The Democratic House vs. the War

House Democrats come out with toughest talk yet on winding down in Iraq:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she will include a deadline for troop withdrawal by August 2008 — or sooner, if Iraqis can't resolve sectarian differences — in a bill to provide funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled he would follow suit by seeking a vote on a similar measure that would set a target of March 2008 for most combat troops to be out.

It is very unlikely to pass the Senate--and besides, as the USA Today report notes, "The White House immediately threatened a veto. Dan Bartlett, a senior presidential adviser, told reporters traveling with the president to Latin America that Bush will reject any legislation that sets dates for troop withdrawal."

Past Reason reporting and analysis on the Democrats and their gumption to stop the war from David Weigel and from me.

Comments

[Warren]

They shouldn't set a date for troop withdrawal. They should set a date for finance withdrawal, then if the President keeps them in the field it will be him that's putting our troops in harms way without the supplies they need.

[R C Dean]

deadline for troop withdrawal by August 2008

Translated: We want to make sure that the next Democratic President can dodge any responsibility, and damn the consequences.

a target of March 2008 for most combat troops to be out

Translated: Our enemies in Iraq just have to hang on another year and they will have won.

[JasonL]

I disagree. I think this move is better politically for them that what I was hearing. You get the credit for actually passing something, and you can avoid the taint of 'abandoning the troops'.

[jimmydageek]

R C Dean | March 9, 2007, 9:40am | #
deadline for troop withdrawal by August 2008

Translated: We want to make sure that the next Democratic President can dodge any responsibility, and damn the consequences.

a target of March 2008 for most combat troops to be out

Translated: Our enemies in Iraq just have to hang on another year and they will have won.

You make it sound as if they haven't already won. Thousands of U.S. troops have been killed, many more injured, billions of dollars wasted, many lives have been affected. Out of all of this, what exactly do we get in return? Tell me, RC, have we won? Are we winning? Define "winning".

[joe]

"Translated: Our enemies in Iraq just have to hang on another year and they will have won."

Well, yes, but this thread isn't about the surge.

[jimmydageek]

and the sectarian violence continues! Again, are we really winning? Can we really "win" this? I don't think we can call anything a victory at this point.

[joe]

'Define "winning".'

Making sure the American public doesn't hold the people who brought this debacle about responsible for it.

[Ken]

It strikes me that any responsibility for not moving to end the war should be squarely placed on the GOP. The Dems took steps to condemn the surge, but the GOP blocked it. They are now looking to stiffer measures and the GOP is looking to block it as well (all the while saying, but we don't approve of things of course, we just don't want to do anything against our prez). The Dems are living up to their bargain.

[Dave W.]

Define "winning".

1. The French, Russians and Chinese end up with less of Iraq's oil than the otherwise would have, absent the war.

2. US military budgets, in real and relative terms, end up higher than they would have absent the war.

I am not sure if the US has yet reliably achieved these objectives in Iraq, but if it has, then it is time to wind down The Iraq War and wait for the next unforeseeable 9-11 type event.

[Wild Pegasus]

Our enemies in Iraq just have to hang on another year and they will have won.

They're not my enemies. I doubt they even know I exist.

- Josh

[Guy Montag]

The Left defines military victory with one word: quagmire.

Unless we have a real quagmire while they are not running the show, we are always losing. That is how the Left won Vietnam after the fall of Saigon.

[jimmydageek]

Just curious, any of you "reasonoids" plan on attending the march on washington (03/17/07)??

[anon]

You make it sound as if they haven't already won. Thousands of U.S. troops have been killed, many more injured, billions of dollars wasted, many lives have been affected. Out of all of this, what exactly do we get in return? Tell me, RC, have we won? Are we winning? Define "winning".

May be "winning" to RC is having hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

[Hugh Akston]

Don't forget the benchmarking provision. That way, any accusations of "Cut & Run" can be headed off by saying "Hey, we gave the Sunnis and Shi'ites a coupla months to reslove differences that have been simmering for fourteen centuries, but I guess they just didn't want peace."

[JIMMYDAGEEK]

Anon,

By dead Iraqis, are you referring to "insurgents"? Or to the civilians as well?

Either way, no matter how many dead "insurgents", I don't think we're going to put an end to the violence there any time soon. This does not constitute "winning" to me.

[jb]

I define "winning" as "our political solution holds," and "victory" as "our political solution holds without an army of occupation."

We're not winning, and we won't achieve victory.

[Dave W.]

By dead Iraqis, are you referring to "insurgents"? Or to the civilians as well?

Why would this distinction matter? It is not like we are counting dead Iraqis, much less attempting to create sub-counts of "insurgents" versus mere "civilians." Besides, if a civilian decides to get in the way of a US soldier's bullet or missile, then it means that they are acting as a shield, or distraction, and that puts them, by definition, in the "insurgent" category anyway.

I mean, I personally care about dead Iraqis and believe that unjust war is a sin. However, what right have I to impose this personal belief on US policy and/or on the fighting women and men of the US military? I don't see a policy argument against killing Iraqis. Just a personal preference (against it) on my part.

PS: these questions are not intended as rhetorical.

[Memnon]

Why would the White House need to veto it? Bush could just interpret the legislation within his royal powers as king-in-chief.

[edna]

they are indeed not rhetorical questions. nor are they even coherent.

if this bill keeps the dems and reps fighting one another and not getting anything done, it's a good bill.

[bb]

RC,

There is no question that the dems want to keep this mess alive until just before their nominee takes over in '09. That is obvious. Can't it also be said that Bush is going to hand this over to the next president, damn the consequences? It is also obvious that our enemies in Iraq will know how long they have to "hang on" if a timeline is set. Do you honestly think they can't / won't hang on indefinitely if no timeline is set? Come on. If the ridiculous statement "if we leave Iraq they will follow us here" put forth by hawks is to be believed, it seems logical that the same enemy would be willing to "hold on" for as long as it takes in Iraq. This is Bush's war. He has gotten just about everything he wants. It is interesting to watch hawks flop around searching for scapegoats. We live in a democracy, and hawks certainly (should) understand how fighting wars in a democracy works. Bush and his posse should have included that in their decision making process. This is their fault, not the dems. Pointing out the political maneuvering of the "opposition" party is interesting, but misses the bigger point. Thanks to jokers like you and the neo-cons I will have to hear about how the media and dems lost this noble war for the rest of my life.

[brotherben]

It really doesnt matter as the world as we know it will come to an end in 2012.
Dont say you werent warned.
George w. Bush is the anti-christ.

you heard it here first folks

can I get an amen?

[Guy Montag]

Just curious, any of you "reasonoids" plan on attending the march on washington (03/17/07)??

I will be on the counter-protesting side of the police line.

[Dave W.]

I will be on the counter-protesting side of the police line.

With your boss?

[Guy Montag]

With your boss?

Who are you and why do you need to know?

[KoWT]

I wonder what the insurgent Iraqis think about our politicos plans to keep occupation forces stationed in their nation for at least 2 more years, and for strictly domestic political reasons

think they'll wait?

[Dave W.]

I am Dave W. and I do not need to know. rather, I merely requested to know. The request will now be repeated: with your boss?

[Guy Montag]

I am Dave W. and I do not need to know. rather, I merely requested to know. The request will now be repeated: with your boss?

If you don't know the answer to that already you obviously don't need to.

[Dave W.]

We already established that I don't need to know. I merely want to know. Should I take it from your latest answer that you are declining my request, Guy Montag?

[Guy Montag]

We already established that I don't need to know. I merely want to know. Should I take it from your latest answer that you are declining my request, Guy Montag?

You sure are full of questions. Quite the inquisitive one. Run down the hall to room 101 and check on Winston Smith. He may be able to enlighten you.

[jake]

When you defeat the army, remove the old government, impose a new governement, and hang the previous leader you have won the war.

Unfortunately, Messers Bush and Rumsfield could not have fucked up the occupation any worse than they have.

[James Ard]

The Democrats are screwing their own constituents by mandating defeat in Iraq. I don't see the Saudis saving our ass with
increased oil production while they are embroiled in a region-wide sectarian war. Our failure in Iraq will result in sky high gas prices and possibly an economic collapse. It will be working poor Democrats that feel the brunt of it first.

[VM]

James Ard - don't forget about women and minorities. And the environment.

Now sit down and re-read the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69 of the leather-bound version of "Heather Has Two Mommies".

[Guy Montag]

James Ard,

Sky high gas prices would be bad for me personally!

I want super cheap gas so I can sell carbon credits to minimum wage workers.

[Dave W.]

He may be able to enlighten you.

SPOILER ALERT:

You know, in the novel Guy Montag doesn't go to counterprotests with his boss. Rather, he comes to believe that his own job is evil and ends up murdering his boss, Cpt. Beatty. In the novel, Guy Montag comes to believe that the destruction wreaked by his employer is making the world a worse place. He kind of figures all this out after meeting a random stranger who asks him some pointed questions about himself.

Here is a link in case you are interested in reading the book (don't worry I won't tell your boss!):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345342968/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Guy Montag]

Dave W.,

You were directed to another novel. Now get out of mine before I am forced to use the fire hose.

(prediction: Dave W. will again accuse me of wanting to kill him)

[More on Clarisse McClellan]

Clarisse serves as a plot device in the novel. She encourages Guy Montag to think about what is wrong with the society in which he lives, which eventually instigates him to break free from an otherwise uninteresting life. Montag is initially disturbed by her attitude, but later she makes him realize how empty his life is, contrary to what society would have him think. After meeting her, everything in Montag's life seems clear. He starts to separate from his life from that moment on.

Clarisse later dies, having been, according to Captain Beatty and Mildred Montag, run over by a speeding car. It is implied that she was murdered by the government for being a "thinker", a trait that was considered unusual and threatening in her society.

[joe]

Bush strategy for the War on Terror:

1. Foster dissent on your own homefront. Your victory will marginalize them in the domestic political arena.

2. Alienate traditional allies. Your victory will compel them to fall in line behind your foreign policy.

3. Go in with the absolute minimum force necessary to win militarily. It's much easier to gain widespread support if the scope of the war is minimized.

4. Open up a second front against a heretofore neutral party. If you're winning on the first front, you can just coast, and everything will turn out right.

5. Divide your forces. That way, you can win twice as much!

6. Reinforce failure via gradual, marginal increases in strength. I can't even think of a sarcastic explaination for why this is a good idea.

7. Starve success. If they're winning, why what would additional resources accomplish?

8. Trust that the post-war will take of itself. Freedom is messy, and you need to concentrate your political experts on coming up with plans for your victory lap.

9. Don't sweat the intel - any old threat will do. Once you win, no one's going to care.

10. If it doesn't work, attribute failure to what somebody did five and a half years later.

[TrickyVic]

"""Translated: Our enemies in Iraq just have to hang on another year and they will have won."""

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, It's their land, their home, they can "hang on" for generations. If you set a withdraw date of June 1 2045, they can STILL wait us out.

The question is much do we want to invest, life and money, into a country that's more interested in fighting a civil war than coming to peace? The main reason we have not been able to withdraw is because of Iraqi infighting, which we have no control over.

The end result is likely to be the same regardless if we stay 50 more years or 50 days. More Iraqi Vs. Iraqi fighting.

We can save them from a dictator but we can't save them from themselves.

[Guy Montag]

A buddy at /. points out that there are a few other places we should pull out of first if this nonsensical position is to be applied to our military policy.

Also, a nice list of places we pulled out of too soon.

Anybody ready for a trip to that coastal paradise known as Somalia?

[brotherben]

joe,
Absolutely brilliant.

[TrickyVic]

We defeated Saddam, there were no WMD. There will be no further victories for us in Iraq. We have done what we can, the rest is up the Iraqis. Both the Shia and Sunni are more interested in death squads and revenge killings than doing what is necessary to bring peace for themselves.

[Dave W.]

A buddy at /. points out that there are a few other places we should pull out of first if this nonsensical position is to be applied to our military policy.

Wow, I have to admit that your buddy is right. The US military should indeed pull out of Korea, Guam, The Philippines, that little bit of Cuba we still occupy, Germany and Japan, as well as pulling out of Iraq.

I think the order of the pull-outs matter, so long as we save on those expenditures and I get my tax cut out of the deal.

Thanks for the link! I almost didn't click it because I was afraid your buddy would be talking nonsense, but his cost-saving suggestions are good. Now that is how to shrink the government.

[joe]

Yeah, I really tear up when the News Hour runs the honor roll every night for the troops killed in Korea, Guam, The Philippines, that little bit of Cuba we still occupy, Germany and Japan.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Good thing Weigel voted in the Dems, now the war is over. No more dead troops. Well after next summer anyway. Cue John Lennon......

[joe]

Tricky Vic,

"The question is much do we want to invest, life and money, into a country that's more interested in fighting a civil war than coming to peace?"

I disagree that that's the question. There was no - zilch, zero, nada - civil war in Iraq for two years after we deposed Saddam. Heck, the Sunni insurgency teamed up with the Mehdi Army during the Falluja battles, carrying out coordinated attacks on our supply columns while the Shiites fought it out with us.

This civil war didn't start until Al Qaeda - which, let's not forget, was a non-entity in Iraq before we allowed/invited them in - came to Iraq by the thousands and purposely, deliberately carried out a campaign of terror against Shiites in an attempt to provoke retaliation and a civil war. Heck, for over a year after their campaign started, the Shiite leadership was able to restrain their people from taking revenge on Sunnis, until they bombed the holiest mosque in Shia-slavia.

There is nothing natural or inevitable about this civil war. It has been provoked, carried out, and sustained by political forces with agendas that go far beyond the interests of the Iraqi Sunnis or Shia.

Therefore, the question is not "What should we do about a country that's INTERESTED in fighting a civil war?" The qustion is, "What can we do to promote a political solution that will end the civil war?"

The answer to the former is "Get the hell out, ASAP." The question to the latter is still "Get out," but there's a lot more to it than that.

[TrickyVic]

It's irrelevent what started when, we are left with a certain reality. The civil war did not start with Al Qaeda, they just escalated what was already there.

""the Shiite leadership was able to restrain their people from taking revenge on Sunnis""

Were they? Shiites were not attacking Sunnis prior? I admit it was not the same level as now, but they were already fighting.

Sunnis and shias have been fighting for the same reason for over 1000 years, the level of fighing may change from time to time, and they are continuing that fight now. I think it had something to do with one side killing a descendant of Mohammad. Of course, I'm speaking in general terms, not all Sunnis and Shias are fighting. But, take a look around that region and you will find many are starting to take up the fight again.

"" The qustion is, "What can we do to promote a political solution that will end the civil war?"""

This would be the question if we were able to promote a political solution, but the Iraqis are not intersted in a political one. They show the world some effort, but behind the effort and the appearance, they are doing the opposite and planning how to get their side to win the civil war. The only peace they want comes when the enemy is defeated. Shia's have one vision of Iraq, Sunnis have another, and the last couple of years show much about their interest to meet in the middle. It will be as easy to solve politically as the Palestine/Israeli conflict.

If a political solution is viable in years to come, the question becomes how many year and at what cost to us. If they want to fight for another 1000 years, and only the Iraqis can answer that, do we want to continue funding the mission for that long at the current cost of money and life? Therefore, my question stands. And it will stand until the day your question looks more feasible. Not until the two factions are willing to put down their arms, forgive their neighbor to remove the "revenge factor" will your question come into play. You could divde Iraq with a wall and what would prevent them from tearing down. Us? For how long and at what cost?

There is nothing effective we can do to promote a political solution until the Iraqis are ready. We've tried, and we continue to try to promote a political solution and we continue to fail. I am acknowledging why we are failing, and that the solution has little to do with us.

You can put your question on top and I would ask, how many years at great cost to us are you going to sit around waiting for an answer? Agian, my question stands.

My belief, is that whenever we leave, 2 or 50 years from now, they will start fighting again. They have issuse they need to resolve first, and before they can resolve them, they have to desire to resolve them.

[joe]

Tricky Vic,

Certainly, the fissure between the two communities has historic roots, but the presence of a fissure is not the same thing as a war. I could ask "No black Americans and white Americans were fighting?" Of course, some are. Of course, there are some people in each community who are motivated by prejudice, even some who act violently because of that, but that's not a civil war.

"But, take a look around that region and you will find many are starting to take up the fight again." Yes, now that there is a sectarian civil war with implications for the regional balance of power and the potential for mind-boggling massacres, other nations are lining up behind their co-sectarians. Again, this lining up is a consequence of the civil war that Al Qaeda provoked, not the cause.

"There is nothing effective we can do to promote a political solution until the Iraqis are ready. We've tried, and we continue to try to promote a political solution and we continue to fail." We continue to try to promote and political solution AS OUR OCCUPATION CONTINUES. The occupation, which has us backing a Shiite government which is involved in anti-Sunni death squad activities. The occupation, which turns the Iraqi government from a potentially unifying force to one collaborating with infidel invaders. The occupation, which encourages Sunnis to provide shelter and support to foreign Sunni jihadists, who are eager to provoke a civil war.

We need to end the occupation, not to wash our hands of the whole mess, but as a tool to advance the political reconcilliation process, and to allow both sides to team up and dispose of the few thousand Al Qaeda operatives in the country.

Our continued presence has caused Iraqi politics to revolved around us, rather than around governing Iraq. Maybe it is too late for what I call the Northern Ireland Solution to take hold - maybe the momentum of the civil war we set in motion is such that it cannot be stopped, even after the removal of the problem that caused it to come about. But maybe not. If we had political leadership in this country capably of pursuing a foreign policy with tactics a little more advanced than HULK SMASH!, we might really have a chance to avoid complete disaster - failed state, Al Qaeda camps, Biarfa-level massacres, regional war.

And, BTW, our disagreement isn't about staying vs. leaving. It's about how to leave.

[joe]

Short version:

You say "until the Iraqis are ready." They aren't "ready" largely because of our occupation of their country.

Having a foreign army turn your country into a battleground for four years does screwy things to the political dynamics. Who knew?

[joe]

Or maybe not. Who knows. It's a) worth a shot b) ends with us out, regardless and c) a lot more likely to work than the surge.

[highnumber]

Who knew this would be a "joe" thread?

[TrickyVic]

I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.

You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.

We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.

They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".

Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?

I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.

You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.

We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.

They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".

Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?

I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.

You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.

We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.

They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".

Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?

cI think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.

You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.

We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.

They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".

Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?

[TrickyVic]

Holy cow!!! Sorry everyone.

[Genghis Kahn]

That wasn't very tricky of you, Vic. Better luck tomorrow.

[Genghis Kahn]

Don't worry everyone, now that the Dems got voted in, everything is going to be fine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=ApwNQbREZIP7pQAVEMyYFseyFz4D

They'll just tie everything they can't pass otherwise to Iraq and Afghan war funding.

The Democrats are morally superior. Just ask joe and Weigel.

Actually, no need to ask.

[Genghis Kahn]

Whatever the theories as to why we went to Iraq, and how good those theories proved to be, the question is "now what?".

If we were really in Iraq for the oil, at least it would make some kind of sense. You could agree or disagree, but at least there'd be a clear, substantive "something" to ponder. And at least there'd be a reason to still have an army over there.

TV and joe can argue about the root causes of the current Iraq disaster. They're probably both right.

You know, there just might have been a reason why Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator. Maybe, because nobody else had a snowball's chance in hell of ruling Iraq.

The US is simply unequal to the task, as I've said from the beginning (which proves just how smart I really am, see?).

But it doesn't change the fact that the US has only one legit interest left in Iraq and that's oil. Because, you see:

1) Guy needs to print up some more carbon credits, and right now they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

2) We really should make sure terrorists aren't getting their hands on the oil.

3) It would be really nice if we had access to the world's second largest known oil reserves ourselves.

4) Guy really, really needs to sell carbon credits to somebody before his wife and kids starve to death.

Our war banners should read "liberate the fucking oil, already".

Oddly enough, the Greenies should be rooting for an ME-wide sectarian show down. There wouldn't be a need to pass a carbon tax, the Arabs would have effectively done it for us.

And the terrorists wouldn't follow us home because they'd be too busy terrorizing each other in their own homes.

Ahhhhh!! 🙂 See? I just proved that both Left and Right have a vested interest in blowing Iraq into a regional civil war.

Neither of them is going to bring our troops home until they're sure they've accomplished it.

[Guy Montag]

Guy really, really needs to sell carbon credits to somebody before his wife and kids starve to death.

LOL! I liked that post 🙂

Point of technicality, the wife was legally removed years ago and the child has graduated from college, working a very good job and applying to law schools.

I need to sell carbon credits for smokes and beer.

[joe]

I'm going to ask you a very easy question, Ghengis:

Which party is trying to stop the war? And which party is trying to expand it?

[Genghis Kahn]

I need to sell carbon credits for smokes and beer.

Yeah, but technically, nothing has changed.

At least this gives us ONE CLEAR REASON to be over there. A reason which people may then agree or disagree with.

[Genghis Kahn]

joe,

Which party is trying to tax our economy back to the f'ing stone ages in the name of Mother Earth?

"They're worse than we are" doesn't get anywhere. What I hear from the Democrats in congress says they're opposed to the war more because it's Bush, and Bush is "their team, not our team", than anything else.

From what I see, there's no need to create a "joint" party. The Republicans and Democrats are on the verge of spontaneous convergence anyway.

Both parties are approaching their assymptotic limits. What nobody knew was that they both have the same assymtotic limit. One just approaches from above, while the other approaches from below.

[joe]

Don't change the subject.

Which party in Congress is trying to stop the war? And which party is opposing their efforts?