Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Democrats offer the voters a strongly worded letter

After months of struggling to forge a unified stance on the Iraq war, top congressional Democrats joined voices yesterday to call on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year and to "transition to a more limited mission" in the war-torn nation.

With the midterm elections three months away, and Democrats seeing public discontent over Iraq as their best chance for retaking the House or Senate, a dozen key lawmakers told Bush in a letter: "In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained. . . . We need to take a new direction."

The 12 Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), include liberals and centrists who have differed over Iraq in the past. The signers included the top Democrats on the House and Senate committees dealing with armed services, foreign relations, intelligence and military spending. Their action puts party leaders on the same page, and it helps clarify the Nov. 7 election as a choice between a party seeking a timeline for withdrawing troops from an unpopular war and a party resisting any such timetable.

For all its passion, the letter has more significance as a political statement than as a policy alternative. Most Democrats previously have embraced the general idea of beginning a troop drawdown this year, and the letter adds no specifics about how many troops should be withdrawn or how rapidly.

The Democrats have once again tiptoed up to the line of offering a plan. Of course not really. What they have offered is a talking point that can be used as an "It was our idea" if we are making enough progress to draw down troops at years end. If they were actually firm in their stance then they would run the Fall elections on a plan to defund the Iraq war effort unless the troops were out by whatever timeframe they are pretending they are going on.

The Democrats claim that everyone is on their side and they still don't have the nerve to take a stance. Does anyone trust these guys to lead in these serious times?

Comments:
I'm on my way to the track. I read your Y-net link. Disabled children?
Sounds a lot like Hitler, and the Dems ^^^ prefer to leave them to their abominable acts. I'll call it complicit in the abominations.

Who are the SLA. Jennifer Griffin interviewed an SLA officer last night. Hezbollah exposed.
 
@@,

The South Lebanon Army. That article sounds about right, but it is Wiki so I would verify anything that seems to jump out at you.
 
RW:

I described myself as "your mishap" at Nicole's yesterday. I'm still getting a blank screen on your Wiki link, but I get a blank when I try to link independent of your site. Probably me, not you.

The Griffin interview made it pretty clear who they were and why they fled Lebanon. They certainly knew who Hezbollah was and what their intentions were towards the Lebanese people. Pretty informative about Syria & Iran as well. I just wasn't clear what the "S" stood for. You answered my question. Thanks.

It would appear that Getalife has completely succumbed to the dark side of liberalism over at ml's. Calling Dusty an idiot? Too bad. He never portrayed that kind of "blind hatred" before. Humorous disagreement was always welcome and appreciated.
 
@@,

It sounds like you may need to reboot your computer and possibly clear the temporary files in your browser.
 
OT

Nicole,

I mentioned this article and said that if Darwin was to be the only thing taught and taught as scientific fact, one should have their children ask about the true fossil record.

I was immediately labeled a fire breathing troglodyte that wasn't evolved enough to breath the same air as the elitists over here.
 
Hi RW – thank you for that link to YNET last evening. I, too, was following your argument earlier today, when the name calling, Christian-bashing started and they no longer wanted to hear what you were saying. It was fascinating up to that point.

Hi Andy – thank you for the “high marks” today. You know, as learned as they perceive themselves to be, they cannot and will not answer your question. And I’m called an ideological idiot. . .go figure.

Hi @@ -- I don’t know if you saw Huge’s last post to you, but I wanted to comment on it. (I do not know how to post a comment after the blog closes). First off, you were spot on with each of your very well-written arguments today. However, this Huge person brings up one good point – those damned televangelists; they gave Christians everywhere a very bad name at one time. But he/she is living in the ‘90s – I don’t even know of a televangelist who is still preaching on television ala the Bakers. If that is a reference to Joel Olsteen or Dr. Stanley, then he/she has never watched their programs. They are simply a taped version of their Sunday sermons. I think Huge is a very lonely, misguided soul and to say he hopes religion disappears within 50 years speaks volumes about the pain he is in and where it originated. Rushncap, on the other hand, just hates, and hates, and hates. He, too, is to be pitied. BTW, I did read his 9:00a post this morning and really just gasped out loud.
 
Honu,

I find it a fascinating subject that begs all kinds of reasoned discussion. I heard Ann Coulter talking about how if you ever brought the subject up you would hear non-stop Christian bashing and be called everything under the sun, but your argument would hardly be addressed at all.

I brought it up to test that as well as have a real discussion if anyone was interested. For the most part Ann was right. The horse evolution was hilarious when they all came up with different stories, but saying that since I could have lived at the same time as my father and grandfather that proved the horse evolution theory has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard from someone that is supposedly educated.

It may well be the stupidest thing I've ever heard with or without education, come to think of it.
 
Honu:

I'm going to agree with you on the televangelists. I disregarded them as charlatans. I'm far from perfect in my faith, but that's why I pursue it. Huge seems to think he/she has all the answers to the world's problems and the rest of us don't know squat.

rushncap???? I won't ever forget the first time I saw him on the site. It was a long list of things he "hated" and he prefaced each one of them with the word "hate". My mouth was hanging open and then I started laughing.

You are aware that posters will change their names aren't you? You have no way of proving it unless they mess up. You can usually see similarities in personalities though. It's fun sometimes, but other times it's just boring for @@. I started out at ml's for a reason, but enjoyed what I learned from people like Andy, RW & others. It's deteriorated somewhat, but can still be fun.

I appreciated your post as well. I usually try to avoid religion. They go bonkers at the mention of it. You were brave though.
 
You know, RW -- that's where they lost me - the grandfather, father, son theory which proves evolution? I actually was following the ball to that point! They failed your test and don't even know it.

I so admire you for even being able to debate that subject. It is not one I've studied -- I just know that evolutionist theories exist, but I'm lost because I can't get past my crazy, idiotic (smile) theological beliefs.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengthy arguments an evolutionist goes to to prove a point. I'm perfectly happy with my little University of Pittburgh education. . .for them to suggest that an education belies my Christian beliefs is beyond my comprehension.
 
Hi @@ -- that's exactly why I quoted Genesis. Andy's question went unanswered for too long!

Good word, charlatan. . .Benny Hinh (sp) e.g.!!!! I've been reading ML for a long time, since I lived in GA -- and especially enjoy the dialogue now that he's opened it up for comments. I've been straying over to JWs blog now, too, and have a very un-Christian thought. I would like to rip the face off of the person who blogs under the name Susan. What a heretic. . .enough said.
 
Honu,

I wish they would go to great lengths to make their argument. So far the argument seems to be "Darwin's theory is fact and you're an idiot if you don't believe it."

Most scientific theories pile up more evidence over time. Darwin's falls apart further and further, yet the people that claim to be science based steadfastly refuse to see it. Almost invariably the scientists they will cite will be Biologists and some of them don't even pretend. They call themselves Evolutionary Biologists. Paleontologists tend to have a very different story.

One thing about arguing with liberals is that they don't know how. They insulate themselves with like minded people and in college they rarely get challenged by their peers or their professors. Conservatives have to defend their beliefs from day one so we tend to be better at it.

Although I wouldn't know about that professor part. I think the libs at ml's have given me credit for getting to the 3rd or 4th grade. :-)
 
Honu,

LOL. I find Wooten's blog tedious and rarely read it, but is Susan a good romantic match for rushncap? You know RW has this great service he provides for free to needy ML bloggers called "mlharmony.com".

RW,

I keep imagining rushncap learning "science" on his differently-specied daddy the monkey's knee.
 
Buy Danish,

Why make it a monkey? We share something like a 35% DNA match with a daffodil.

The rushncap home
 
Point taken, RW. Perhaps I was looking at the length of the post, as opposed to the overall content.

You know, I used to represent that remark "one thing about arguing with liberals is that they don't know how. They insulate themselves with like minded people. . ." I can now say, in the last 10 years, that I have moved away from like-minded thinking, and have started thinking on my own. I still do not follow one party or the other. . .but would like to think I've made my own conclusions based on my own self-taught knowledge (reading blogs, e.g.!!!), and by weighing the evidence for both arguments. Either way, my views will piss off someone, but I'm not afraid to represent my own thinking any longer.
 
Hi Buy Danish! Hope you are still having a wonderful vacation here in the NE. Heat index was 107 here in South Windsor today. . .arrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

Sigh, you are SO right -- JWs blog just weighs me down, too. But I do so want to call out Susan behind the Waffle House! But the little coward keeps posting at 7:02pm, right after the dang blog closes. Then the subject changes the next day, and I don't want to come on spewing venom and hate and look like, well, rushncap (tee hee hee)

Hope you are doing well. . .

your friend, baby honu
 
Honu,

For the sake of brevity a certain amount of generalization goes on in this type of format. There is also the true theory of evolution and that's the RW theory of evolving language. If you went back to the original principles of classic liberalism then I'm a liberal.

I use "liberals" interchangeably with "moonbats" to describe the people that spend all their time just telling you they are right and can't tell you why.
 
Honu,

If you want an easy way to make one late post just keep a window open on the thread with the comment box showing. Use a different window to refresh and look for the late comments and when you want to respond go to the open window with the comment box and make your post.

That will be a one time thing, but you can at least make a late post that way.
 
Well, RW -- speaking of "moonbats" (you know, my MOST hated phrase), I just googled it.

Holy moly -- here's the first sentence: Moonbat is a political epithet in the conservative and libertarian blogosphere used as a label for certain individuals of the American radical Left, often used to criticize their opposition to the Iraq War.

That's just wrong. . .I oppose the Iraqi war, but then again, I oppose EVERY war. And you're right, in this format, brevity prevents a true discussion, but still, I AM NOT A MOONBAT.

I took my telescope to the furthest reaches of my yard the other night, aimed it at the crescent (red) moon, and did not see one bat flying around it. So I ask you, exactly where do I look for these creatures? Are you sure you're not mistaking moonbats for the flying monkeys that surround the likes of Susan at JW's???!!!
 
Honu,

I'll take it as a project to define moonbat for the Ricktionary. I work better with collaboration from Andy and Buy Danish on this particular kind of definition though.

Think of rushncap, OotMVod, Midori, getalife (lately) and you are well on your way to finding a few moonbats.

If you really want to see bats look at a streetlight and pretend it's the moon.
 
Aha, RW! Now that makes perfect sense, leaving the window open with the dialogue box. Once I get to the end of comments, I always hit refresh and it disappears. Thanks!
 
Here's a good definition. The Ricktionary is really for fake words anyway.
 
Bats don't fly around street lights, RW. Where DO you live? Those are huge killer moths that you're seeing. See, you're trying to convince me (like that of evolutionists) that moonbats exist but your argument is tres weak.

Next you'll tell me you found a moonbat fossil on a creek rock near your house -- gees. . .
 
Honu,

You're not looking high enough. The bats are above the moths waiting for a meal.

If you don't like moonbat there is always Andy with pinko.
 
Andy would NEVER call me a pinko, RW -- I get A+'s from him for my insightful commentary.

Jupiter and the Moon are aligned tonight (thank you for that phone call SpaceWeather). I left them a return message asking where the moonbats, if they're in season, can be found. Surely they'll get back to me. . .
 
I do!

Hi RW. :)
 
Honu,

We aren't calling you pinko or moonbat. I didn't call rushncap that for the longest time because a few months ago he used to actually debate.
 
Nicole,

I do?

That's a pretty strong entrance isn't it?

Hi! ;-)
 
Hey RW -- I have a rather long comment to place here -- is that okay? Re: Israel/Lebanon? It will take up a lot of space, but don't know how else to present it.
 
Honu,


Go ahead.
 
i missed it again. dang it!
 
mgc,

What did you miss?
 
Hey RW – I wanted to tell you something – you may or may not be interested in this; perhaps someone else on this blog might be.

When I asked you last week if you had a subscription for WSJ, and I said I thought two of my acquaintances were perhaps in an article, it never occurred to me to tell you why I was asking. I’m a member of an on-line forum called FlyerTalk.com, which is simply a website for frequent fliers that keeps us updated on programs, best deals around the globe, etc. Anyway, FlyerTalk is accessed by frequent fliers around the world, and when the first bombing started in Israel (May 28th), two frequent contributors took up a dialogue on their thoughts while sitting in the middle of a war. One is from Israel (Kibbutz Yiron) and one is from Beruit, Lebanon.

The thread has grown to 50 pages now, with over 200,000 posts (not all will be found on the thread – the monitors decided to let the two friends speak frankly, but no political dialogue was permitted for any of us not in either Lebanon or Israel – we are only allowed to send out best wishes, etc.) The principals are Dovster (Israel) and BEYflyer (Beruit)

It is quite fascinating., . .these two guys are friends only via FlyerTalk email, but were planning a meet later this year, which all of us FlyerTalkers were invited to attend as well. Looks like that cannot happen now. The two friends have such varying philosophies but never without respect for the other.

Both have reported the news, the bombs and even the Qana strike hours before our news did. If you are interested, the link is:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563147&page=1&pp=40

A WSJ reporter called these two gentlemen about 13 days ago, interviewing them for an article on “blogging during the war”. As it turns out, their story was not used in the one I asked you to access. I’ve been following this since July 12th – you may find it of interest. Sure is a different take on events and now I find myself checking it before I go to sleep and the moment I awake, to be sure both made it through the night. (The reference to “green lights” is a small dot at the lower left hand side of each message – green light on means on line, off means off.)

