Hi Gang:
On November 7th,Dennis Kucinich,the only Democrat with a full set of plumbing,brought his bill to impeach Cheney to the House floor and nearly succeeded in securing an hour of debate.
After a motion to table Kucinick's bill failed,Majority Leader Steny Hoyer{Democrat from Maryland]made a motion to refer the bill back to the House Judiciary Committee.
That motion succeeded and spared the Democrats a potentially embarrassing distraction.

{a distraction from what ...doing nothing???]

Ah ,those courageous Democrats.Weren't they the party that was gonna get us out of Iraq and really change things???

When push came to shove they all ran for cover like scared rats...leaving poor Dennis standing alone.

The Democrats had their chance and once again they blew it.

hippolips

They've also cravenly confirmed Mukasey.

They seem to be so obsessed with not putting a foot wrong before the 2008 election that they're unwilling to risk having any influence on anything at all politically risky. That might backfire.

Of course, if they had voted to impeach Cheney, right-wing commentators would have been huffing and puffing about treasonous acts in a time of war, stabbing the troops in the back and so on. You can imagine the cant.

quote:

Ah ,those courageous Democrats.Weren't they the party that was gonna get us out of Iraq and really change things???

When push came to shove they all ran for cover like scared rats...leaving poor Dennis standing alone.

The Democrats had their chance and once again they blew it.

What's new?

Dennis Kucinich (D-Mentia) escaped his padded cell long enough to report that the aliens were coming. I hope his handlers round him up before he hurts himself or someone else.

Democrats had no intention of ending the Iraq war. You were a fool if you believed otherwise. Democrats used the Iraq war issue only as an excuse for the useful idiot voters to put democrats in power. And democrats will continue to use the Iraq war as an excuse to put Hillary in power.

If the Iraq war ended this second, it would be bad for the democrats. So it is in their best interest to keep the Iraq war going for as long as possible up to the election. After the election (as long as Hillary wins), the democrats could care less about the Iraq war. End it; keep it going; win it; lose it, none of that matters to democrats. Hillary seizing the White House is the only thing that matters to democrats. Period. The Iraq war is one of the best things to happen to the Democrat Party in a long time. Elected democrats love the Iraq war. They cherish it. Those who voted for democrats ensured the Iraq war would continue. Wake up and smell the coffee. And if you see Dennis Kucinich (D-Mentia) give him some of the coffee. He needs it badly!

quote:

Hillary seizing the White House...

Others get elected, but Hillary will seize the White House? What, will she break down the front door with a tank?

quote:

Those who voted for democrats ensured the Iraq war would continue.

Voters didn't have much of a choice, then. Voting Republican was hardly going to end the war, either.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Others get elected, but Hillary will seize the White House? What, will she break down the front door with a tank?

Only if she brings back Janet Reno as her AG. In addition to the tank, she'd could then use the poison gas outlawed for use in warfare by the Geneva Convention.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Voters didn't have much of a choice, then. Voting Republican was hardly going to end the war, either.

Ahh, but there is a key difference. The democrats want to lose the war, the republicans want to win the war. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar (or both). That is why the obvious success of the "surge" must be downplayed, lied about or ignored by democrats and their sycophantic partners in the media.

quote:

The democrats want to lose the war...

Well I'll be! Those darn fifth columnists! They should all be locked up and the key thrown away!

I think calling someone who disagrees with you "either a fool or a liar (or both)" is beyond what is now acceptable on AnswerPool. With a political campaign that is certain to be a heated one coming up, we should all try to confine our posts to a reasonable discussion of the issues and relative strengths and weaknesses of candidates, parties, and positions. I am letting this example stand, but future posts, by anyone, with similar language, regardless of whom it is directed against, will be edited or deleted, and those who need repeated editing will find themselves unable to post without prior approval of each post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
I think calling someone who disagrees with you "either a fool or a liar (or both)" is beyond what is now acceptable on AnswerPool.
________________________________________________

Hi dg : I reread everything written on this particular post and can't find anyone who called anyone else "a fool or a liar".[your words]

As for Newnickname's last post,it was obviously said in jest,note the little green smiley face at the end of the post.He[or she] was kidding!

Seems like you got your knickers in a bunch over nothing this time.

hippolips

Please read John's post.

'McCain told reporters later that it was important to tell veterans who had "sacrificed in this and other wars that we're not going to surrender. And the Democrats want to surrender."' www.washingtonpost.com

Surrender to whom? To the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want US troops to leave? Is that "surrender"? Leaving Iraq was supposed to be the mark of victory, wasn't it? Surrender to "Al Qaeda In Mesopotamia"? They'd have to find them first - and surely it would be silly to suggest that any Democrat wanted such a surrender.

Scotty gave us a succinct description on another thread of what 'victory' in Iraq would look like - a secure and democratic state, and so on - but what would 'losing' be?

Surely the war was lost (or 'won') before it even started. The stated aim was to save the world from the threat of an arsenal of WMD. But there was no such threatening arsenal. Flattening the country and creating a power vacuum, then sending too few troops to deal with the consequences of 'shock and awe', depending on naive visions of liberated Iraqis throwing flowers, was a plan that ensured 'losing' from the start, wasn't it?

There have been numerous other war aims dreamed up and stated since then. They don't hide the fact that any success the surge enjoys (and there's a difference between 'obvious success', and 'possible success, suggested by carefully spun statistics') will be about getting Iraq back, more or less, to square one - a functioning state able to provide citizens with the basic infrastructure necessary for life.

Is losing leaving Iraq in a worse state - in terms of the basics of everyday life for its citizens - than before the invasion? Or is losing actually losing US access to oil and military bases in Iraq? Is losing seeing Iraq fractured and taken over by Turkey in the north, and Iran in Shia areas? Is losing seeing Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, which it wasn't before the invasion? Is losing seeing Iraq unified only under a brutal dictator, again?

When people say the gutless Democrats want to lose or surrender in Iraq, what picture do they have of that loss or surrender?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Please read John's post.

_______________________________________________
Hi dg:

You're right about the'A liar or a fool" statement.I missed it.

But I stand by the rest of my post.As I recall you have a long history of doing battle with John Galt.

hippolips

Yes, he and I have had some harsh words in the past. That's why it took me so long to respond to his comments. It is also why I phrased my post as I did.

Further gutless Democrat-sy:

'Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

Republicans have been holding up action on the bill for months now, refusing to participate in conference committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions. The big sticking points for Republicans have been support for renewable energy and ending billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies...' www.truthout.org

Nice to see the Republicans sticking up for those poor oil companies, though...

Of course, as usual, we should follow the money;

'Last summer, the Democrats proposed closing the multibillion-dollar tax loophole for managers of hedge funds and private equity firms...

...On Wednesday the Washington Post did an excellent job of unraveling why such a red-meat issue for Democrats has lost steam in the Senate, focusing especially on Schumer, the Senate Democrats' chief fundraiser, who, the Post reported, switched his position not long after James Simons, a hedge fund manager who earned $1.7 billion last year (you read that right), donated $28,500 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which Schumer chairs. ' www.thenation.com

The Democrats seem weak on the coming foreclosure tsunami, too.