FINALLY! Bush Gives In, Mrs. Clinton Gets Her Way

Last year, Mrs. Clinton joined with Mr. Lieberman in sponsoring legislation to add 100,000 troops to the military, in order to prop up there nifty clusterfuck of a war.

Now the Boy Emperor wants more troops too.

The Smirk pledged to work with his friends in the Democrat Party - guess he's a man of his word.

I do hope Hil lives to regret that legislation; she probably won't hear the end of it.

But thank you for your concern.

The use of the term "Democrat Party" by Bush continues to this day -- and no one has corrected him. Maybe that's a reason for lack of enthusiasm for the Dems: they tolerate the bully's name change and don't object. No wonder that GOPers define the issues so well.

which I consider the right-wing of the republican party to be. I'm very proud to be a Democrat, and even though the fascists are trying to make the Democratic Party sound like a bad thing by calling it
Democrat Party, some people don't even notice the difference. I've never been prouder to be a fair-minded LIBERAL DEMOCRAT who believes in everyone's rights and pursuit of happiness, unlike the
"fascist party." :dem:

enough of the Bush/CLinton dynasty.

Will Jeb be next???

Just say NO!

I think many people had a different opinion of Iraq a year ago.

Former Goldwater girl Hillary criticized John Murtha for saying the war in Iraq was lost, and then she opposed Kerry/Feingold troop withdrawal resolution.

She is as much for the war now, as she was then, and like Bush, Hillary opposes talking to Syria and Iran.

Hillary is the American Maggie Thatcher!

Levin-Reid vs Kerry-Feingold were ornamental.

Pounding the distinction between the two is moot and it is unfair to frame one versus the other the way you do.

But I guess that's the point.

If you would have watched the CSPAN coverage, you would have seen that the Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee treated that amendment with respect though he felt that the timing was not right for it then. He did complement the fact that it had many interesting ideas and was very thoughtful.

Kerry's language for a regional summit was actually added to the defense appropriation bill that was passed. This was a real plan - not vague marketing slogans.

except for some people here to beat up those that didn't choose their favorite plan. That's my point. In the bigger scheme of things it always was a moot issue.

without Kerry/Feingold there would have been NO Senate amendment or discussion on Iraq in 2006. Reid, the Clintons, Schummer etc all thought it was a bad idea for Iraq to be an issue.

It was the major issue.

It was and is a moot issue since neither proposal had a chance of passing.

They were both political posturing, dramatic theater meant to incite the candidate groupies to use to club others over the head, and the ever-compliant are doing just that.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this and just about everything else as it turns out.

"It was immoral than and it is immoral now for old men to send young men to war" and not even try to change the plan.

If you look at the % of people who support leaving soon - Kerry's op-ed then Kerry/Feingold did move public opinion. How do you think the Democrats should have handled this?

apples and oranges

it led to the Democrats having a plan that they could point to show they would take a different course than the Republicans. (Levin/Reid existed ONLY because of Kerry/Feingold).

Also - the Kerry language calling for a summit DID PASS and is in the defense bill.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=264246

Kerry/Feingold did move the concensus forward. There are now far more people in favor of a deadline than there were last summer. The amendment had an effect and likely was important for 2006.

you are either lying, have reading comprehension problems, or are completely irretrievably deluded.

Is that about right? Yes, I do believe that's your stock response to people you don't agree with.

C'mon, that was high school.

A lot of people -- on both sides of the aisle -- now support the notion of a temporary buildup to try to fix the mess.

There are those on both sides who don't support this. (This really is not a Dem/GOP thing.)

Another ridiculous post

expanding the military anyway? Are their people who volunteer who are turned away because they are full, are they going to not let people go after what they thought was their term? Are they going to make people like Barbara and Jenna go join up?

More troops...it's so easy!

You forgot to mention other Democrats that have proposed a troop increase.

from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612200212dec20,1,2187897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

I only remembered the Clinton/Lieberman tag team. Any others we can add to this list?

Soon to be new Chair of House Intel Committee -- Silvestre Reyes
from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

Harry Reid, Jack Reed, and Joe Biden support short-term increases
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121806L.shtml

Kennedy says no

And you are mixing two different things: increase in the size of the army (what the OP is about), and surge in Iraq. They have little to do one with the others. Most democrats support the first one, which was part of the Democratic program for 06. Many oppose the second.

So, since he has changed his mind - flip-flopped? - you win a cookie!! Woo-hoo!!!

And this lends further credence to my gut feeling that they are all full of crap and just throwing stuff out to see what sticks to the wall. Political posturing from the lot of them.

** On edit, I'm not mixing the two issues up at all. I am rendering my opinion which outside the sphincter police here that like to scrutinize everything I post to try to prove me wrong is still okay. Troop increase and escalation are in effect the same thing and are intimately related. What do you think Junior is going to do with the increased troop level? Hmmmmmm?



from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/29/national/w075030D43.DTL

And yes, there was not enough troops to do what Bush wanted. It is a fact. The question is to know whether what Bush wanted to do was valid or not.

In addition, it is not clear from what you post that they were asking for more US troops. The article you posted only has fragments without a context and we do not know what they were really asking.

But believe whatever you want. I do not care.

They always puff people up and make them spiky.



Have a fabulous evening.

When you are driving and the light turns red, do you stop?

When the light changes to green, do you then go?

That is NOT a flip flop - it is being intelligent and responding to circumstances.

I'm not sure when the Biden comment was from, but Kerry's was from June or July of 2005. Even then in that plan, he wasn't calling for more US troops in total. This was also BEFORE the problem in Iraq was one of Civil War. He suggested this was a way to use foreign troops (at the border) who would be reluctant to assist in Iraq.

When the problem was the concern that terrorist would set up operations in a destabalized Iraq, controlling the borders is emminently sensible. The remainder of Kerry's plan included regional diplomacy, reconstruction (done by the Iraqis to give them a stake in their country) and rapidly training troops.

In October 2005, after Kerry went to Iraq in August, he warned that there was at most 6 months to get it right. His plan then also addressed the need to signal that we weren't there long term - by announcing we wanted no permanent bases and by transferring the search and destroy missions and policing to the Iraqis immediately. That plan envisioned the US out in 12-15 months - and he wanted a withdrawal by Christmas of 20,000 (I think) troops.

At that point, Kerry was one of the first to speak of the fact that only a very small part of the problem was foreign insurgents.

I'm not interested in parsing words and reacting to the reframing of issues in a desperate attempt to paint Kerry in the best possible light. The reference to "flip-flopping" was facetious and it shouldn't be necessary to use to indicate that.

The point is this. Kerry, HRC, and others have at one time or another called to increase troop levels. Although some like to argue semantics, i.e., that a troop level increase is not the same thing as a troop surge, IMO it is in effect the same thing because the neocons are pushing BushCo to "double-up" and he will most certainly use the increased troops available to do just that.

That is my opinion, one I'm entitled to have, and I must say I get damn sick and tired of having to wade through this tidal wave of confrontation when my opinion doesn't please you and your friends. You ignore me when you have no objection to my opinion and assault me when you do.

Enough.

to avoid using stop/loss which was a back door draft.

Kerry today, on both NPR and the Today show made it clear he is not for the surge - saying even 100,000 troops will not solve the problem.

No, I did not.

re: HRC's proposal.



We all can and I'm sure will offer our opinions which to some * ahem * are framed entirely by whom they support, but none of us are qualified to state with certainty what the right thing to do is. Unfortunately Junior has no intention of leaving Iraq and, short of impeachment, the Democratic Congress will have a shot at ending the war in Iraq, which Nancy Pelosi said is her #1 priority.

If that doesn't come to fruition, then it will be up to the 2008 contenders to offer a plan as a solution. However, the situation on the ground will continue to devolve and all the posers, um, I mean potential candidates, are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. I remain quite bitter (ergo my sarcasm) towards those that enabled us being in Iraq in the first place, but I digress.

You can continue to argue your fave candidate's plan as golden but at this point is nothing more than pointless rah-rah'ing about something nobody could possibly know.

Every American Citizen between the ages of 35 - 45 must serve at least 2 years in the military. No deferments, no waivers, no exceptions. Waa Laa! End of war declared.

But they would all leave for foreign realms.

American, even those who are partially disabled. IOW
any one capable of doing some type of job should be
required to serve.

If that were to become law, YOU WILL SEE VERY FEW INVASION
TYPE WARS SUCH AS IRAQ because most politicians have some
young people in the family relatives sphere.

If past performance is any indicator, the M$M will take pains not to point this out.

mentioned that Bush was increasing the size of the military. This is the replay of last night's show.

Stewart is really eating his lunch, by the way--but, in his usual good natured way. Kristol is whining about being his punching bag after Stewart was so nice to Obama and Vilsack. Poor delusional neocon!

Bill Kristol was nice to Obama? Any details?

My spidey-sense is tingling...

was apparently last October. Obama was terrific, in any case.

:)

I've been opposed to the Iraq war from the outset, but I've been appalled that we've been so dependent upon reserves. Regardless of one's opinion about the war, it's easy to recognize that the military is currently undersized.

proposed a huge increase in the number of troops, too.

Let the Hillary witch hunt continue, though. Some things never change.

Love this final quote, Manny, from none other than Marshall Wittman, aka Bullsh*t Moose:

''She understands the weaknesses in the Democratic Party perhaps better than anyone else," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. ''The party will not be taken seriously by the American people unless it believes it will defend them."

Thanks for posting this article.

Increasing the size of the military per se is not necessarily negative. It depends for what it will be used and how it will be financed: by cutting other military programs or by increasing taxes, cutting social programs and increasing the deficit. Actually, increasing the size of the army is part of the Democrats program.

Escalation is definitively wrong. Bringing more troops in Iraq will solve nothing.

I do not know what the bill proposes, but it seems the attack is unfair concerning increasing the military: once again, it is something the DSCC and the DCCC had in their program. Do not blame Clinton alone for that (and I am no big fan of her.

That's that opinion thing I was talking about upthread.

http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/833.php

does not even claim that, just as the piece you posted earlier on Biden and Reed does not claim what you said.

What is funny is that the OP understood correctly what was proposed (though disagreeing), but you do not.

There is a legitimate discussion on whether our military should be made of programs like Missile Defense, cluster bombs, and other technical tools or have more people. Some fall on the side of less blind technology and more people, others fall on the side of blind technology.

Of course, it is also a legitimate opinion to think we need nothing more, which is my opinion. However, it is not an opinion any major democrats are going to discuss. The debate as it is debated in this country is about what should be the form of the military in the XXI century: more technologies who allows a soldier to kill a lot of people from afar or more men that can actually intervene on the ground, stop atrocities, ... It is about what this country is going to do with this military: expand his influence by attacking those we disagree with or help people in need (that is if we are not total isolationists who think we can live whithout the rest of the world, and sorry, I am not part of that). If we are committed to help, we do not need cluster bombs and missile Defense. We may need more people to actually help.

Of course, having this debate would mean that we are able to forget about politics and think about issues. It somehow seems difficult to some.

but not the way you think. You must have missed this not too fine point in the piece I posted:



If you and others spent less time parsing words (our words as well as Kerry's) in an effort to paint him in the best light YOU deem possible, i.e. being partisan, you might participate in discussions in a meaningful way at DU. Instead you choose to glut threads and create your own threads framing and insisting on your interpretation of Kerry's words and actions, both of which are fodder for open discussion whether you like it or not. As a politician, you do not have exclusive rights to him. Ultimately calling what you don't like "bashing" is your attempted coup de grace to discussions. But I digress.

On point, WelshTerrier eloquently pointed out the "if" in Kerry's statement which leaves the door open for a troop surge. That is not to say he advocates it; it simply means he is not opposing it. That distinction is not nearly as fine a point as you insist on making it. The bottom line is it equates to more lives lost.

Whether or not you support or oppose a "surge" or a troop up-click which, again, IMO is the same damn thing in effect, is a matter of opinion. An opinion which people are entitled to have and express and discuss without the incessant badgering of others here.

I really don't have anything else to say to you. You have such a knack of leaving a bad taste in my mouth when I take the time to engage in this crap you insist on.

"If" doesn't mean not. "If" means that what follows is hypothetical. The response to a hypothetical is then. In Kerry's statement he responded to "if the surge happens," then...

Massage that point all you like, troop increase - surge or not - will lead to more body bags.

That is my opinion. Get over it.

You know this and are lying OR you have a reading comprehension problem.

So, Kerry/Feingold is "ornamental" and Kerry wants more troops in Iraq.

Jesus H. Christ, are you people purposely dense or do you just act that way to incite and perpetuate arguments? I have said REPEATEDLY that Kerry called for more troops, here's a link http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_kerry_021605,00.html okay? HRC has called for a troop increase, so have other Democrats.

For the very last time and please listen up because this nonstop BS from you guys is the epitome of annoying, IN MY OPINION, got that? - IN MY OPINION calling for a troop increase and calling for a "surge" in Iraq is IN EFFECT - got that? - that means IN ESSENCE THE END RESULT IS THE SAME - is IN EFFECT the same damn thing and means one thing -- more lives lost.

Why do I say that? This is why. Because Junior wants a SURGE IN IRAQ. Because the neocons are calling for doubling down in Iraq. Now, do you think they can be trusted to just use extra troops available for parades or perhaps cutting down on the multiple deployments? HELL NO.

JUST LIKE BUSHCO SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TRUSTED WITH WHICH MOST CERTAINLY WAS A BLANK CHECK WITH THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION.

OK? Got it? Now you are perfectly welcome to disagree and god knows you most assuredly will because it is MY opinion, but dammit quit restating my very simple premise and twisting my words to CREATE AN EFFIN ARGUMENT. I am sick of your assaultive behavior and rudeness because YOU don't understand a simple premise. Get the hell over it.

When one renders an opinion, as I have, a reasonable response would be to say you disagree and state why. Calling someone a liar and suggesting they have reading comprehension problems is a really absurd response to an opinion; it makes absolutely no sense. I have no clue as to whether or not you are genuinely not very bright or if you are being paid to do what you do here, but if it is the latter the really funny part is that you are producing the exact opposite results one would think you'd be out for. It is entertaining, however, to watch you and your friends turn yourselves into pretzels to parse words and muddle discussions and, if that doesn't work, resorting to calling people liars whether it applies or not and, as a last ditch effort, accusing people of bashing. The process is so predictable to watch. Absurd, but predictable.

prove my intelligence by anyone who has met me.

It is you who are equating two things that are not the same. I question why YOU spend so much time and effort attacking ONE candidate, while mildly approving all others.

:shrug:

if we can't police the world, then how can we stop another 9/11 from happening? :rofl:

at least Lieberman and Hillary both opposed Bush's tax cuts. Perhaps if this war was being paid for, then more Republicans might support efficiency in the DOD. Now I wish Democrats like Lieberman and Clinton would say sorry, but the money for more military spending just isn't available! But I guess that would be labeled as unAmerican. :wow:

:popcorn: :popcorn: