Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Who supports Obama? Everybody in the democratic party

Posted By: I felt the same until Germany on 2008-09-06
In Reply to: I am independent and considered Obama, but - cannot trust him and his associates. nm

it appears. I was a Clinton fan as I know she takes care of business and knows how to get things done in the Senate and Congress.

McCain and Palin will lead us to a supreme court nominee which will be a republican and we cannot afford that.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Can the Democratic Party Survive
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2005/shore022805.htm
Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:

1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.

I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.



And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:

Stand up to whom and why?  The Congress is run by Republicans.  Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional. 


He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist.  If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them. 


This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans.  A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists.  He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies.  He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy.  He just can't be trusted, period.


All this is all well and good and right down the Democratic party line...
the fact is...a few months ago Joe Biden said: "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Last night he attacked him. So...take your pick. He was lying then or he is lying now. He lied. Perhaps you are impressed by throwing friends under the bus, lying or whatever it takes to toe the party line. I am not. I think it shows marked lack of character. To each his own.

Questioning his experience is not a personal attack, spineless or otherwise. You could leave the spineless personal attacks on people who disagree with you to the side, it might make someone more willing to listen to your viewpoint. What I have heard him say in interviews, what he has said himself, plus the marked lack of foreign policy exposure and experience in his resume do cause me pause. Yes, I admit it. The fact that I fear he will fold like a house of cards if someone gets in his face is a concern. It really does not matter to me if you are sold on him...I am not. And that should not be the basis of an attack on me from you. THis is exactly what I am talking about. Obama supporters attack anyone who does not agree with them. Thank you for making my point.

By all means though...STAY LOYAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PARTY. Friends under the bus, lie, whatever it takes. I get it.
It's official. Rahm Emanuel star of democratic party
accepts position of the O's chief of staff. 
Yeah, guess Obama supports refuse to look at all
nm
Obama is a CHRISTIAN. He supports equal rights...sm
for all people including gay people. I think that the radical Christian right are the gay haters.
Tracks for both sides. Obama is more of the democratic same...
and John McCain has never been a toe the line Republican. Republicans will tell you that.

I post links most of the time. How is that twisting and manipulating words? How is that making something come out the way I want it to? Good grief. lol. If you see something that I post is twisted or manipulated, refute it. No one is stopping you. The best you seem to have is to attack me. Why is that the first line of democratic defense? Oh yes...the Alinsky method. If you can't refute....attack. lol.
Obama party
I actually posted back a couple of pages about this - this board has been busy since last night! =) I was actually kind of disappointed with the party. First off, the lady from the Democratic Headquarters didn't really give any information about any of the issues - she just brought print-outs from his website, which I had already read through before going to the party. Also, my friend that hosted the party is a HUGE Hillary she got some of the other guests going on about Hillary rather than talking about Obama. I asked a couple of questions, but no one there really seemed very informed and the response I got was to give them my email address and they would get back to me. The one nice thing was that there was no Bush-bashing and really no mention of McCain at all, but information on Obama was no more than I could get off the internet. It was good to see my friend again (this summer had been kind of crazy) and nice to meet some new people, but politically, it was really a waste of time. Everyone was really nice, even after they found out I had never listened to NPR =) I do, however, encourage people to attend a political "party" - either Republican or Democrat - perhaps the person who does your presentation will be better informed. Thanks to everyone that gave me web info earlier this week! =)
Obama can't fix what with his party either...
hard to do when you personify it.


Neither do Obama supporters. Your party needs a
nm
Obama Linked to Socialist Party
Not that this comes as any surprise to me, but some here just can't accept it for some reason:

Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Obama's campaign had earlier denied the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

But past copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, have been found and they show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945


WorldNetDaily
http://wnd.com


If you elect Obama....you are giving the power to the party...
who are largely responsible for the "mess" we currently find ourselves in.
Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy (sm)


Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

By MATT APUZZO – 22 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.

"That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it," said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."

Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.

"Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate," McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.

The festivities began Saturday with a speech at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street train as Obama's trip began.

Sunday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes performances by Sheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, Garth Brooks and others. Denzel Washington and Queen Latifah will read historic passages. HBO paid $2.5 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast the concert.

Monday, the inaugural committee is hosting a national day of service, followed by three "bipartisan dinners" and a concert at the Verizon Center honoring military families. The Disney Channel will broadcast the concert, which includes performances by teen stars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, as part of a $2 million deal that also gave ABC the exclusive rights to broadcast one inaugural ball.

The television deals allowed the committee to recoup about $5 million of the $15 million production costs for the televised events, Douglass said.

Security and transportation costs are being paid by taxpayers. And with millions of tourists expected to descend on Washington for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, Bush declared a state of emergency, allowing the district to recover some costs for the event.

The inauguration committee is paying for 10 stadium-style screens to broadcast the inauguration ceremony on the National Mall. It is also hiring garbage and recycling services and renting thousands of portable toilets for what one supplier called "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States."

Obama has pledged transparency in his inauguration fundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.

Many of the fundraisers are well-known moneymen and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include two of Obama's top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i3aj2L6rRy-2tP3IeVNiC5_wh8SwD95P263O0
LOL. They think everyone supports Bush...sm
I am a former Republican and I wouldn't consider posting over there. It all falls on deaf ears.
I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth. 
well, either is a guy who supports infanticide...
and McCain has always supported rehab not incarceration for first-time offender users and harsher penalties for dealers and international cartel kingpins. His wife is not a dealer and is not an international cartel kingpin. Get your facts straight.

Biden, not too long ago, said he would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain. Yes, WITH. And now he is going to have to do a major flip flop and cut him to ribbons. Any respect I EVER had for him is gone.
He is not fit to be vice president either.
75% accounts for the former McC supports
to realize what "country first" means in the face of an election defeat. Think about it. BTW, the 6.8% was injected into the mix for the sake of accuracy.
Supports his lifestyle?
So you're saying if he's poor, he won't be gay anymore??? You don't have to have money to be gay. How are you supporting his lifestyle?
Supports his lifestyle?
So you're saying if he's poor, he won't be gay anymore??? You don't have to have money to be gay. How are you supporting his lifestyle?
Ann only supports her own aspirations of fame...sm
and she leaves no photo op or video shout out unturned. She's ignorant, prejudiced and her followers buy it, literally.

Maybe it is my small sense of pride in where I lay my head, but I have to respectfully disagree with you about America commiting genocide throughout the world. Were we wrong for entering Iraq preemptively, YES. Have their been atrocities that we should all be ashamed of, YES. But I'm not aware of any genocide commited by America.

Darfur, that's genocide.
Anyone who supports Bush is a neoconservative sm
Neoconservatism is a political agenda that concentrates on militarily enforcing an aggressive US foreign policy. Everyone from the other board that posts here support these aggressive policies.

The neoconservatives advocate a paradigm shift in which the United States spreads American values by asserting American power-by force, if necessary. The big movers of the neoconservative movement have all at one time shared the same roof under the Project For a New American Century (PNAC).

Some of them include & have served in both Bush administrations:

Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense)
Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Elliott Abrams (National Security Council)
Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine)
Zalmay Khalilzad (special envoy for Afghanistan)
Jeb Bush (Governor of Florida and brother of President George W. Bush)

There is a lot of information on their webpage:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

There is one page on there of particular interest where they talk about their need for a new Pearl Harbor called Rebuilding America's Defenses. It was written 1 year before 9-11.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf






She supports birth control and ..

supports abstinence-only education in schools, but she has also said she does not support tax payer dollars to distribute birth control in schools. She is a member of Feminists for Life, which is an pro-life group.

Feminist for Life is a pro-life group that has had its positions distorted to show that they are against birth control. Palin critics (including many in the media) have cherry picked in order to smear Gov. Palin.


Lieberman supports McCain
I heard about that and also Juliani also supports him.  I think that's great.
No, it is not, but US supports Israel every year with
billions of dollars and the newest military technology.
Former Israeli administrations already agreed to a 2-state solution. The Palestinians would get the Westbank as their state. Instead of keeping their promise, Israel started to build the 20-meter-high separation wall and building settlements for the Israelis.

Obama wants this to stop and Netanyahu does not want to comply as a hardline right-winger. It is Netanyahu who wants the whole occupied Palestine for Israel and does not want a 2-state solution. He wouldn't even 'utter' the term ƈ-state solution,' not even when he was discussing this issue with Obama in Washington; he just circled around it.

This does not come out of my head, I am very literate, informed, I look around what is going on in the world, always, I am tolerant and fair.

I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
I didn't say he blindly supports Bush.
Scarborough is objective and honest, and if something is wrong, he tells people.  He doesn't blindfold himself and play follow the leader like so many Bush supporters.  He's not a Bush apologist.
LIke Palin supports said about Michelle last summer?
x
John McCain supports overturning
x
Hardly. Consorting with vs direct quote? Supports succession
The quote thing, whether SP or her husband is not the only example of the problems SP will be facing once the convention is over and the campaign goes into high gear. So far, this morning, you have managed to dodge every single effort to elicit a response to SP's OWN words. Dismiss the pastor, but not her own preaching on video. That just won't fade away no matter how much spin you are able to produce. These are land mines waiting for detonation.

With regard to the "got not use for America's damned institutions" and support of succession question, these issues will not play well for yer in terms of country first, in the context of ethics (can't practice what is preached) and when it comes to change versus same old stuff.

Before pronoucing this as a nonissue, suppose we give this a little time to play out in the political arena? Your guilt by association campaign has already run its course, and Obama managed to clench the nomination. In the light of the blaring negative publicity that will be issuing forth in the weeks to come with SP being the newest rock star on the block, how much political mileage do you really think that empty tank is going to give you?
Palin supports aerial hunting of wildlife
Even if I preferred McCain (which I don't) I would use my vote to keep this thug out of office.
Who is your top democratic candidate?
Barack Obama is who I am rooting for, but I'd like to know what democrats are thinking about the other candidates.
Who do you think will get the Democratic nomination

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?


voting democratic



CI'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe everything the main stream media tells me about the Presidential candidates.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar icecaps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm thinking abou t voting Democratic because oil companies 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because they know best how to run a mortgage company like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They will guarantee I get a low interest loan even if I don't have a job and can't pay it back.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I agree that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives should get 10's of million dollars in bonuses, then leave and join a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as his advisors.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?




You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


Democratic talking points 101. nm

Republicans and democratic are worlds apart
One party represents BUSINESS. the other PEOPLE. That is the bottom line.

You americans need to get your two parties together without the politicians around and figure out how to come to terms with your disagreements cuz you folks are on the same ship and it is sinking and only the rich have a paddle.

Want us Canadians to provide a neutral ground? We are very concerned about the runaway train that has become America. It is like a bad movie.
Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic...
party these days. And the only way to end that stalemate in Waashington is for that, for lack of a better word...crap to stop. McCain and Palin are reaching across the aisle, saying they are willing to work with democrats to stop the stalemate...country first. McCain says he wants Democrats and Independents in his cabinet. Country first. This election is a no-brainer for this Independent. McCain/Palin.
'scuse me...have you read the democratic...
posts on this board?? lol.
My Lord, what do you expect from the Democratic rag, the
Washington Post? Give me a break and the rest of us here. Why don't you read some real new for a change?

Did you know that just a tiny bit of arsenic can make you deathly ill?
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
58 +/- 2 democratic leaning indies =
jangled nerves over this one undecided seat. Cornyn is hedging no bets and preparing for the worst case scenario, rather than simply letting the state satisfy itself that it is sending the duly elected representative to Washington based on the most accurate vote count possible. Why is that such as scarey proposition? How much traction do you really think the obstructionists are going to have in the Senate anyway. Not all the pubs are onboard with administration sabotage. Some of them actually remember that their constituents expect them to get something accomplished and to wait until at 16 to 18 months before starting to campaign for their next race.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg


Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003


U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.





Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake


By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.


Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.


The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.


Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.


During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.


There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.


Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.


And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.


Voted to back Bush


In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.


Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.


After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.


Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.


While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.


The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.


Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.


Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.


The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.


But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.


A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.


He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.


Norm ... has agonized


All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.


Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.


In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.


Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.


By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.


We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.


By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.


That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.


Growing doubts


On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.


Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.


That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.


Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.


Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.


The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.


Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.


The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.


Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.


The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.


Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.


But he added, We can't take forever.


Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.


I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.


Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com



None of the top tier of Democratic candidates will commit...
to having the troops out of Iraq during their 4 years.  I know some of you have posted that you would not vote for Hillary for that reason.  What if she is the candidate?  Second question...if none of them are going to end the war immediately and that seems to be a major issue for most of you...I assume you are going to vote for one of them anyway...whichever one gets the nomination?
Case in point...what a democratic view....NOT.
YOu have been exposed for what you are, and in typical spin, turn it on to someone else and make them the villain. You guys are like the Wizard of Oz...one head and lots of little bodies running around. :)
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
I'm voting democratic to relegate ignorance like this
su