrorist breeding grounds, what have we become, Sheriff Matt Dillon and a posse. We
have miffed our chance at this, now we have pissed off the entire planet,
every one hates us and wants us out of their country. We have to be working to repair
our diplomatic ties to other nations, our trade agreements and our deficit. Our CIA
said that Iraq was a "slam dunk" so we should double the number of spies and double
the number of special forces, with what? Our army is broken, we are bankrupt, the fact
that GWB is dipping into the reserve to the federal pension should tell them something.
We have to figure out a diplomatic solution to this war. Osama, I personally believe he
is dead, if he is not, there has to be a diplomatic way to deal with this, I don't think
Bush wanted to do this, because he got so much mileage from the fear factor.

Isn't it a given that we all want to get Osama Bin Laden?

They should focus on concrete issues at home like borders, ports etc and forget the posturing to make themselves look tough.

climate change!

but in the meantime before it hits to where coastal cities are flooding, there will also be energy and water shortages and overpopulation. I think there will be energy wars within the next few years.

I thought we were fighting an energy war already...

(no offense intended)

NT!

We have pissed off the world, it's time to remember that we are not omnipotent. First,
have a credible trial and convict the a******e, like they did the terrorist who seized
the cruise ship, Aquille Lauro and threw the elderly passenger in his wheelchair off the
ship. Present real evidence and convict him, then issue an outstanding warrant for his
arrest. Follow the money trail, use Interpol, treat him like the criminal he is. And as
far as terrorist breeding grounds, that borders more on that pre-emptive strike crap, lets
deal with the attacks as they come. And they will come thanks to our involvement in Iraq.
Israel has not eliminated terrorist strikes in Israel thru their aggresive campaign against
Hamas. It does not work, it will not work and it will only breed more hatred towards
this country.

U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro on which a wheelchair-bound American was killed, was captured by U.S. Special Forces in the outskirts of Baghdad, U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.
Soon after Abbas' capture, U.S. officials said U.S. indictments of Abbas for piracy, hostage-taking and conspiracy have apparently expired, although they could be renewed. U.S. officials said Abbas' fate --whether he will be sent to an Italian prison or face a U.S. trial -- is "unresolved." A Palestinian source told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Abbas tried to flee to Syria, but was turned away at the border and was captured about 50 miles west of Baghdad.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:37 p.m. EST

You Probably Think This Item Is About You

"We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer," . . . Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday. . . .

....

But according to the AP, there isn't much substance behind these boasts:

The Democratic statement lacks specific details of a plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida chief who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Democrats suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. Democrats also do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

.....

It's hard to argue with these positions: Everyone would like to see Osama bin Laden captured and the U.S. military presence in Iraq reduced, but because these goals depend on as-yet-unknown contingencies, no one can responsibly promise to achieve them by a date certain. The Democratic position on these matters is essentially indistinguishable from the Republican one.

....
What's telling about the Reid and Pelosi statements, though, is their sheer vanity. They boast about being "tough," "smart" and "strong." When someone tells you how tough, smart and strong he is, do you think, (1) Wow, he's really tough, smart and strong! or (2) If he's so tough, smart and strong, why does he have to keep telling me? Generally speaking, people who brag about their fine qualities come across as somewhat pathetic.
......

By bragging about how smart and strong they are, Reid and Pelosi only underscore that their actions show them to be insipid and weak. Their plan for "national security" looks more like an expression of personal insecurity.

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008156

I don't think Bush wants to get Osama.

I don't think Cheney wants to get Osama.

I don't think most Republican leaders want to get Osama.

Their job security currently rests on him remaining at large.

If Bush doesn't produce Osama then we have Bush's 'head on plate!'

The Democrats in leadership positions would be well advised to deal with the crooks and terrorists running around loose at home right now, breaking laws, shredding the Constitution and destroying the American economy, cities, education system, the environment---Yes, I'm talking about the GOP, folks, those people we expect the leadership to investigate, indict, convict and imprison for long periods of time, strip of ill-got gains, fine into penury, and otherwise put out of power for the foreseeable future.

Osama isn't going to do one percent of the damage these clowns do every day that they are in power.

And with some others here. If we first go after dubco and his ties to terrorism, then we will find Ossie. He is hiding in Pakistan according to plan or could have moved by now. Investigate 911 and throw the bushies out first and everything will come together slowly. There is a lot of evil out there!

Not "invading Iraq was both wrong and stupid", but "invading Iraq was right but Bush fucked it up".
We can do better than making the same mistake Bush did.

His responsability in the 9/11 bombing was only ever a smokescreen to cover up what really happened.
If the he had done anything against the wishes of those in control in America, his family would never have been allowed to leave the country straight after that attack, while all other planes were forbidden to fly.

This war suits the "Muslim" extremists just as it suits the "Christian" extremists. It makes boh sides stronger.

I have no doubt that both sides co-operated in organizing 9/11, each side happily using the other. The cell system that underground organisations use mean that the FBI could have run the whole thing, while Muslims being recruited would believe they were working for their own religious leaders.

From all that I have seen over the last five years, I have come to a similar conclusion.

The Mujahadeen that Osama was a member of was a CIA asset in the Afghan War of 1979. From what little evidence I have seen, I contend that the CIA maintaning the relationship with the Mujahadeen is likely, which would provide the US gov't with the means and opportunity.

and deliver justice to the culprits.

seems like a reasonable task

regardless of who is mouthing it

Bush says it enough without anyone else embracing it

there is no "post 9/11 world" - unless it refers to the eroding of civil rights, illegal wars, wars without end,torture,illegal detentions, disappearances,secret prisons, a country nearly broke and Presidents acting like Kings

Now, if they mean those are the challenges Americans face, then I agree

But overcoming those challenges begins with not embracing the language that caused the challenges to begin with

The events of September 11, 2001 did NOT change America - the government's reaction to those events did.

There is a difference.

And Osama is definitely an ally of George W. Bush.

digging their own political graves via the scandalous mishandling of EVERY SINGLE issue, as they are now.
No nebulous promises re: Osama; no re-deployment of troops in an un-winnable war...
Sit back, STFU, and take charge again in November.

.

That makes a LOT of fucking sense.

:eyes:

So is this the "better, smarter, more efficient War on Terror" bullshit some of us have been worrying would come from the Dem side?

I am stunned....why would they even go there. How about don't make stupd promises? Did they ever hear that saying???

whenever Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth and speaks on most subjects, especially national security, we lose potential votes. What we need is more important then position papers. They try this stuff every few months and it gets nobodys attention. Why? Because our party has lousy leaders. Get us some new leaders then come out with strong positions. You can have the best policy around but when the messengers stink its like trying to scream in space.

I must offer the somewhat-disconcerting possibility that 20 yrs from now the people of the world as a whole may be better off because mama's little coddled georgie's foolish and incompetent imperialism put paid to the brief and unremarkable reign of the One SuperPower. Obviously hegemonists, ideologues, and America-firsters of all stripes (including blue) may shudder at that prospect, but without a number of miracles in the comparatively short term it seems a strong possibility that this most-heinous of presidents may inadvertently trigger what you might call a neo-Cold War. This one could be a lot more interesting though. China has no reason to play lap-dog to us. We are in the final stages of having armed, funded, and motivated over the last 20+ years what amounts to a new Persian megapower in the MidEast in the form of Iran and much of Iraq. The little oompa-loompa cheerleader more or less on his own apparently feels that India needs to be promoted to major nuclear-power status. And of course that means Pakistan, similarly gifted repeatedly by us in the past with technology, money, and averted eyes, will not be far behind.

Whether it would be better or worse with a new leveling of the warring field is of course uncertain. From where we sit now it's hard not to welcome the idea that pre-emptive wars would be much more of a gamble when there were others holding hands. This is just one possible scenario I admit. But the potential irony is ever so rich!

:argh:

Yes, we need to get Osama, and destroy his organization. He attacked us and killed a lot of people- and, yes, it was him (whether there was any LIHOP or not). It's really not that complicated of an idea.

The question is HOW to do that. Not WHETHER.

I want evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/29/democrats.security.ap/index.html

So... let's not say that the Dem's don't have any ideas....



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats on Wednesday proposed a wide-ranging strategy for protecting Americans at home and abroad, an election-year effort aimed at changing public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security.

Republicans, for their part, criticized the national security policy statement as a stunt.

"We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy -- "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

How dare they have a PLAN??

:sarcasm:

Thanks for posting this MissMillie! :hi:

NGU.

I'm not surprised, and it sucks. I do like the fact that they are talking more about Bin Laden, however.

...when it's a Democratic plan.

Otherwise, they'd be questioning the wisdom of Bush's plan to throw $200 mil a day forever at Iraq in hopes that someday the Iraqis will like us.

Not to mention that if the Dems had provided the detail the media insists upon, the plan would have been derided as 'boring.'

You just can't win when dealing with state-run media.

-as

The very premise that the dems detail a security plan is a no-winner. As americanstranger points out, what is the Republican Plan For Keeping Us Safe? Belligerence and stupidity? Spending us into bankruptcy? Dividing the country and empowering opposition around the world? Secrecy? Torture? You call this a plan? The Republicans have won in the past on a knee-jerk response to 9-11, one that isn't playing any more. More citizens are waking up to the fact that living in a dangerous world is more complicated that bullying and shooting first and not asking any questions later.

The first plank of the dem's plan should be what they haven't done: haven't made us less safe by an ill-conceived, illegal, immoral war; haven't destroyed America's standing in the world by using torture; haven't wasted American's economic strength by making countries like China stronger while simultaneously complaining that one day we may need to fight them; haven't impoverished Americans for oil and energy companies;, etc.

Easy solutions? There are no easy solutions, but the point is that we must now live with the after effects of bad policy. You can't go back to Sept 12th and make the better choices that should have been made.

If the dems want an agenda they should focus on strength by making us energy independent and making it a rallying point for uniting the country and priming the economy, too.

any details on the plan, just the GOP blasts against Democrats. Why don't you actually report on the plan?

This is utterly ridiculous. Washington has become a skipping record. "Terrorists, national security, terrorists, national security, terrorists...."

Now we just gotta find a 2008 candidate who looks like 007.

Tribute To The American Flag
This piece of cloth is a composite of each of you, your ideals,
your hopes, and your dreams. It is a symbol of a government
that is built on a dream of equality, freedom and hope, but its fulfillment is dependent on each of you.

Our flag of Red, White and Blue-
Red, not of blood shed but a Love spread from one another,
White as a crystalization of all the wonderful teachings of a good life, and
Blue of condfidence.
Confidence in your flag, your country , and its confidence in you.

Is anybody there? Does anybody care?
I care and I pledge my allegiance to the Flag of the United States
and to that great republic for which she stands.

Wherever it waves, it reassures men of the existance and the
power of freedom and democracy, it reassures them of their own abilities to govern themselves.

Over the field of battle, it serves to remind soldiers
of that for which they fight,and too often die.

I was born and American, I shall live as an American and I shall die as an American, ever ready to dedicate myself to its call and its stars and stripes-

The American Flag

...or he might just turn up in Republican hands.

Sheesh.

after supporting Lieberman.

Obama should not be a Senator.

who equated going after Bin Laden with "Oh great, we're never leaving Iraq".

Ummm... DUH???

The occupation of Iraq is NOT the same thing as 'looking for Bin Laden'. Get a clue ASAP!!!!

:wow: