Progressives ‘Lack Clarity’ On Iraq, Engaged In ‘Strategic Drift’ Away From Redeployment
Progressives ‘Lack Clarity’ On Iraq, Engaged In ‘Strategic Drift’ Away From Redeployment
With President Bush determined to run out the clock and hand off the failing course in Iraq to his successor, progressives have been playing into the strategy by drifting away from the core principle that a timetable for redeployment best serves America’s national security interests.
A new Center for American Progress Action Fund strategy memo, authored by John Podesta, Brian Katulis, and Lawrence Korb, warns that — heading into 2008 — progressives are at risk of “drifting themselves into offering only a vague and muddled vision” for the future course in Iraq, rather than providing the “clear alternative” that is needed.
Conservatives are avoiding Iraq and increasingly beating the war drums against Iran, believing “that they fare well politically when they play to fear rather than reason.” With casualty rates declining in Iraq, progressives have lapsed into complacency, losing sight of the fact that Bush’s course is further than ever from achieving the strategic goal of national reconciliation. The “strategic drift” that progressives are now unfortunately engaged in is being abetted by leading “foreign policy thinkers” and “progressive candidates“:
Several leading foreign policy thinkers and security institutes–some of the same ones who were wrong about going to war in Iraq in the first place and wrong about how to deal with the war’s first four years–have helped build the case that aided the country’s slide into strategic drift. Instead of offering plans that clarify the current drift, they have perpetuated it by triangulating against supposedly “irresponsible” withdrawal plans. Just as conservatives in Congress have done, they have failed to question the flawed premises at the heart of the administration’s Iraq strategy.
Some progressive candidates have defaulted to policies of strategic drift because of legitimate fears about what might happen in Iraq, focused on three main concerns: terrorist sanctuaries, regional war, and humanitarian catastrophe. Yet ironically, strategic drift forestalls the actual hard work needed to avoid these potential dangers and does little or nothing to prevent them. Keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq until the end of the next presidential term not only serves to prolong these problems but also creates new ones.
“Progressives should start with a firm statement that America will undertake a strategic phased redeployment of its troops in a defined period of time,” the memo says. Without taking such a definitive stand, progressives risk drifting along with a policy that will have “severe consequences” for America’s security.
In addition to boldly standing up for redeployment, the memo urges three practical steps that should taken to stem the slide into strategic drift: 1) limit the 2008 supplemental funding request, 2) continue stressing military readiness, and 3) continue advocating for a diplomatic surge.
Read the full memo here.
UPDATE: Ilan Golberberg writes, “It’s Iraq Stupid.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
54 Responses to “Progressives ‘Lack Clarity’ On Iraq, Engaged In ‘Strategic Drift’ Away From Redeployment”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq until the end of the next presidential term not only serves to prolong these problems but also creates new ones.
Duh, ya think?
This is my problem with Dem candidates. They slowly watch the world go by while whistle stopping at their next campaign site.
Talk is just talk. How about some action on ending the f’n war!
November 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amThere’s only one Progressive among the Democratic candidates right now, and that’s Dennis Kucinich. Dodd, Richardson, Biden and Gravel are left of center. Obama and Edwards are centrists and Clinton is right of center. The American Center for Progress is giving credit where credit isn’t due.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:50 amThe only way conservatives are going to grow their influence is to form a third party and back their own candidate.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:52 amHow about that, No. 1? Kind of as inane, as your comment.
Soooo, what they’re saying is the Kucinich and Richardson have been right on the money on this issue from the start. Isn’t it about time the Democratic voters themselves developed a backbone and voted for the ones they know will get us out of Iraq (and Iran) when they take office? Don’t call the politicians spineless when you yourself are spineless.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:53 amLet’ set the record straighT! The Iraq course is now a SUCCESS! Even libs agree. And the regressives, supposedly in power, are obviously NOT!
Let’s see! The left nut libs have tried everything (and I mean everything) to get at the evil George Bush! They tried Katrina; Bridge collapses; Cheny’s hunting trip; Iraq; WMD’s; etc etc etc. The only problem is that NOTHING has worked!
And now, a year later, the “Do Nothing Regressive Congress” is pissing off its’ left nut base - the MOVEON; MEDIA MATTERS; DAILY KOS; THINK PROGRESS wackos. This Congress (the WORST in our lifetime) can do nothing. They have not passed anything they promised their left nut kooks they’d do. We’re still in Iraq. We still listen in on phone calls to protect our country. We still have prisons to protect our country. The Pelosi - Reid connection has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (oh sorry, I’m wrong! They did pass a Min wage bill!!). The evil George Bush is running rings around them and he’s a lame duck President. The Nov 2006 “referendum” was of course a joke and NOT a “referendum” at all.
It must be hell to be a left nut lib today!!
Proud to be a liberal? Why? Detroit, New Orleans, D.C….heavily black cities, run by liberals for decades, and they’re the slimepits of the nation. Since the civil rights act of 64 (against which Al Gore’s father voted) they’re done nothing to help the poor or minorities.
They know tax hikes don’t help anyone but politicians, they know Gore is scared to debate global warming (he has chickened out every time he’s been asked), they refused to fix SS after the GOP forced Clinton into welfare reform for the good of the nation, they still defend Castro and communism in general, they know, especially since the 06 election that the anti-war crowd is an embarrassment and best left alone or ignored completely…etc
Why do you think people on the left are regressives? Calling yourself a liberal, if you haven’t killed anyone while driving drunk off a bridge in Mass., is political suicide. Hillary, Dean, Kerry, all of them are self-described “fiscal conservatives”…why not fiscal liberals?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pmThe Republicans are going to get one of three conservatives in as the Republican nominee, so the conservatives don’t need a third party to grow their influence.
Comment by TCDon — November 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Right, and that takes care of 25, 30 votes, tops, at this point…
November 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pmWhen all three of the top Dems., in an earlier debate, agreed that the troops wouldn’t be out by 2013; that told me who really runs this country——————
–THE PENTAGON.
That’s also the night that the air went out of Obama’s balloon.
∞
November 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmOnly Richardson and Kucinich have held firm on getting ALL troops out in the first year, and Richardson has more experience than the top three candidates combined.
Time for votes to give him a closer look.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm” The Republicans are going to get one of three conservatives in as the Republican nominee, so the conservatives don’t need a third party to grow their influence. ”
I hope so. Then dems can demonstrate that being “conservative” today means repudiating every “tenet of conservatism” ever written.
Fiscal responsibility? Nope.
Respect for the rule of law? Nope.
Avoiding foreign entanglements? That’s the biggest joke of all.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm7: Yeah, how about bush is a compassionate conservative.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm“The Republicans are going to get one of three conservatives in as the Republican nominee, so the conservatives don’t need a third party to grow their influence.”
really? when guiliani takes the nomination, we’ll all get to see the absence of any spine whatsoever on the far right as they hold their collective nose and vote for rudy. that’s some influence.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmProgressives†have no chance of getting Kucinich or any other progressive as the Democratic Presidential nominee, so their only chance to grow their influence is to form a third party (or back an existing third party) and back their own “progressive†candidates.
Comment by TCDon — November 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am
And the only way the Republicans will ever get the White House back is when progressives start a third party and split up the Democratic vote so you guys can start stealing elections again, right?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm#3. “Clinton right of center.†Thanks. That one made me laugh. I needed that. Got any other good ones?
Comment by TCDon — November 1, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Unlike you, we don’t go by right wing rhetoric to look at where a candidate’s position is, we look at voting records as well as what they do, not what they say.
By Hilarity’s voting record she is right of center, a republican lite. She goes with the Corporate interests more than the people.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pmYOu write this yet support Hillary who won’t take us out of Iraq. Kinda funny yet kinda sad. I guess the fact that TP is a front group for Hillary makes even more sense since HIllary herself likes it both ways.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmAnd the only way the Republicans will ever get the White House back is when progressives start a third party and split up the Democratic vote so you guys can start stealing elections again, right?
no, they’re also trying to steal electoral votes in california.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmno, they’re also trying to steal electoral votes in california.
Comment by cha cha cha — November 1, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I thought this measure failed, is it still ongoing?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pmfrom the memo:
“Progressives have drifted away from clear calls for redeployment and toward academic proposals and vague positions about what to do.”
What?! And the memo refers to “Progressive Leaders” - and that would be who? Besides Kucinich of course. As far as I’m concerned progressives don’t currently have a voice. Bill Clinton took the Democratic party right and I see no indications that it’s moving left anytime soon.
This article makes it sound like lack of progress in Iraq is the progressives’ fault! If we had a voice maybe, maybe I’d consider that argument.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pmYOu write this yet support Hillary who won’t take us out of Iraq. Kinda funny yet kinda sad. I guess the fact that TP is a front group for Hillary makes even more sense since HIllary herself likes it both ways.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 1, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
#
I’m not sure who you are referring to as “You”, but most commenters here do not support Hillary, myself included. You can say that TP is a “front group” for Hillary, but that is irrelevant. Regardless of who backs TP monetarily, the TP visitors who actually keep TP alive are predominately anti-Hillary.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmSure Roger2, everybody here is for Hillary because you say so. TP is a front for Hillary because you say so. And progressives take their instructions from neocon shills because you say so. What an ass.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmMost of the politicans know that there is no answer to Iraq at this point, no good one at least, all bad and pointless. We are stuck there for a very long time.
They should get the troops out of the Iraqi population and let the sh!t hit the fan. Most of the neighborhoods have been broken down to Shite and Sunni now, so most of the big fighting will be between where their neighborhoods met.
Our politicans are bought and paid for by corporations and those corps want the oil, they know that society will collapse into chaos when the oil shortage starts. They need to grab as much money as possible and leave the country before that happens.
We have been sold out, lied to, mislead, and screwed royally by all of them.
Before it happens though I would suggest stocking up on canned goods, water and ammo.
Buck Fush
November 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmI thought this measure failed, is it still ongoing?
yup. it’s returned from the dead with darrell issa subsidizing it.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmJohn Podesta, Brian Katulis, and Lawrence Korb need to take a remedial reading class.
THE THREE STOOGES whimper, “Progressives should start with a firm statement that America will undertake a strategic phased redeployment of its troops.”
A progressive HAS done EXACTLY what the three stooges are calling for. His name is DENNIS KUCINICH! The firm statement is contained in H.R. 1234, To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately. It has exactly TWO (2) co-sponsors.
The three stooges, Podesta, Katulis, and Korb, would do well to:
1. READ the bill!
2. Get their “progressive” friends to read it as well.
3. Beat on the doors of known progressives in the House, and get them to co-sponsor.
4. STOP beating up on “progressives” and back THE progressive who has a PLAN, not a whimpy three stooges “strategy.”
November 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pmI thought this measure failed, is it still ongoing? yup. it’s returned from the dead with darrell issa subsidizing it. -Comment by cha cha cha
Issa should return to the dead. What an assclown. When’s the dirt on him & Hunter going to hit the fan?
…and what’s up with the name Darryl / Darrel / whatever? Is it pinned on all Neoturds?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm“Progressives†[…] only chance to grow their influence is to form a third party blahblahblah…
yea! good advice from the “conservocRAT-neoCON-reich”…
they would LIKE that… makes it that much easier
* TO STEAL THE ELECTION *
’cause that’s the only way they can “win” anything.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmLYING. CHEATING. STEALING.
.
#1, TCDon,
Exactly!
You are finally recovering from the “battered wife syndrome” that “progressives” have exhibited at the hands of Clintonistas for years.
Ross Perot forced BOTH parties towards fiscal responsibility as a plank in their respective parties, so you are correct in understanding the power of your approach.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm#3. “Clinton right of center.†Thanks. That one made me laugh. I needed that. Got any other good ones?
