White House still clueless on why people want out of Iraq

-mmm- · #1 09 Jul 2007, 11:04 PM

Either they are just that stupid (a distinct possibility) or they dont want to know why (probably the answer, though theres little difference between deliberate ignorance and stupidity). I dont usually agree with him, but Novak's column today was very insightful. What really scared me was when he alluded that the White House seems to want to make the military the fall guy for Iraq. If so, it seems to be the usual way they've supported the troops all along.

Article

spoc22 · #2 10 Jul 2007, 12:25 AM

According to the article, the only Senators mentioned by name were Hagel, Warner, Lugar and Domenici, and the latter was specifically said NOT to be part of the talks. As we all know Hagel is a RINO, Warner is a weak sister fence sitter when it comes to the war. I could see why Bush would want to talk to Lugar, to see why the defection. But Novak deliberately omitted the names of the people questioning Bushwhile naming only those (excluding Lugar) who have openly questioned Bush for a long time. No surprises for me in the article.

hork · #3 10 Jul 2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoc22

As we all know Hagel is a RINO

you're quite fond of tossing that word around whenever someone doesn't kow down to the party line. but i'm curious on what do you base your opinion?

surely it's not his voting record as it shows he's a good little republican

For example, he towed the party line with regard to veteran's benifits when he voted no to both the funding for vets amendment and the health care for vets amendments of 2005

With regard to trade he voted right in line with his party on the U.S.-Oman FTA and the implementation of it. He voted with his party on CAFTA, the US-Chile FTA, the US-Singapore FTA, and the trade act of 2002

He voted against hate crime legislation and against all proposals to negotiate drug prices. He also voted against every attempt to increase medicare coverage and like a good little republican voted to -------ize the whole concept with his nay vote on the part D amendment last year.

He's repeatedly voted against stem cell research and in favor of prohibiting abortion rights.

He's a strong proponent of the inappropriately named Patriot Act and the White House's version of the Berlin Wall.

He's voted no on every piece of legislation that would serve to aid the common laborer siding instead with corporate america and the GOP. Such as the Union Organization Bill and the Minimum Wage Adjustment Amendment.

He voted no to the Medicaid Generic Drug Amendment, the Medical Assistance and Prescription Drug Amendment, the Hurricane Health Care for Survivors Amendment, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program Amendment all of which were voted right in line with his party.

Voted for the formation of the DOHS and making it permanent.

Voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and against both equal rights for same-sex couples and the Teen Pregnancy Education Amendment.

He has voted to confirm (without exception) every single Bush nomination.

Voted no to both the Clean Energy Act of 2007 and the Alternative Energy Subsidies while voting yes to both the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling amendment and to Offshore drilling in Virginia

He voted along with his part no to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendment, Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendment, and no to increasing the federal pell grant program. And voted no to protecting the arts and humanities in America's public schools.

He voted no to investigating contracts awarded in Iraq, and to the formation of a special committee investigating said contracts in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And finally, he voted no to every attempt to hold the executive accountable for their actions over the course of the past 6 years.

So again I ask, is RINO just a word you toss out when someone has the balls to deviate from the party line on a given issue or do you know something that his history and record are missing?

spoc22 · #4 10 Jul 2007, 01:27 AM

I need go no further than the two most important issues for the survival of the US: immigration and the War on terror. He has no clue as to the importance of either of these issues and has consistantly voted incorrectly on each of these issues.

hork · #5 10 Jul 2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoc22

I need go no further than the two most important issues for the survival of the US: immigration and the War on terror. He has no clue as to the importance of either of these issues and has consistantly voted incorrectly on each of these issues.

while i disagree with your claims as to the above being the most vital to our nation's survival (i'd argue education is far more critical than immigration and the war on terror has become as ludicrous as the war on drugs) i think you might want to recheck his stance on those issues.

as far as immigration is concerned, he has voted in favor of building a fence, barring immigrants with criminal histories (a sound vote i'll agree), and for bush's immigration bill as did the vast majority of his party. now while i'll agree that a fence and bush's immigration bill are both a complete waste of time and money, i'm forced to point out that he did in fact tow the party line.

with regard to the invasion and occupation of iraq, and the war in afghanistan, with the sole exception of his recent calls to scale back our forces and realization that iraq is a failed policy, he has supported the president and the GOP agenda with each of his votes since 2001.

for example, he has voted yes to every financial request made by the executive with regard to the two theaters, he has voted strict party line on every defense issue since 2001 including no votes to legislation calling for oversight of detainees and investigation into alleged torture choosing instead to protect the executive, he voted to allow the executive to monitor and censor stories being reported from iraq, and even voted to defund the UN Rights Council (imagine that a republican who's record shows disdain for civil and/or human rights who'd have thunk it).

again, i hear what you're saying but the facts just don't line up.

wow i bet no one would have ever imagined me defending a conservative's stance in Washington....lol

-mmm- · #6 10 Jul 2007, 01:52 PM

I always laugh when people people on the far (extremist?) right throw around the word RINO. Its an impolite way to say a Republican is not "conservative" and thus "liberal". And someone far smarter than me once said....'Conservative' is a word conservatives use for other conservatives. Until you disagree with them. Than you become an evil liberal.

It gets old when they attack the person instead of the argument as if that has any validity. Well spoc almost did in his first response here, but had to throw in the RINO dig.

I agree with your assessment though hork. Just because he doesnt endorse Tancredo's idiotic and bound to fail "build a fence to keep out the little brown people" approach doesnt make him a RINO.

Edit: Forgot something else I was gonna mention. If Iraq is what makes someone conservative, than Lieberman is about as conservative as they come. You can have him in your club.

spoc22 · #7 12 Jul 2007, 02:06 AM

Quote: