Let the war in Iraq continue in peace.
By on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Let the war in Iraq continue in peace.
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his desire not to have a debate over Iraq, saying “let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until [the] end of summer.” Last night, Stephen Colbert summed up Lieberman’s position: end to the war in Congress so the war in Iraq can continue in peace. Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rice
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Lieberman wants an unfettered Friedman of war.
-GSD
March 6th, 2007 at 10:33 amPart of me is so glad this idiot didn’t become veep, but then again Lieberman doesn’t think the humane society is a banquet as does Cheney the Terrible.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:37 amPolitics are so dettached of reality.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:42 amLie-Berman is trying to drag this out for 2 more years so Bushites aren’t held accountable.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:42 amSo glad Lieberman know which battle to pick. Americans, well neocons, don’t want any messy debate interfering with the death and mistreatment of our soldiers.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:44 amFunny Stuff. I love how the Dems are “fighting” to have more debate on Iraq. The Dems got elected to office because they denounced the war and said they wanted to bring our troops home. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY!!! If they believe this, they don’t need debate, they simply vote no to the Iraq funding bill in front of them right now. That ends the war and brings our troops home. Do you need see what they are doing? They could end it now if they wanted, but they honestly don’t want it to end.
They need to keep face so they slyly vote for the money needed for IRAQ and simply fight about how we need to have more debate and more accountability and blah and blah and blah.
If they were honest with themselves, they know they can end this war just like they promised to get elected. Rather, they are for this war as they control the money and will pass yet another Iraq spending bill. Haven’t you heard the news? Pelosi is working very very hard right now to get enough support for the Bill. You heard that right. The leader of the Dem party now wants the war to continue even though she campaigned on being against the war.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:48 amLieberman…standing tall and strong for doing absolutely nothing. Go Connecticut.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe voters of CT should be ashamed.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:49 amgod what a pathetic wretched lying sack of steaming crap loe lieberman is. colbert rules, he cuts right to the bone. to joe lieberman, having a debate about war is wrong, whereas war itsself is not. war is to be cheered, debate is wrong. killing is fine. disagreement is what’s really bad for humanity. i mean, i don’t just politically disagree with him, i think he is a sick human being.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:59 amThanks Connecticut.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:00 amRoger:
here’s an idea. rather than denounce the “Democrats” and Pelosi and Reid, why don’t you identify the particular Democrats and Republicans who are actually holding things up. Since you’re so well versed in the powers of Congress, you surely know that Pelosi and Reid attempted to issue a non-binding resolution against a surge. And you surely know that that failed to pass, due to a filibuster by Republicans. Perhaps you can illuminate exactly what it is that you’d like Pelosi and Reid to do? Put up a resolution withdrawing the authorization of force? Umm, a Democrat’s done that. Put up a bill ending the funding for troops in Iraq? Umm, a Democrat’s done that.
Fact is, the GOP and a handful of intransigient Dems (as well as one Connecticut for Lieberman politician whose name I shall not mention) have prevented any meaningful change in policy, not the Democratic leadership. Keep that in mind. Maybe instead of trashing the Dems, you can focus on trashing Dennis Moore or Joe Lieberman. Or how about Lindsey Graham and John McCain, for that matter.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:02 amYes, the voters of CT should be ashamed for having elected this traitor to office.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am#9 Don’t you think its odd that the Dems want to Debate Iraq when they could simply end it right now? What’s the hold up? They campaigned like they were against this war and now support it? What gives…..
March 6th, 2007 at 11:05 amR2Dumb2
March 6th, 2007 at 11:07 amRead up on CLOTURE.
“Haven’t you heard the news?”
everybody listen! the troll has news! fair and balanced, right?
March 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am#11 The Dems have the spending bill in front of them right now and it requires a vote. What is holding them back from voting no? That ends the war, not Non-binding resolutions of worthlessness. So, Pelosi can put the Iraq spending bill up for vote today, the Dems vote no and the Bill fails bringing the troops home and ending the war. Why can’t they do that again? If the repugs filibuster the spending bill (which they won’t do) or if they try to stall it (which they won’t due) you still end the war. Without the money, the war dies.
So, like I said before. They can end the war very quickly. They simply need to vote no to this spending bill like they promised campaigning. Please attempt to write about them supporting the war in this situation is ok. Would make my day.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:10 amregoRregoR
.lausu sa, sdrawkcab ti evah uoY
March 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am“Without the money, the war dies.”
another oversimplification from the troll.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am#17, darnit PLC, what is this, some kind of liberal moonbat codespeak?
/sarcasm :-)
March 6th, 2007 at 11:18 amRoger:
Rather than blame “the Democrats” or their leadership, perhaps you should identify the actions you want taken. You want Pelosi or other Dems to propose bills ending the war? They’ve already done that. Ditto with the Senate Dems. Didn’t the defeat of the non-binding resolution teach you something?
There are a few specific Democrats who are mucking up the process, but far more than that, it’s the Republicans. Perhaps you can explain EXACTLY what you want Pelosi and Reid to do, rather than sit there whining.
We have a majority, but it’s not filibuster-proof. And when you toss in the Dipshit-o-crats like Dennis Moore and a certain Connecticut-for-Lieberman Senator whose name I shall not mention, it makes it much tougher. But honestly, I just don’t see what Pelosi and Reid can do right now to end the war immediately.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:20 amGood read on how Pelosi is fighting hard to make sure the Dems vote yes to the Iraq war.
http://www.politico.com/ blogs/ thecrypt/ 0307/ Liberal_Democrats_Revolt_on_Iraq_Spending_Bill.html
It also shows that voting no to this money does in fact stop the war and bring the troops home. It isn’t an oversimplification at all. You are dodging my question. It isn’t a debate on whether voting no stops the war because that is factual. The war dies if the money stops and the Dems have the power to stop the money.
My question again:
Why is Pelosi fighting hard to get all the Dems to vote yes while the campaigned as if they were against this war? Please explain how them supporting and prolonging the war in this situation is ok? Why are you satisfied with a non bind resolution of worthlessness when you party could man-up right now and end this war?
March 6th, 2007 at 11:23 amThe video quality is consistently sucking as of late. The audio isn’t syncing up with the video. PLEASE go back to quicktime…
Colbert rocks!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am2Roger,
The Rubberstamp Republican Congress voted the money to continue the war for another year on their way home from DC to Loserville after the elections.
Dems could cut off Iraq War funding today and the snake’s body would continue to writhe for a Friedman or two.
Frankly, I see it as a win-win for Dems, politically. They either get credit for stopping the unpopular war now, or get to hang it around this unpopular pResident’s neck for another year. The downside is all the American, dwindling coalition, and innocent Iraqis who will die in the next year and who would otherwise live.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:26 amMay Lieberman and many of his fellow Republicans “retire in peace”.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:27 amthis is bush’s war, plain and simple.
he will leave the troops in iraq until he leaves office, no matter what the situation on the ground there. that seems fair to the troops, right?
and most of the dems campaigned supporting a timetable, which 2/3 of the public supports.
“It isn’t an oversimplification at all.”
bull.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:32 amAlthough I of all people understand the need to vent, I sure wish people would stop using this board to bash the people of CT. I seriously doubt that anyone here voted for that jerk.
If you want to vent to people who were dumb enough to actually vote for that droopy dog politician-for-life, please write some letters to the editors of CT newspapers or something. Or better yet, write to the leaders of the Democratic party who didn’t support Ned Lamont because he was too anti-war. Heaven forbid that anti-war voters should get any representation.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am#23 A new request for Iraq war money is in front of them right now. I believe it is for something like $90 Billion. If you read the article I posted a link of you would learn alot about the situation. Pelosi and many other leading Dems are for the war and want it to continue. They are currently rounding up support from the few Dem holdouts that want to vote no like they promised during the campaign. I just wonder how you folks can square this in your heads? These people campaigned against this war and now are trying to get a majority of Dems to vote yes in support of the war? That just can’t make sense.
#20 What I exactly want Pelosi and Reid to do?
I want them to do what I want all politicians to do. I want them to vote just like they promised to get elected. If you campaigned against this war and now have the chance to end it, DO IT! If you didn’t campaign against this war, you are free to vote yes to the money. Nothing I hate more then watching these people on both sides of the isle act and talk one way and then vote a different way. People voted these folks in to represent them and their feelings. When you vote Pelosi in because she campaigns to end the war and bring the troops home, it is wrong of her to now support the war and even attempt to bring other Dems on board. Don’t you find that puzzling?
It is just like the Repugs campaigning on smaller government and then watching them produce the largest budgets in History. That simply piss’ me off because they promised the opposite. I just don’t understand how it isn’t the same with you folks. Why is it not important that your Dem leaders don’t act and vote like what they said to get elected?
March 6th, 2007 at 11:34 amStephen Colbert, Hero of the Republic!
I worship him and hope he has nice big strong guard dogs at his house.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:36 amThey way he spins the facts to create his questions, he should be known as:
RogerregoRRogerregoRRogerregoRRogerregoRRogerregoRRogerregoR
Whhheeeeeee!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:37 amThe majority of Americans wish to see the Iraq War end, and end quickly. However, pulling the rug out by cutting off all funding may not be the best solution for the safety of our already-committed troops. Republicans would love the Democrats to take decisive action for at least two reasons: (1) Republicans have no ideas on their own how to get out of this quagmire they’ve created; (2) Republicans are anxious to point fingers and stick the Iraq War Failure on the Dems. After 4+ years of failed Iraq policy from Bush and the rubberstamp Republicans, it’s hard to get the “failure” label unstuck.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:39 amThe inmates are running the asylum. We are governed by the utterly insane. Anybody who has read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire should be trembling in fear and loathing.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:39 amhologlyph
Your analogy is spot-on. Unfortunately, too many of the conservatives think the Roman Empire fell because of sexual and religious immorality, rather than corruption, greed, imperialism, and power conflicts.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am#30 So now you folks are for the Iraq war and its funding? Call me confused here. This crowd as said over and over that they want the troops home now and the war to end now. Even though that is what you want, you are ok to continue the war and even vote yes to the war simply because of a political problem you might have?
My God you people floor me sometimes. Is power the only thing you care about? If you want the war to end, vote no and bring our troops home. Don’t give me this poltical problem BS. There is nothing I hate more then people playing poltics with issues that are getting people killed. You honestly will allow your leaders to support the war simply because you don’t want to be blamed for ending it? I was gaining respect for the Dems slowly but surely, but if they vote yes but come out in public and say they are against the war, they lose all credibility in my eyes. We simply have a clone of the 109th then.
Didn’t you folks campaign on ending the war? Is what you really wanted was a simple nonbinding resolution of crap? Basically, your going to let the minority repugs lead this country even though its your job. Nice.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:57 amMr. Lieberman should resign or cross the aisle. His prostrate, receptive demeanor in the face of Mr. Cheney’s dominance could only be mimicked in an X-rated film.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:58 amFive felony counts. Thank you, Mr. Libby, for so defending your boss. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald, for defending our democratic values.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pmRogRog - you really are as big an ass as I can imagine - here you are shooting off your fool mouth trying to discredit the people who are actually trying, against a stacked deck, to stop some madmen from destroying our Democracy, and you’re carping on them, when they’ve had about 2 months to do something.
I had considered, recently, cutting you some slack, but it’s off. You must take as much oxy as Rush, you hapless dittohead s.o.b..
GFY
March 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#35 It isn’t about the time they have had in office. BUSH presented them with a new Iraq spending bill and requested roughly $90 billion. If the Dems vote like the campaigned they should vote no and end the war. How is this hard to see for you Tom Baker? I am not carping on them at all. I am simply asking them to vote like they Campaigned which isn’t that big of request in my world. I understand that they could have a hard to formulating an ending to the Iraq war so quickly, but this opportunity was placed right in front of them by BUSH and your leaders are back peddling and now supporting the war.
At least when things like this happen, I can see who on this site is truly just a party loyalists eager to keep the Dems in Power and who is truly one of their own mind.
I just don’t think a rational person could accept the Dems voting yes and supporting the war right now when they campaigned against the war.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pmi know you trolls don’t like colin powell, but as he said, bush broke iraq, so bush owns the mess. it is his war. i appreciate the zeal for the democrats ability to fix all the repub messes, but this war is bush’s war. it’s just the way it goes with the ‘unitary executive’ crowd. but i don’t suppose that would occur to you, since you’re just carrying their water, even though they wouldn’t p!ss on you if you were on fire. i think the walter reed situation proved that much. in the meantime, continue listening to rush’s show.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pmRoger_Roger
March 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWe’re working on more seats at the next election.
BTW you sound like an elementary school teacher talking to 1st graders. Really we get your point. But unlike 1st graders we’re not going to believe just because you keep telling us.
Really aren’t you supposed to be corrupting young minds.
Bushie doesn’t know how to get out of Iraq. He barely knows how he got in. He’s just trying to make it last until he’s out of office so he doesn’t have to worry his fool head about it.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pmJust let me have 20,000 more troops, just one more time, pleeeeease?
Roger_Roger has a good point. Spending bills have to originate in the House. The Dems can refuse to pass a bill that allows the war to
March 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pmcontinue. Game, set, match. Of course the Repugs will demagogue
such action from Hell to breakfast. So the only question is do the Dems
want to end the war or position themselves for the next election? As
an opponent of the war from jump street, I say end the war, by any means necessary. I am a lifelong Dem rapidly losing heart over my party’s political posturing while lives are being lost.
#39 You answered my question. Thanks. I started to see the light earlier today, but at least you admitted it. Your side doesn’t care half as much about the Iraq war as you do power. As you said, what is important to the Dems is gaining seats. It is really sad how much the Dems are just like the Repugs. They came to washington and I was hopeful for change. The came with a strong message against the Iraq war and promised to end the war and bring the troops home as soon as they could. Then they get there and I hear that the are focused on gaining more power through more seats and the Iraq war/our dying soldiers are not half as important.
The only question left is who the hell do we have to vote for? The repugs failed me and the country. The Dems are proving that they lied about their motives and are now just power hungery as #39 proved. 3rd party canidates are a wasted vote anyways. Maybe this country is truly screwed. I was truly hoping the Dems would do better and actually be a party that cared about what they promised and what they say. This is now just a replay of the repugs. SAD
March 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThere is no truce in the Baghdad streets. Not a single day of peace.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pm“I was truly hoping the Dems would do better”
your sincerity is bringing me to tears. you should’ve kept them on a shorter leash. i mean pelosi’s been speaker for 2 months. how come she hasn’t fixed 6 years of mismanagement and flawed domestic and foreign policies yet?
March 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm#44 “how come she hasn’t fixed 6 years of mismanagement and flawed domestic and foreign policies yet?”
Certainly some of the problems will take a longer amount of time to fix, but others could be fixed right now. She has the Iraq War spending bill from Bush on her desk this moment. Why doesn’t she put it to a vote and encourage the Dem’s to vote no? that would at least fullfill a campaign promise to end the war and bring our troops home. This is a bill on her desk right now. This isn’t a time thing, this is simply voting no.
Furthermore, my post #42 wasn’t about fixing the problem of the repugs. My post was thanking #39 for finally admitting that the Dems are not in power to fix problems and stop the Iraq war. Rather, they are looking to simply gain more power and more seat as #39 said. I was just pointing out how damn sad that is and yes, I truly was hoping the Dems would start from day 1 to fix the mess the repugs made and work to fullfill campaign promises. The #1 reason they got into power was the promise to end this war. They have their chance right in front of them and Pelosi is now working to get the Dems to Vote yes and support the war going forward.
Are you honestly that big of a party loyalist eager for power that you will even accept the Dems support of a war they claimed to be against?
March 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm#39 speaks for democrats everywhere. how did you figure it out? well done sir!
March 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmLieberman needs to be told in no uncertain terms that, even if he is basking at the tipping point of the Democratic Senate majority, he doesn’t get to make the rules. I’m not worried about his bolting to the Republicans… not now, anyway… he’s too addicted to being in the limelight and having power over erstwhile colleagues. If he goes over to the Republicans in order to run with McCain, I say, good riddance and let’s beat ‘em.
The very idea of a “moratorium” on debate on an issue where roughly 2/3 of the populace strongly disagrees with the policy of the government is insulting, stupid, anti-democratic, and generally just plain noxious. Got that, Joe?
March 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm#47 It is even more insulting when your elected congress men and women don’t vote how they promised. They got elected because they spoke out against the war and promised to end it and bring out troops home. Now they have that opportunity to end it by voting no to the spending bill Bush gave to Pelosi. Instead of voting no, Pelosi is working support and trying to get all the dems to Vote yes and support the war. Then they go on TV and argue that we need more debate. WHY, both parties already support the war. What would the debate be over? When both parties already say they want the war to continue I fail to understand what arugements need to be discussed. Do the Dems want to discuss if the proposed spending bill is actually enough money? Maybe they want to give our troops more as they have recently been worried about troop readiness. I guess that makes sense.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThey also got elected because repubs constantly lied to them about “progress,” “turning a corner,” “the next six months,” jessica lynch, and pat tillman, and, in general, were out of touch with reality; because the 3rd in line at the cia got indicted; because $8billion was missing in iraq and the repubs didn’t bother pretending to care; because the pres said he would fire anyone involved in the plame leak and went back on his word; because they don’t want to gut social security; because they want to actually fix new orleans instead of using it as an excuse to hand out bad no-bid contracts to political allies; etc.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWHAT’S THE MATTER, LIE-berman? RUN OUT OF LIES YOU CAN FOIST ON THE American PEOPLE, WHICH HAS BEEN WISE TO TOUR CHIMPya MONKEY-ARSE KISSING AND Torticola Cheney’s NUTS AND BOLTS POLISHING! LIE-berman, YOU DISGUST ME AND ALL THOSE DECENT Americans WHOSE NAME YOU SHARE, NAMELY “JOE”–YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR NAME TO “SHMOE” LIE-berman, BETTER YET, HOW ABOUT “SHMUCK” LIE-berman, FOR THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE–A SHMUCK BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS SWEET–AS A DEAD SKUNK!!!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm#49 You are correct about many of those things but ending the Iraq war was #1 and they are going back on their word. You pointed out alot of lies that America didn’t like and thus elected the Dems. Now the Dems are lying about their intentions on Iraq. Furthermore, what have they currently done to make New Orleans any better off since they have been in Office? What is their fix to Social Secuirty since they don’t want to gut it?
Maybe Pelosi should not have lied about having a 5 day work week. She promised that and they barely work 3 days a week. In recap, they are just as lazy as the repugs were, they are equally corrupt from the start, the lied about wanting to stop the Iraq War, and don’t have plans to fix Social Secuirty nor New Orleans.
Ok, your right they are WAY better.
I think both parties suck right now.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm“I think both parties suck right now.”
except that for 6 years you defended one party while giving the other party 2 months to fix everything, then starting whining ‘pelosi lied! #39 told me so!” but that’s ordinary troll protocol.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#52 I didn’t defend the repugs for 6 years. Hell, I haven’t posted on this site for more then 10 months. I certainly defended some things they did that I agreed with. Unlike you and many others here pgw, I am not a party loyalist. It isn’t all or nothing for people like me. Just because the 109th Repug controlled congress was a horrible failure doesn’t mean they didn’t do some good things as well. Bush is a horrible president, but he also has done some good. Party loyalist like yourself wear blinders and in your world all repugs are bad all the time regardless of the issue. You also believe Dems are good all the time and don’t ever screw up. That is why your dodging my questions because you can’t stand to rip on your beloved party. Me on ther other hand have no problem pointing out flaws and errors of the repugs. I certainly “defend” them when they are correct just like I “defend” the Dems when they are correct. I would believe in Global warming, gay marriage, I am anti death penalty, and I am for the minimum wage increase. These issues I am happy to defend the Dems on. When the repugs want to correct or remove Social Secuirty, Mediaid, and increase our secuirty through increased military budgets I am happy to defend them.
Again, this stuff is very black and white to you as one side is right all the time while the other is wrong all the time. Even bad men and women can do some very good things and Very good men can do some very stupid things. It just works differently to folks like you that only care about getting the Dems more power. You certainly don’t care about the issues half as much as the political gain your party could get. This kind of thinking is scary and sad.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pmIt is even more insulting when your elected congress men and women don’t vote how they promised. They got elected because they spoke out against the war and promised to end it and bring out troops home.
Comment by Roger_Roger
As usual your comment is over simplified and untrue. Not all of the Dems that were elected ran on a “bring the troops home now” campaign. The BlueDogs ran mostly by saying that they would not vote for defunding the war and they would allow the administration to run the war. That’s how they ran and they were elected and they are representing their constituents as they said they would. I don’t agree with them but they are doing what they said they would do. Unlike Lieberman who said he would vote to get the troops haome and now he backs sending more there. So please get the facts straight then discuss.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pm“You certainly don’t care about the issues half as much as the political gain your party could get.”
i think you’re confusing me with #39, the source of all your knowledge.
and while pretend to get vapors about his post, it was you who said:
“I certainly hope the Dems will fix these problems ASAP if they want to have any chance at winning in 08′.”
March 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#54 I am merely asking that every single Dem that campaigned on the idea of ending the war ASAP actually step up and vote that way. Pelosi needs to put Bush’s spending bill up for vote. Herself, alone with every other Dem that is against this War and has said we should end it should vote how they campaigned. Is that to much to ask? Currently, Pelosi not only is back peddling away from her anti Iraq war message, but is now actively recruiting other anti war Dems to follow her and vote yes. The only reason she is doing it is for political gain. She is calculating that voting yes means more seats and more power for her and fellow Dems. I find that completely wrong (and yes I find the repugs completely wrong when they pull that crap as well).
March 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmIt is like Clinton saying she wants Health care for every American. Since that requires roughly an extra $100 billion for the uninsured she simply should be principled and vote no to all pork. Then put a bill up that asks they use that pork money for the uninsured. POOF, everyone in America is insured. Of course she won’t do that because handouts to corporate and rich donors through pork will be more important for political power gain.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#55 I do hope they fix these problems ASAP. There is no reason they can’t. They could vote no today on the spending bill for Iraq killing the war. They could then easily allocate the needed funds to better vet healthcare and increase troop readiness. After that, vow to allow no pork and take th 100’s of billions and use it for healthcare for the poor thus insuring every single American. POOF, they accomplished all their big goals in a few weeks, if not a month.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmsounds great. but what happened to your objectives for iraq?:
“The objectives:
1) kill every terrorist
2) Install a pro western government
3) Make country secure so the people have freedom and a democracy”
are you cutting and running?
March 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pmHi, Granola Hippy, way up there at the top of the thread. I think “Cheney the Terrible” is one of the best nicknames of our political era. If you thought it up, congratulations. It’s kind of amazing the name didn’t come along before now.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:50 pm[…] Colbert also looked at the Walter Reed story Monday night, focusing on the role of Congress. Think Progress has the video, including Colbert’s summary of Joe Lieberman: The senseless war in Washington […]
March 7th, 2007 at 1:26 amSay what you will about Roger, but the fact of the matter is that he makes a valid point: The Dems campaigned on a certain position, but for whatever reason–fear of being painted as not supporting the troops, receiving contributions from military contractors and/or oil companies, secretly loving the idea of American empire and dominance, representing rube-yahoo “red” leaning districts–they lack the courage of their convictions to do what is necessary to truly follow through on that position and are now sitting around playing with themselves.
The way the so many Dems handled the IWR when so many of us were standing in the streets screaming “Bush is LYING about WMD being in Iraq” told me all I needed to know about the Democratic Party: It is a FAUX opposition party, supported by a corporate media that OWNS the two-party system, and Americans that don’t buy into the agendas of the elite classes in this country, really don’t have much, if any, real representation in D.C.
“The only question left is who the hell do we have to vote for? The repugs failed me and the country. The Dems are proving that they lied about their motives and are now just power hungery as #39 proved. 3rd party canidates are a wasted vote anyways. Maybe this country is truly screwed.”
–Yep. I’d say this country is truly screwed. When you have a country manned by a professional class of politicians, in the end, they are always looking out for their OWN asses, their own positions of power, their own cushy jobs, and maintaining these things. This is where their true allegiance lies. It’s a great game–get money from wealthy contributors, tell the people what they want to hear, get elected, do the bidding of your wealthy and influential contributors while taking care not to be too blatant about it lest you awaken and piss off the people who you purport to represent, and meaniwhile, enjoy your cushy, rarified existence of a great salary, a lifetime pension, being able to convert the money in your re-election fund to personal use when you retire from Congress, federal benefits, people sucking up to you, a large congressional staff, a nice life in a world-class city like D.C., hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, etc. It’s a great racket, and on some level, my hat’s off to these elected politicians that have what it takes to play the system so well for themselves and for their families.
–PS: Anyone that opposes federal term limits and doesn’t support public financing of political campaigns has no right to complain about the way things are. Absolutely none.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:23 amHey 60, I much prefer “Darth Cheney.”
March 7th, 2007 at 7:27 am[…] Stephen Colbert begs the partisan politicians in Washington to let the Iraq war continue in peace. […]
March 7th, 2007 at 11:15 amI am a hardcore, left wing lifelong Dem and I have to say that I agree with a great deal of what Roger has been saying. Believe me, I have NO love for the GOP and the way they used the power that they were given. My, what priorities they had! Oh the good they could have done with such power, but they chose instead to use it to line their pockets, roll over the Constitution, completely discredit and embarrass the U.S. on the world stage, lie, cheat, steal, and make the whole planet more dangerous and unstable.
However, I am so sick and tired of my party letting them do it. Roger, you are absolutely right - the Dems did campaign on ending the war. They did promise to stop the administration. I know some of them are really committed to those goals (darling Waxman), but most of them are doing the usual Dem thing - cowering. I’m SICK OF THE COWERING! I am PISSED OFF. I want to see some action - NOW. I have written so many stupid letters to so many of our elected politicians and only a few of them are actually standing up and screaming and demanding to turn things around. Most others are trying to quiet those few to maintain a working relationship with this administration. SCREW THAT. Did the GOP do that when they had all the cards? I’m not saying that I want my party to act in kind, but I would certainly like to see them use their power to do what they said they were going to do.
All I see is the same old crap. I’m tired of it. YES, Lieberman is the weenie king, the wormiest of the wormy, but I have yet to see my party unite and scream out against this sleazy administration, like I wanted to see. Roger, when you talked about how the Dem leaders didn’t stand up for LaMont, I felt that same way during his run for office. He was a warrior and the weenies just stood back, afraid to cross the worm king. We are still a crippled party who is afraid to be bullied, afraid to make waves. Man, I miss Clinton. At least he knew how to play. I want a warrior, a hero. Waxman, Reid, Conyers? Is it you? Somebody, please step up. We need a REAL leader this time.
When Pelosi said, “Impeachment is off the table,” I wanted to fly to Washington and knock her head clean off. What the hell?! If there was EVER reason to impeach in all of American history, it is now. It is astonishing - so many impeachable offenses committed. So many laws broken. Blatant disregard for the Constitution, completely overstepping it. Unbelievably shocking disrespect for the balance of power on which our system of government is supposed to be based. Shady deals, money changing hands, dirty war contracts, TORTURE, basic rights we claim to uphold in this country cast aside, outing an undercover operative for political revenge????!!! This is, by far, the worst, most dispicable, most corrupt, secretive, sleaziest administration in all of American history. These people make Nixon look like Santa Clause. Why on earth is impeachment “off the table?” Can someone please tell me that?
I want the war to end. I want our soldiers home. I believe and always have believed that this was an illegal war, even prior to learning (but not at all surprised) that the case for it was based on lies. What a horrible precedent to set in the world - a preemptive strike. What a dangerous and irresponsible and ignorant thing to do in an already unstable region of the world. How completely idiotic was it to leave Afganistan to fight it when we had the bad guys cornered? We could have made an example out of them, but Wubbya wanted to be a “war president,” so he and his people used the fear and pain of the American people to push an illegal war, instead of gutting Al Quaida when they had a fleeting opportunity to do so. Yeah, I’m one of those “angry liberals.” However, I think that no matter what side of the political fence you are on, as an American you should be angry and downright insulted.
Again, as much as I loathe the GOP of late, I am becoming more and more disgusted with my own party every day. Are there any ideals worth fighting for? Why are they towing the line with the war? Can someone please tell me what our platform is?
Roger may make you mad (he got on my nerves a couple of times, too), but the truth hurts sometimes. Write your congressmen. Write everyone else’s congressmen, too. Maybe if enough of us tell them to do what they said they would, they actually will do that - firmly, with resolve, and with the American people behind them. Most of us are this time. What are they waiting for?
Okay. I’ll get off my soapbox now…
March 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pmhahahaha. That’s my nickname for Cheney - Darth. I keep waiting for him to peel off his face…
March 7th, 2007 at 10:46 pmRight on, Sperm Donor!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:51 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 8:39 amJohnathan
Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome.) Some individuals or companies have abused
April 9th, 2008 at 8:11 am