Comment by TCDon — November 1, 2007 @ 11:58 am
In my book, voting to give this administration a tool and rationale for another unjustified, illegal and preemptive war…this time against Iran…is, in my book, right of center. And certainly NOT who I would define as a Progressive. And as Wayne has pointed out, it’s actions not words that we are looking at here. Talk is cheap…her votes are generally right of center on foreign policy. Her health care plan, like the other Democratic candidates (except for Kucinich), still gives ultimate precedence to for-profit insurance companies and doesn’t rein in Big Pharma. I spent my entire career in the health care field, and the last 15 in pharma. I know who really wrote the Medicare Drug Act, and it wasn’t done for the benefit of the American people. She’s getting loads of money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries for her campaign, and she WILL cave on her “promises.”
November 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm#3. “Clinton right of center.†Thanks. That one made me laugh. I needed that. Got any other good ones?
Comment by TCDon — November 1, 2007 @ 11:58 am
The right wing has been hysterical about the Clintons for years and convinced, in spite of all evidence, that they’re the next thing to communists. It’s ludicrous. Take a look at the policies supported by the DLC and get back to us.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pmPlease, progressives. Don’t reply to the troll. REPORT HIM FOR ABUSE.
I gaurantee that replying to him will ONLY take us OFF TOPIC.
Thank you.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe right wing has been hysterical about the Clintons for years and convinced, in spite of all evidence, that they’re the next thing to communists.
Comment by gummitch — November 1, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Yah, where’d that drift (march?) to “center-right” get us? The Democratic party should stick to the ideals that it used to stand for and stop worrying about what the righties think! Right now the Democrats seem to be catering to the Republicans more than their own supporters.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe right wing has been hysterical about the Clintons for years …
Comment by gummitch @ 12:58 pm
because it’s tough to admit that he was the
“BEST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT” we’ve ever had…
so i’ve heard…
November 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pm.
It was very clear from the debate on Tuesday that ALL the 2nd tier candidates are better THAN the “top three”. And it was also very obvious that Hillary was the worst candidate on the stage.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmbecause it’s tough to admit that he was the
“BEST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT†we’ve ever had…
so i’ve heard…
.
Comment by katy — November 1, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
And the first black president, according to Dave Chapelle.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmSo in other words, the Democrats are more interested in their own agenda than doing the right thing.
Yeah… I’m really surprised.
When are these “progressives” going to realize that just because it isn’t Republican, doesn’t make it a good thing? The Democrats are the same as the Republicans. They just aren’t as good at the game.
The very first thing we all have to do is RAISE OUR STANDARDS.
No candidate is an unknown. They either have a voting record or they’ve been in the spotlight long enough to get their views on enough subjects to know what they stand for, so why does anyone listen to anything a candidate says during the run-up to election, when they have the most incentive to lie?
If they consitantly tell the truth, if they take responsibility for changing their minds instead of trying to convince us that it’s just a ‘refinement’ of an idea they’ve always had, if they say “oops” when they make a mistake. THAT’S the candidate worth voting for. See anyone like that? Didn’t think so.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pmAnd the only way the Republicans will ever get the White House back is when progressives start a third party and split up the Democratic vote so you guys can start stealing elections again, right?
Comment by Shayne — November 1, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
I frequently see these prog predictions that Republicans will never get the White House again. At first, I thought it was just frustration at not getting what you want. You don’t actually believe that, do you? The same predictions were made after Nixon. After Carter, a lot of people thought there would never be another Dem president because they are weak on foreign policy. Yet the vote continues to go back and forth. You do actually realize that it will continue that way, right?
As for action in Iraq, candidates walk a fine line between wanting to get our people out of there as soon as possible and not wanting to be held responsible for anything bad that happens there after we leave. (Yeah, yeah I know bad things are already happening there. Since we’ve established that, back to the issue.) Additionally, candidates know that, if they win, they will have to deal with any repercussions of our presence there, i.e. attacks in America. People will only accept “I inherited this” for so long after we leave. Kucinich is willing to say he would pull troops immediately. I give the man credit for that. Unfortunately, as a part of being able to say that, he has his radical left issues which will keep him from being elected. The other candidates are looking at being in the position of dealing with the after effects, not just being the one to say, “I brought the troops home.” ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmsomeone’s never seen a picture of “the village people”…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm…
And the first black president, according to Dave Chapelle.
