Peace Democrats - Now and Then

[jillian]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie.

Cheers.

[red states rule]

Dems ran on making all of the 9-11 commission recommendations law

Pelosi broke that, and other promises

as far as Iraq, the liberal media is "reporting" only their verison............


Couric Touts (Slight) Opposition to Funding Surge, Skips Even Split on Iraq Resolution
Posted by Brent Baker on February 12, 2007 - 20:41.
A new CBS News poll, released Monday night, determined that Americans are almost exactly evenly split on whether Congress should “pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq” with 44 percent in favor and 45 percent opposed. But in highlighting how the Senate on Tuesday “will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush's Iraq troop build-up,” CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric ignored that finding of an evenly-divided nation. Instead, she focused on how “a total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”

In offering up that number, which combined two answers, she obscured the poll question’s real news: A piddling 8 percent wish to “block all funding” for the war in Iraq. As an on-screen graphic showed, to get to 53 percent Couric and CBS producers combined the 8 percent with the 45 percent who want to “block funding for more troops” -- a percent only slightly higher than, and within the three-point margin of error, the 42 percent who want to “allow all funding.” CBS’s graphic did not include the 42 percent result.

Couric read this short item on the February 12 CBS Evening News:


“Tomorrow the House will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush’s Iraq troop build up. But our new CBS News poll shows a majority of Americans wants Congress to go even further. A total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”
The PDF of the CBS News poll, conducted February 8-11, reported:

The war in Iraq continues to take a toll on opinions of the President, but when it comes to what Congress ought to do about the war in Iraq, the public remains divided, much as it was last month. A slight majority thinks Congress ought to either block funding for more troops or block funding for the war entirely.

WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO ABOUT FUNDING FOR WAR?
Block all funding: 8%
Block funding for more troops: 45
Allow all funding: 42

77% of Democrats want Congress to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely, while 69% of Republicans think Congress should allow all funding for the war. 44% would like to see Congress pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq. Nearly the same percentage -- 45% -- oppose the resolution.

These views are highly correlated with partisanship. 57% of Democrats think Congress should pass a non-binding resolution against sending more troops to Iraq, while 65% of Republicans think they should not do so. Independents are divided.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10786

[Grumplestillskin]

Two questions

1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???

I'm against particular wars like the one in Iraq. Unnecessary and not worth one US/British life. Afghanistan was worth it if only to get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists they were helping to train.

Which democrats ONLY oppose the war to defeat Bush? You can defeat terrorists as well as call Bush to account, after all, he's not doing any of the fighting so it would not affect terrorist outcomes one way or another..

[Grumplestillskin]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

And what if the guy on the border who let the bomb through a card-carrying Repub?

[Gunny]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie.

Cheers.

Are you EVER going to get over using false percentages? Conservatives make up over half the country, and you know it as well as I do. It's proven every time they are galvanized to vote.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations are about as useful as full-cavity searches at airports. If Bush had implemented them, you KNOW you'd be calling them ineffective, stupid, and just another Bush failure.

[Gunny]

I'm against particular wars like the one in Iraq. Unnecessary and not worth one US/British life. Afghanistan was worth it if only to get rid of the Taliban and the terrorists they were helping to train.

Which democrats ONLY oppose the war to defeat Bush? You can defeat terrorists as well as call Bush to account, after all, he's not doing any of the fighting so it would not affect terrorist outcomes one way or another..

Any Democrat who places partisan politics above the good of the Nation. Let's don't try an act like they don't exist.

[jillian]

Are you EVER going to get over using false percentages? Conservatives make up over half the country, and you know it as well as I do. It's proven every time they are galvanized to vote.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations are about as useful as full-cavity searches at airports. If Bush had implemented them, you KNOW you'd be calling them ineffective, stupid, and just another Bush failure.

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

[Gunny]

Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

Unfortunately, NEITHER party seems to be doing much about securing our borders, and that dirty bomb could EASILY get through right now while the media is busy covering Anna Nicole Smith and the politicians on both sides are breathing sighs of relief the border got back-burnered.

[Gunny]

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

The 9/11 Commission was chaired equally by dumbasses from both parties. President Bush hasn't failed because you don't agree with his decision.

How many terrorist attacks have we suffered on US soil since 9/11? More than a couple have been thwarted. Something must be working.

And you KNOW the percentages you keep trying to sell are false.

[Gunny]

The percentages aren't false. You seem to think I was rooting for Bush to fail. I have a vested interest in the success of anti-terrorism measures IN THIS COUNTRY as do we all, but particularly those of us who live in target areas. I was rooting for him to succeed. Unfortunately, he didn't and dropped the ball.

And in case you've forgotten, the 9/11 Commission was bi-partisan. No one should object to its recommendations because of political affiliation.

BTW .... I was just wondering how you feel about being a Civil War-era Northern Democrat? Y'know, the topic of this thread?

[jillian]

BTW .... I was just wondering how you feel about being a Civil War-era Northern Democrat? Y'know, the topic of this thread?

Was that the topic of the thread? I hadn't noticed.

[Grumplestillskin]

Any Democrat who places partisan politics above the good of the Nation. Let's don't try an act like they don't exist.

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

[manu1959]

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

let me see if i have this one....since the people you hate are doing something you hate it is ok for you to do it?

[Gunny]

And there aren't Repubs out there doing the same??

That wasn't your question; although, I anticipated this response.

Of course there are.

[jillian]

The 9/11 Commission was chaired equally by dumbasses from both parties. President Bush hasn't failed because you don't agree with his decision.

How many terrorist attacks have we suffered on US soil since 9/11? More than a couple have been thwarted. Something must be working.

And you KNOW the percentages you keep trying to sell are false.

Bush failed because he failed....

There were 7 years between the two trade center attacks. Terrorists are patient. But given your logic, does that mean Bill Clinton kept us safe for all that time? Let me anticipate your answer.... thought not.

The millennium plot was thwarted also - on Clinton's watch. That's a function of intel... not a function of a pointless war. And even if you think the war serves a purpose, you think you're getting bang for your buck?