Sorry for this long explanation – didn’t know how else to convey it. It really does read like a novel if have one has the time to read it.

P.S. - If you see fit, shorten my explanation and delete this interminable post and put into your own words.
 
Sorry RW -- 200,000 hits, not posts. The 50 pages are short pages. Duh.
 
Here's Honu's link.

I thought 200,000 posts on 50 pages sounded a little crazy.

As Honu said it really isn't that long.
 
Thanks RW -- this is something that has been very important to me. It's another reason I can't debate war -- but I do have to support Israel here, and Bush in Iraq, no matter what. It's a very hard choice for me and as I said once before, I'm just not smart enough to make sense of it.

Thanks for the "little link". How DO you do that. You know, I even went to FlyerTalk website and right clicked on the link as Toshiba instructs me to do -- no deal. Thanks.
 
Honu,

This is the instruction on how to make a link here.

Just copy the address from your browser window and paste it where the instruction says http://URL everything else you type in the way the instruction says.
 
RW -- CT primary next Tuesday. . .whatever shall I do? You should see the local political ads between Lamont and Lieberman. Unreal. . .but I do like Jodi Rell so she'll get my nod in November (she's unopposed) -- Rowland was a trip. . .Did you know Hollywood is supporting Lamont? Dang. . .
 
If you like Lieberman you should be happy that Hollywood is supporting Lamont. Hollywood hasn't picked a political winner in eons.
 
rw,

i missed this post. when i arrived i felt already lost and out of the loop. i'm in L.A. and the air is bad so what can io say! it's all from global warming, just ask gore, he'll tell ya!
 
mgc,

You could always head up to San Francisco for some night time global cooling. One would think LA would have enough smog to keep the heat out.
 
rw,

i grew up here and i hate it. my office is here and i make calls sometimes down here, but i still hate it. i like nothing about it. well maybe i would like the reagan library. i was down here the day they brought in his old air force 1. i should go check that out.

what are you doing up this late again? do you ever sleep?
 
RW -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I love the Ricktionary!!!!! :-)

P.S. So rushncap used to be reasonable? I still refuse to be catagorized, but am working on a middle word for the Ricktionary.
 
Hi mgc -- I'm honu. I do a lot of work in LA -- just a really different culture there.

RW -- have a great evening; you, too mgc.

Goodnight!
 
mgc,

I don't sleep much. It's hell being the internet, too bad Al didn't invent two of us. My wife hate LA too, although her LA experience is mostly LAX. I've tried to tell her there are lots of great places to go in the rest of the state, but she never seems interested. Vegas is as far west as she'll go unless it's Hawaii.
 
Goodnight Honu!
 
rw,

that is true LAX sucks bad! but there are many great places to go here. we have beaches and mountains. we have the highest and lowest places in north america all right here. we have idiot liberals here too.

i am going to vegas next week for only two days - work - then catching a plane to iowa - family/work. you guys go to vegas? let me know next time i'll come over because i would like to meet the internet! ;-)

sleep can be over rated! like my new post about work ...over rated! speaking of work have you found a new place yet?

goodnite honu, thank you.
 
i lied. mt whitney is only the highest peak in the lower 48 states. but i got death valley right.
 
mgc,

A few years back we used to be at Mirage all the time. We've only been once in the last four or five years, but we still get offers for free rooms there or at Bellagio all the time so maybe we'll try to get out there again before long. Oddly we have always stayed at those two, but got married at Treasure Island.

I'm just doing some contracting right now. Google made 4.6 billion or something last year. You would think that since I'm the internet I would have a cut coming.
 
mgc,

It's Wiki, if you want to make Mt Whitney the highest go ahead and edit it.

One year we were in Anchorage at the Hotel Captain Cook for New Years and it was really hazy the whole time. Tina was convinced that I was crazy when I told her about all the mountains around us. We went back for the Iditarod that year and it was crystal clear. Then she was scared to fly out.
 
rw,

yeah, you would think you would get something. but i am not sure about them, they can't even keep blogger running properly.

i got married at the Orleans. their chapel is gone now, but i snuck in before it closed. elvis was there. yep, he was takin a leak right next to me at the urinal. it was a pre wedding pee and i shared it with elvis in his white shiny suit!
 
I shared a pre wedding vodka and cranberry with my best man, so I think I got a better deal there.
 
rw,

i recon you did! i gotta go do some paperwork. talk at you tomorrow. thank for th e-mail also, i got if done, do you use that bloglines thing?

goodnight
 
Yeah I use bloglines, but there are hundreds of services.

Goodnight!
 


Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?