Comment by toasterhead @ 1:41 pm
ha! yes, i remember that…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:04 pmwonder if that opinion still holds…
.
Kucinich is willing to say he would pull troops immediately. I give the man credit for that. Unfortunately, as a part of being able to say that, he has his radical left issues which will keep him from being elected.
Comment by upright left — November 1, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Please define “radical left” issues for us. Then provide your argument for calling those stances “radical left,” and your counterarguments opposing them.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pmA progressive HAS done EXACTLY what the three stooges are calling for. His name is DENNIS KUCINICH!
Comment by hterrya — November 1, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Who was a guest on the O’Reilly show last night! I was impressed he ventured into that forum. Ironically, he is the furtherst left of any of the Dem candidates, yet he is the only one who will go on to the conservative boogeyman’s show. I have to respect him for that, even if I disagree with him. If Hillary is “right of center”, why won’t she go on O’Reilly?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pmPlease define “radical left†issues for us. Then provide your argument for calling those stances “radical left,†and your counterarguments opposing them.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 1, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Aw c’mon, impy, do I also have to define “willing” and “pull” and every other word I used to get you to address the issue? Can nothing be accepted for the sake of discussion? We all know Kucinich is left of every other candidate. If I said far left instead of radical left, would you have still found some way to avoid the actual discussion? Is there any term to describe his position in regard to the others that you would consider acceptable? If so, imagine that I used that term instead. ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe other candidates are looking at being in the position of dealing with the after effects, not just being the one to say, “I brought the troops home.†;)
Comment by upright left — November 1, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
You conveniently forget 9/11, Katrina, Bin Laden and the myriad Bush failures and embarrassments. We won’t, for decades.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:54 pmIs there any term to describe his position in regard to the others that you would consider acceptable? If so, imagine that I used that term instead. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
if by radical left you mean in favor of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, loyalty to the Constitution and compassion towards all Americans, then radical left will do just fine. It certainly is the polar opposite position of the radical rightwing, fascist mini-me tyrants you fools have thrown up.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pmIf Hillary is “right of centerâ€, why won’t she go on O’Reilly?
Comment by Keltoi — November 1, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Because she doesn’t need to sink to that level for publicity, and Dennis does. Very simple, like you.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pmPlease define “radical left†issues for us. Then provide your argument for calling those stances “radical left,†and your counterarguments opposing them.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 1, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Aw c’mon, impy, do I also have to define “willing†and “pull†and every other word I used to get you to address the issue? Can nothing be accepted for the sake of discussion? We all know Kucinich is left of every other candidate. If I said far left instead of radical left, would you have still found some way to avoid the actual discussion? Is there any term to describe his position in regard to the others that you would consider acceptable? If so, imagine that I used that term instead. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Fine. “Far left” then. Now…define and argue against them. I’m not the one avoiding actual discussion here. You are. You flung out a term, without defining what you meant by the term. It’s called “hit and run.” Back it up or shut up.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pmRadical Left, Radical Left, Radical Left, Radical Left!
There, ignorant trolls! Now that I have repeated that meaningless derogatory smear for all of you smear trolls, those of us who are NOT trolls will call Dennis Kucinich what he TRULY is: PROGRESIVE!
What are these regressive trolls doing on a PROGRESSIVE site, anyway?
Let’s report the trolls for abuse, and STAY ON TOPIC.
UNDER THE BRIDGE REGRESSIVE TROLLS! You have been reported for abuse.
The TOPIC is a “strategy” document that IGNORES Dennis Kucinich’s PLAN to achieve what they call for in their document. Let’s talk about THAT!
November 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pmAn ignorant troll quoted my comment @ 12:40 pm in the trol’sl comment @ 2:27 pm in and attempt to DERAIL this thread into talking about a FAUX NOISE program that features a BuzzFlash Media Putz. http://mediaputz.com/07/07/putz0705.html
If it weren’t for me reporting the troll for abuse, we could still be talking about Clinton and the Media Putz.
