Sunday, July 30, 2006

Chuck Hagel: Iraq "An Absolute Replay of Vietnam"

by Kyle Michaelis
After giving a fairly high-profile speech to the Brookings Institution on the need for fairer and more extensive engagement by the United States in the Middle East, U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel shared some choice words about America's failing strategy for the war in Iraq. As yet, they haven't received much attention but in the local media, undoubtedly much to the ever-ambitious Hagel's dismay.

Well, here's my attempt to help, since what Hagel had to say really is quite important and needs to be heard by Republican voters who know they don't like what they see and hear of Iraq but are looking for the permission of a loyal Republican like Hagel to overcome the reflexive assumption that their gut worries are just the result of the media's bias.

Whether you like what you hear from Hagel or not, here's your permission to think for yourself. Saturday's Omaha World-Herald reports:
Calling conditions in Iraq "an absolute replay of Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday that the Pentagon is making a mistake by beefing up American forces in Iraq.

U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald.

He said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were "beside themselves" over the Pentagon's reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.

Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.

"That isn't going to do any good. It's going to have a worse effect," Hagel said. "They're destroying the United States Army."

Hagel previously has likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam, but Friday's comments drew a stronger connection. They followed a speech on the Middle East that Hagel delivered at the Brookings Institution.....

Seeking reaction to Hagel's comments, particularly the "absolute" comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, today's World-Herald reports:
"He's absolutely right," Lawrence Korb, a former senior Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, said of the Vietnam comparison. "The signs are all around."

Korb, who works at a centrist think tank, also agreed with Hagel's view that the Pentagon's reversal of plans to reduce troops this year would hurt the Army in the long run. "Yes, they're ruining the all-volunteer Army," Korb said.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, disputed both arguments. "I think he's wrong" in the Vietnam comparison, O'Hanlon said.

"Although he could be right about the broader fact that we're just reinforcing failure in Iraq, the 'absolute' analogy with Vietnam is not quite apropos. It's unfortunately more apropos than [it] used to be," because of the emerging civil war, O'Hanlon said....

The White House, asked about Hagel's views, defended President Bush's strategy in Iraq and said coalition forces must remain on the offensive, including in Baghdad, to succeed....

To be honest, I'm amazed these remarks by Hagel haven't gotten more attention nationally. Yesterday's New York Times ran a none-too-revealing article about the partisan divide in perception of the war in Iraq and, from reading it, you'd never imagine it possible that one of the most prominent Republican voices on U.S. foreign policy had made so bold and unequivocal a comparison with the war in Vietnam just one day prior. In that article, Ken Mehlman - chair of the Republican National Committee - accuses Democrats of embracing defeatism, which he said "is not only bad for American troops, but...for their party.”

Well, it would be nice to hear what Mehlman has to say about Hagel's latest comments. There couldn't be a much greater defeat than Hagel's declaring Iraq in a state of "absolute anarchy", while accusing the Pentagon (and, by implication, the Bush White House) of "destroying the United States Army."

Hagel's actual speech to the Brookings Institution (which can be read here) was far more toned-down. In it, he kept his criticism more deliberately vague and less targeted at the Bush Administration. Making a more general call for greater engagement in the Middle East, Hagel largely danced around the Bush Administration's disastrous avoidance of the true issues at hand, leaving the region "captive to the fire of war and historical hatred."

Probably his most pointed criticism in the speech was that the Beirut Declaration negotiated with the Arab League but rejected by Israel in 2002 was a "squandered" opportunity. The World-Herald also reported Hagel's calling the Bush Administration's decision to pull out the U.S. Ambassador to Syria "mindless".

Little of Hagel's speech directly referenced the war in Iraq besides the following bleak assessment:
There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today. Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq toward civil war. The U.S. announcement this week to send additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad...and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S and the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the realities of the rest of Iraq.

The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the future of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of governing and security will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. As I said in November, this is not about setting a timeline. This is about understanding the implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being determined by Iraqis – not Americans. America is bogged down in Iraq and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options. The longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the deeper the damage to our force structure – particularly the U.S. Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on an already dangerously over-extended force structure that will further limit our options and public support.

My God, a Republican Senator talking about the reality of the situation in Iraq - not just wagging a purple finger in the air, not just tossing-off meaningless platitudes about staying the course.

Though it's undeniably too simplistic to draw too close a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, it's comforting to know that Hagel - a man who actually lived through the horrors of war - keeps an actual eye to the lessons of history rather than just irresponsibly reading from the Bush Administration's talking points.

It's easy, of course, to give Hagel too much credit just for being so distinct in this regard as a Republican Senator. He's long been shattering illusions about Iraq with his words while voting, time and again, to feed this fantasy Bush & Co. have constructed. There's a dismaying disconnect there, but one that is still preferable to the alternative.

He's Chuck Hagel, folks - the thinking man's unthinking Republican. And, you almost have to like him; you just can't count on him.

36 Comments:

Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Kylie,

I actually find it offensive that you say "you can't count on Hagel"....can't count on someone who volunteered for Vietnam combat service and took schrapnel for his country, while ass-wipes like yourself would have kept your candy-asses on your little campuses and hid from service, preaching your pukie morally-superior hippie agenda.

Hagel, even in his advanced years, is very likely still able to kick the shit out of you.

If his voting record is inconsistent to you, whine about it to your stoner buddies, but don't you ever dare question any person's integrity who did much more for his or her nation in one tour of duty than your sorry ass could ever imagine.

7/30/2006  
Anonymous Guy in GI said...

I don't know much about "schrapnel," but I do know that there is a difference between heroic military service and political leadership. It's strange that a Republican would have trouble understanding this discrepancy; it's a difference that some in the GOP were more than willing to point out when Senator Kerry was running for President in 2004.

Bulldog does have a point, though: the one with the most physical power in a disagreement is always the morally superior one. Just look at Germany and Poland in 1939.

7/30/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kyle, I find it absolutely amazing that you heap so much praise on Hagel and absolutely fail to point out his criticism is simply rhetorical--he claims we are failing and stops there. He doesn't offer what we should do (other than "stand down when Iraqis can stand up"). He's playing to the "moderates," without actually risking anything with a policy proposal. He sounds good, but he's just another Washington politician.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

GI,

If you had somewhat understood my post, I was only referring to Kylie's criticism of Hagel as an individual...the voting record is not the point.

Lay of the Mary Jane, man. Anyone should know by now that trying to go after a candidate who served in the military isn't always a good plan (think Dan Rather in 2004).

7/31/2006  
Anonymous A.S. said...

Direct quote from Bulldog:

"Hagel, even in his advanced years, is very likely still able to kick the shit out of you."

Wow, another excellent example of Bulldogs elloquent prose and mind bending commentary.

Coming from a military family and my father being an active duty Marine of 23 years I know the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make everyday (and the sacrifices their families make as well). I have felt and lived them.

Bulldog again ignores Kyle's whole post and simply ignores the facts presented and attacks Kyle personally.

"If his voting record is inconsistent to you, whine about it to your stoner buddies"

So since Hagel has served his country in the armed forces he is exempt from being questioned and criticized as an elected official? I think not, my father has served his country and continues to and I question his stances and opinions sometimes.

Don't blur military service and political service, it is two very different things.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

A.S.,

I also hail from a military family and may or may not have served myself, so get down off of your high horse.

Kylie already uses this forum to whine, so I guess pointing that out is futile.

Right, don't blur the two...bag on his voting record as an elected official all you want, but when Kylie said "Hagel is undependable", I will jump in if I believe he is bagging on him as a person....if you don't like it, raindance off to some other blog.

7/31/2006  
Anonymous Don Kuhns said...

As usual, Bulldog, you are completely full of it. Kyle was explaining that those of us who wish for a change of course in Iraq can't count on him to vote our way. He was stating a fact, a matter of public record: Hagel's votes do not parallel his public statements. Instead of throwing names at Kyle, maybe you should be asking the good senator why he keeps voting to "stay the course", while admitting that "the course" leads to disaster.

And what is this about?

"I also hail from a military family and may or may not have served myself, so get down off of your high horse."

Does that mean you were in the Texas Air Guard during the 1970s?

7/31/2006  
Anonymous A.S. said...

Bulldog,

If you call stating a fact (that I come from a military family) being on a high horse then you are wrong.

It merely shows that I deeply respect veterans and what they have sacrificed for our country.

Once again you have twisted words and misquoted. Kyle stated:

"He's long been shattering illusions about Iraq with his words while voting, time and again, to feed this fantasy Bush & Co. have constructed. There's a dismaying disconnect there, but one that is still preferable to the alternative."

He refered to the, "you can't count on Hagel" ... in refernce to HIS VOTING RECORD. Not his service or dedication to this country.

I do respect Hagel for his heroic military service but I often disagree with his political/policy decisions. It Hagel who fought for my right to respectfully disagree with his stances on certain issues.

As for Kyle's "whining" I can only laugh at that comment. I suppose you would rather him not have a blog and there to be no progressive opinions at all. I suppose this one sided utopian democracy would appeal to you.

Heres an idea Bulldog, since you seem so full of ideas and anger perhaps you should start your own blog and focus your energies there. Whenever I need a good laugh and want to read accuasations of the blog commenters using drugs and other substances I will check it out. But then again we would not have the pleasure of reading your insightful commentary on this blog.

If free speech is whining then I am a whiner and proud of it.

Regards,
A.S.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

A.S.,

I also come from a military family, which you must have missed, so you claiming it as "superiority" over me is wrong, hence the high-horse comment.

You are really slow, aren't you?

Again, if I get the impression someone is questioning Hagel's integrity, I will jump in...quote all you want but reading between the lines is also something intelligent folks can do (and obviously you cannot).

Yes, whining is what I will call it...you know why? Nebraska has two independent Senators, both of which buck party lines often in votes and rhetoric, must like past greats Exon and Norris.

Yet, people on this woeful-excuse-of-a-blog piss and moan b/c we don't have a straight-line Dem voting team like Kennedy-Kerry or Boxer-Feinstein.

Nerbaska has a tradition of independence and values that in its Congressional representation, so if you want a straight Dem party line voter, move to Mass or Cali....and if you want straight R-line voters, move to Utah....and good riddance.

Otherwise, be thankful for what we have...but of course if you are a spoiled, snivelling little brat you will never be happy.

DJ

7/31/2006  
Blogger Dave said...

The Kos comments bring up an excellent point, Kyle:

Hagel's saying nothing that Democrats like John Murtha haven't said before, but because it's coming from a Republican, it's supposed to have more authority. I do respect a lot of what Hagel has to say on Iraq. I was convinced that he was sincere back when my high school had a forum with him in 2002. His voting record suggests something different.

That said, let's take what Hagel says at face value. Why can he say it, but Democrats can't? Why are Democrats afraid to stand up and say that this war is wrong, and we need to leave now? Hagel may be right, this may be an absolute replay of Vietnam, and Democrats are doing exactly what they did back in 1968. If we have to suffer through five more years of this debacle because our fellow Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions, we are facing a bleak future.

7/31/2006  
Anonymous nepolwatcher said...

Bulldog - you are living up to your name - you've insulted everyone on this blog.

But lets get to the point: Hagel voted for the war, voted to make it easier for Bush to go to war, and he hasn't stopped complaining since.

and your double standard on questioning the military service of veterans like Hagel is astounding.

Hagel served his country heroically. So did John Kerry. So did Max Cleland. The GOP said Max Cleland supported Al Queda. Ann Coulter said Max Cleland is "lucky" to have lost three limbs in Vietnam.

The Swift Boat lies have been debunked. Hagel came to Cleland's defense in 2002. But he tucked his tail and ran when the same scum mucked up John Kerry's record.

And you - you want to wrap hagel in the flag to protect him from criticism when his years of criticism has done nothing to limit the number of soldiers bodies coming back from Iraq wrapped in flags.

Sad.

No come up with some clever name for me that insults my intelligence or sexuality.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

uh, polwatcher, I never questioned anyone's service....that's why I said it was wrong to do and made the Dan Rather comment.

I respect Hagel on many other levels besides his service, and I think he's a great American, so I'll gladly wrap him in the flag and I am damn proud of his representation of Nebraska in the Senate.

If one Senator is supposed to stop the war and bring our troops home, then why haven't Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy and others been able to do it? Is Kennedy too worried about his wayward offspring's recent drunken driving incident? Remember, Teddy got drunk and killed someone with his car, so Pat will likely do the same...he almost did in May.

You seem to think Hagel can stop the war unilaterally? I didn't realize our constitution was abolished and he was elected King of the Americas. Wait, let me guess...CNN said this could happen, which means it did. Heaven help us, Wolf!

As for insults, if you can't handle it, then take your shovel and play somewhere else....*sniffle*...poor you.

7/31/2006  
Anonymous nepolwatcher said...

DB -
wow are you insane or what?

under your logic, everyone should step out of the way of the bush twin's BMWs - considering their father's past substance abuse and their mother's driving record. Pedestrians across America beware!

Why haven't Kennedy et al been able to stop the war? because every time they try, they think they have folks like Hagel and McCain on board, but when it comes time to vote the way they compalin - they run for the hills.

that's why. As Kyle initially pointed out before you changed the subject 20 times: Hagel never votes the way he complains. He simply complains - usually on a weekend talk show - then he votes whatever way Rove tells him to vote.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Kyle Michaelis said...

Dave-

I don't think anyone's contending that Hagel has more authority than Murtha and those Dems who have criticized our Iraq war "strategy." But, there's no doubt his is an important voice that lends authority to the larger argument against our disastrous policy of blindly "staying the course." With Hagel speaking-out, it really should destroy the myth that the Iraq War is being fought on the homefront on purely partisan lines.

Of course, Hagel gets defensive whenever Democrats use his words to make this point, but the record speaks for itself. "They're destroying the United States Army" - that's not a statement from which Hagel can hide. It sounds to me like an honest assessment, no matter where the man votes come crunch time.


DB-

I think we all owe you thanks for entertaining us with this lunatic character you're playing for our amusement. You're really doing a marvelous job of making Republicans sound insane and stupid. A little bit over-the-top and unfair for my tastes - the Republicans I know happen to be reasonable and decent people - but do what you've got to do in service of your art.

In the future, however, please refrain from telling others that, if they don't like your bullshit, they should go to a different blog. People come to this blog for my bullshit, damn it...and that's the way it's going to stay.



PS- In light of the rest of the discussion, doesn't anyone else find Anonymous' comment absolutely delightful?

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Rove has Hagel on a leash?? Oh my, you are lost.

What about all of the Dems, both House and Senate, who also vote against "cut and run" proposals....I seem to remember watching a House vote either in Nov or Feb, when Murtha started his rants, which was a "cut and run" deal...the vote was 434-0 in favor of not setting deadlines and cutting and running, with Murtha himself obviously voting against his complaining.

Explain that.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Kylie,

You finally said something accurate in calling your posts bullshit.

"And dammit, it's going to stay that way"....wow, did you check your panties?? You may have stained them.

As for being a lunatic charcater or whatever...this really shows me how much you are out of touch with reality...I hear regular folks all of the time saying, in person, such things and no, not at the mental hospital or anywhere else you would joke about.

I here them at places most "real Americans" you claim to know so much about gather.

Face it...you are stuck in some academic, "I wish I lived on the east or west coast but I am not talented enough" fantasy world and your only outlet is to pollute a very small corner of the Internet with things that very, very, very few folks from this part of the country agree with.

I commend you on the consistency of your pissing and moaning...and nothing else.

7/31/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DB -

Since you seem content to state "facts" that have absolutely no bearing on reality, let me refresh your memory about that vote on the "murtha" amendment. I say "murtha" amendment because it wasn't actually introduced by him. It was introduced by Representative Duncan Hunter - Republican of California. It was NOT Murtha's legislation, but a fanciful one-sentance bastardization of that legislation. It was meant to score political points and not advance the debate in any substantive way. If you go back and read the debate, you'll see that Murtha was outraged by what they were trying to do using his name.

Now, it may be hard to you to understand this as I'm not Rush or Hannity, but you can verify everything i just said by checking the Library of Congress' achives of House debate. It happened on November 18, 2005. The resolution is HRes571.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Anon,

How funny you assume I listen to talk radio, and how ironic that you assume I am a member of one of the two major parties.

Of course it wasn't Murtha's amendment....that's always been the excuse.

So if it was Hunter's (read Republican), why did it pass without a single opposition vote??

Why didn't the Dems use procedure to vote "on the Previous Question" or the like?

Wait, some doper on here things Chuck Hagel can single-handedly stop the war in Iraq and the combined efforts of 25 Dem Senators and the House "Out of Iraq Caucus" cannot, so I guess anything is possible.

The C-SPAN cameras were turned off!! Karl Rove jumped into the Speaker's chair and shot people!! John Kerry's freak-a-zoid son was seen interviewing for WH Cheif of Staff and lit himself on fire on 17th Street!!

With God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Kyle Michaelis said...

Bulldog-

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Of course not...that's why you continue to be such a brilliant addition to the New Nebraska Network. You demonstrate so little understanding of the issues and of democratic process that I'd almost consider them authentic if I considered such ignorance possible.

The conversations with yourself. The baseless accusations and name-calling. Your total disregard for what anyone has actually written - OUTSTANDING!!! Bravo!!!

Do you do children's birthday parties?

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Kylie,

Each time I ask for specifics and citings, I get garbage and "blame Bush" non-sense. Just because I don't agree with these Che-Guevera-loving freaks doesn't mean I don't understand the issues.

Nice try, though. Didn't they you not to use bold or all caps to make a point?

Earning a liberal arts degree from a mediocre state school doesn't make you smart, Kylie...those degrees are handed out like Halloween candy.

I don't know legislative procedure? Do you know how Previous Questions votes go and what their use is?

How about bills on the suspension calendar? How many votes to pass those? Who determines what goes onto the suspension calendar and what is the process?

Come on....show us all how smart you are....or are you going to give me some shit like "duh, it's not worth my time" or "Republicans break the rules".

Come on, Kylie...show us how much of a woman you really are.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Knowing simple aspects of the legislative process should be required to even discuss politics so not just any ignoramus can spread misinformation and hate, as you seem to do so well.

Waiting......

7/31/2006  
Blogger Kyle Michaelis said...

Bulldog-

Please find ways of embarrassing yourself that don't include insulting women. I get the joke, but some readers might not appreciate your divinely absurdist rants.

Anyway, answering your question, Duncan's was a stand-alone resolution, with which Murtha and Congressional Democrats had no involvement whasoever. It called for "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq [to] be terminated immediately," flying directly in the face of the measured and timely withdrawal for which Murtha had called (and which I would not, personally, have supported).

Of course, you knew that, silly.

Please do me a favor. Could you throw in more "long-hair," "tree-hugging," "hippie"-talk into your stunning repertoire of stereotypes and insults? Those are classics that I really don't think you're taking full advantage of.

Thanks. Shine on you crazy diamond.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Dems had no involvement in it? So each Resolution reaching the floor does not include any input at all from the minority party? Since the Dems weren't involved, they just went ahead and blindly voted in favor of it, en bloc??

And of course you ignored my other questions and tried, and of course failed miserably, to insult me. As usual you walked into a match of wits unarmed.

Yes, lumping you in with women is insulting....to women.

The Pink Floyd reference shows what I don't know....did you just burn a bowl?

Looks like that UNL degree served you well; another journalism major enters (and bogs down) the workforce.

Enjoy mediocrity-ville. By the time you are ready for it, the prozac will be stronger and cheaper.

7/31/2006  
Blogger Kyle Michaelis said...

Bulldog-

The Democrats voted against Duncan Hunter's Resolution, as did Hunter himself. It was a mindless, meaningless stunt, not at all like the continued brilliance you display with each new post. Sure, you just made up a vote count up above (434-0?) but that's what you've been doing from the start - making shit up. I think it's great.

It also sounds like you might have a future as a parliamentarian if your career in stand-up never quite comes together. Way to go!!!!!

7/31/2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Kyle, no doubt, neither you nor I believe Hagel's words have more authority than any Democrats', but unfortunately, the way it plays in the media, he does. Until our most prominent Democrats stop paying lipservice to the neocon right, we will never be able to end this debacle.

7/31/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DB -

A brief primer on how a bill reaches the floor. In the House, all bills have to go through something called the "Rules Committee", which like all committees right now, has a majority of Republican members. Democrats cannot get a bill to the floor or an amendment to a bill without the Rules Committee approving it (not the content per se, but at least allow it to go forward). Therefore, it is very difficult if not impossible for House Democrats to get any legislation considered that is not in line with what the Republicans want to have considered.

The other possibility is filing what is known as a discharge petition, where a majority of House members sign a petition to circumvent the Rules Committee and allow a bill to come to the House floor. However, this is also very difficult to do and probably impossible with someething like Murtha's resolution where, even if all Democrats sign the petition, they still wouldn't have the numbers to force a vote.

In short, there is no opportunity in the current climate to consider Murtha's actual resolution. however, Republicans feel free to waste the time of Congress on crap bastardizations of his amendment.

Now I'm sure you'll respond to this with name-calling and that's probably what i get for trying to provide you with actual facts. I wait in vain for any hope that you actually want to learn new information rather than just insult others.

8/01/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Kylie,

It is obvious you are both stoned and just plain dumb.

There have been two House votes regarding Iraq; one in November which was incorrect cited by some anonymous moron on this thread, and one last month.

The one last month is:
_________________________
H.RES.861
Title: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
_________________________

And this passed with a bi-partisan vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2006&rollnumber=288

________________________

Can you follow this, Kylie...I know it's a lot of info.


The one passed last year (it was Dec, not Nov as I thought) was by a vote of 408-1, which I thought was 434-0.

________________________

H.RES.534
Title: Recognizing the importance of an independent Iraqi judiciary in the formation of a new and democratic Iraq.
________________________

And ironically, the one vote against it was an "R":

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=651
________________________

So as usual, I do what I am talking about and backed it up with facts.

Kylie, the ideas on this blog aren't always what I agree with, but due to our great freedoms, it should exist.

However, I truly believe you should not run it. You are just plain incompetent and obivious to reality.



In any event, I

8/01/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Yes, anon, the majority rules and the majority was elected by the people of this country.

It sucks, doens't it??

8/01/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On H RES 861, I don't think 42 Democrats, out of 201, really constitutes "bipartisan vote". And what exactly does:
"Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary" mean? Is this victory now legit? Shouldn't Congress have come up with some details? Sounds a bit pandering.

As for "Recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent Iraqi judiciary in the formation of a new and democratic Iraq", isn't the GOP fearful of an idependent Iraqi judiciary that would be crawling with "activist judges legislating from the bench"?

8/01/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

42 out of 201 is not bi-partisan?? OK, you are as lost and ignorant as the rest.

Next.

8/01/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When only a minority from one side supports a bill, that's not "bipartisan". Bipartisan means that a majority of the parties are in agreement. If 100 out of 201 Democrats voted "yea", that would be a better argument.

And I stil want to know what this declaration accomplishes. What's next, a resolution that puppies and kittens are adorable?

8/01/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

So it is bi-partisan, just not enough for you? Well, honestly, you don't matter and the 40 Dems who voted for it do.

A "cut and run" resolution would be a victory for these animals who blow themselves up in order to kill innocents and video-tape beheadings.

Now, I understand that you think terrorists should get a stern note from our President and maybe a kick in the pants, but setting a deadline gives these animal terrorists we are fighting a deadline with which to work.

They do read pages like CNN.com and watch US television, and our withdrawl before Iraqis can stand on their own is a defeat.

I know The Left likes it when our military is ever setback (hence the Clinton WH staffer who said "I don't talk to the military"), but cutting and running is not an option.

8/01/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DB - you are a moron. first you talk about the murtha resolution. there has been no murtha resolution, so i provide proof that the only thing that could laughably be characterized as teh "murtha" resolution was a gop stunt in november '05.

now you are saying that you're talking about two completely unrelated resolutions expressing support for our troops. those weren't what you were talking about before and they have even LESS bearing on murtha than what i cited.

then you go into procedural votes "why couldn't the dems do something like 'on the previous question'" and I explain why they couldn't. then you pretend you never brought that up.

so you criticize the dems for not voting for a resolution that wasn't murtha, pretend you were talking about two different resolutions that have nothing to do with anything. you also criticize dems for not using a procedural gambit and when it is explained that they can't, you criticize them for not NOT using such a gambit. you can't have it both ways. [also, i think you have no fucking idea what "the previous question" means because it is totally irrevelvant. big words don't make you smarter if you are a total dipshit.]

i can only assume that you are a pathological idiot or pathologically dishonest. either way, i'm done with you.

8/01/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now I could get angry at you, but like the little a-hole punk in the playgorund taunting the big kids just for attention, I've decided to ignore your childish retorts. And you matter about as much as I do in the grand scheme of things.
We could continue with the silly argument about what "bipartisanship" means, but,like this House declaration, it's a waste of time.

I never said anything about a "stern note" to the terrorists. I supported going into Afghanistan, as that's where the real threat to this country was at the time. I supported counter-terrorist operations conducted in Yemen and the Philippines, and I was even grudgingly supportive of certain parts of the Patriot Act.

However, when Republicans started putting stupid shit like tax cuts, gay marriage, and keeping "Under God"in the Pledge of Allegiance, I realized that Bush was fighting this war half-assed.
What about port security? What about enacting national service so our forces aren't having to constantly rotate into Iraq, Afghanistan, and now the Mexican border? What about a Freedom Tax so that we can properly fund the War on Terror, instead of forcing the military to cut fuding for new equipment and maintenence, just to cover the cost of operations?

I mean if you hate the military so much that you oppose these proposals, I say why don't you just go join your buddy Osama?

8/01/2006  
Blogger Daily Bulldog said...

Anon,

That's a lot of ignoring you did. Check your undies...they are likely soiled.

DJ

8/01/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, that was original. So when you can't come up with a grown up response, you reply with something you read on the restroom wall?

Run along now, adults need to have a grown up discussion

8/01/2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home