Instead, the TOPIC is: A “strategy†document that IGNORES Dennis Kucinich’s PLAN to achieve what they call for in their document.
Let’s talk about THAT!
November 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pmUNDER THE BRIDGE REGRESSIVE TROLLS! You have been reported for abuse.
Comment by hterrya — November 1, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
I have noticed you are awfully quick to call for others to report abuse. Could you tell me what constitutes abuse in your mind? Did you report my comment in 40 as abusive? I said nice things about Kucinich, while Lefty Patriot said he had to “sink” to appearing on O’Reilly for publicity - did you report Lefty?
November 1st, 2007 at 7:05 pmYou conveniently forget 9/11, Katrina, Bin Laden and the myriad Bush failures and embarrassments. We won’t, for decades.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 1, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
You won’t forget, but you are significantly left of center, hate Bush, and would probably never vote for a Republican. The majority of Americans are near the center, are much less likely to blame Bush for 9/11, Katrina and bin laden and disagree with some of his policies but don’t hate him. Most Americans don’t hold one man’s failures against an entire party. Otherwise, the Dems and Republicans would both be gone. Both parties have had many failed policies and scandals over the years. It’s foolish to think Republicans will never have the White House again if you consider the history of the office. ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pmif by radical left you mean in favor of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, loyalty to the Constitution and compassion towards all Americans, then radical left will do just fine. It certainly is the polar opposite position of the radical rightwing, fascist mini-me tyrants you fools have thrown up.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 1, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Now that you’ve gotten that out of your system, how about a discussion of the topic “Progressives lack clarity on Iraq.” Perhaps you failed to notice that part of my comment, since we all know that progs don’t avoid the issue. ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pmFine. “Far left†then. Now…define and argue against them. I’m not the one avoiding actual discussion here. You are. You flung out a term, without defining what you meant by the term. It’s called “hit and run.†Back it up or shut up.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 1, 2007 @
Ok, far left. I would be happy to discuss what that means on the appropriate thread. This one is about progressive’s strategic drift on Iraq. I keep seeing prog posts complaining
November 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pmOk, far left. I would be happy to discuss what that means on the appropriate thread. This one is about progressive’s strategic drift on Iraq. I keep seeing prog posts complaining about people not staying on topic, yet you seem to be doing the same thing. ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 11:18 pmRadical Left, Radical Left, Radical Left, Radical Left!
There, ignorant trolls! Now that I have repeated that meaningless derogatory smear for all of you smear trolls, those of us who are NOT trolls will call Dennis Kucinich what he TRULY is: PROGRESIVE!
What are these regressive trolls doing on a PROGRESSIVE site, anyway?
Let’s report the trolls for abuse, and STAY ON TOPIC.
UNDER THE BRIDGE REGRESSIVE TROLLS! You have been reported for abuse.
The TOPIC is a “strategy†document that IGNORES Dennis Kucinich’s PLAN to achieve what they call for in their document. Let’s talk about THAT!
Comment by hterrya — November 1, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
No need to get all excited, bud. Prog it is. Had you gotten past “radical left” without losing it, you would have seen that I addressed the topic posted by TP which is “prog strategic drift” not Kucinich’s plan for anything. Seems a conservative is doing a better job of staying on topic than you are, bud. But I didn’t report ya for abuse. That would be intolerant. ;)
November 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pmProgressives, did you notice that the trolls get all jumpy when I mention reporting them for abuse?
TP wouldn’t have put the icon there if they didn’t want us to use it. PLEASE use it. Thanks.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 amProgressives, did you notice that the trolls get all jumpy when I mention reporting them for abuse?
TP wouldn’t have put the icon there if they didn’t want us to use it. PLEASE use it. Thanks.
Comment by hterrya — November 2, 2007 @ 6:35 am
Excellent dodge! ;)
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 amanyone who supports Gravel knows that there is absolutely an extremely clear and sound direction for us to be taking. But the democrats are cowards. too bad. Ive voted democrat all my life. Now I’m a registered independent.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm