Madness grips the House

November 19, 2005

It doesn’t happen too terribly often, so when the U.S. House of Representatives at least drifts in the direction of madness, it’s worth paying attention to.

It seemed like House Republicans had stumbled upon one of their famously clever ideas. With Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the GOP thought it was time for a little stunt. Not willing to debate the war on the merits, or discuss a strategy for success, or even consider how we got into the war in the first place, Republicans thought they’d turn a debate over the war into a little partisan game.

They crafted a one-sentence resolution that read, “[I]t is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.” The idea, of course, was to put Dems on the spot — vote for the Republican characterization of Murtha’s plan for the future of the war and stand for an immediate withdrawal, or hang Murtha out to dry and vote with the GOP.

It’s the cynical, vapid nonsense that congressional Republicans have taken to an art form. It was also a transparent stunt that Dems saw coming a mile away — and knew not to fall for. Dem leaders — including Murtha — denounced the ridiculous resolution and easily helped vote it down.

But along the way, the House erupted to the point of near-violence.

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber’s newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war. […]

[T]he maneuvering exposed the chamber’s raw partisan divisions and prompted a tumultuous scene, which Capitol Hill veterans called among the wildest and most emotional they had ever witnessed.

At the heart of the fiasco was Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), the woman who barely beat Paul Hackett in a special election earlier this year.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha’s intent. Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that “a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp,” an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. “He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, “Take her words down” — the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled “You guys are pathetic!” from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, “Say Murtha’s name!” Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt’s comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party’s side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, “My words were not directed at any member of the House.” She asked that they “be withdrawn” from the record.

As the House temporarily moved to other matters, a calm Ford said in an interview that he confronted the Republicans because he was angry that they were using a ploy to avoid “a real debate” about the war. “I said, ‘If you believe it’s about Murtha, then talk about Murtha, don’t hide behind a resolution,’ ” Ford said.

A video Schmidt’s remarks is available online. Keep a bottle of Maalox handy if you choose to watch it.

Andrew Sullivan summarized yesterday’s activities quite nicely. “Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry’s service last year, they keep going,” Sullivan said. “They make me sick to my stomach.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

As for the atmosphere in Congress, we’re not quite at the point in which lawmakers are beating each other senseless with canes, but we’re getting there.

I’m wondering why the Dems didn’t refuse to vote on that spurious declaration? This morning’s AP headlines were: Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal as if it were some reasonable thing they had done. Wouldn’t the headline have been better if it said: Democrats Boycott House Vote or something ike that?

  • Rep. Murtha did not call for an “immediate withdrawal” of troops from Iraq and that is why the Republican backed resolution was a fraud and a stunt. Please read Murtha’s complete statement.

  • Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of scoundrels. The Dems should pick up and run with Murthra’s retort about leaders with five deferments and who never set foot in a war zone sending young men and women to war. When I was in Vietnam, such people were called Chickenhawks and were reviled.

  • I watched the spectacle on CSPAN, and it was amazing. We often cite the reality based communitry, and yesterday the repubs moved that snarkish bit of rhetoric thee steps closer to actual fact.

    Here’s the shorter version of yesterday’s surrealistic, republican flea circus:

    Repubs sought to alter a procedural rule to allow a vote on a resolution on the same day in which it was proposed (they succeeded). The resolution that needed this special fast track was Hunter’s(R-Ca) proposal for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. During the ‘debate’ and for reasons that defy comprehension, the repubs kept calling this a Democrat resolution, despite the fact that the resolution’s author and sponsor was unmistakably republican.

    Things were pretty fiesty, and then Jean Schmidt took to the floor. You knew from a glance that things were going to get worse. She was wearing a red white and blue sweater that looked like old Olympic mechandise, rejected by KMart. The look on her face suggested she had spent the better part of the ‘debate’ sucking on a fecal encrusted lemon. There is something very creepy about her. She’d hadn’t even spoken for a minute when all hell broke loose.

    The Dems looked reasonable, coherent and organized. The repubs appeared to have tumbled in from some strange alternate universe.

  • Bush is his war. And it is his war.

    What’s his domestic agenda?

    What’s his Great Society? His New Frontier? White punks on dope.

    If he doesn’t have his war, he’s nothin’.

    And he’s losing his war. Losing over there, losing at home, losing in Congress, losing in the world outside the ME.

    He’s melting like Margaret Hamilton at the end of the Wizard of Oz, he’s going down like Don Giovanni at the end of Mozart’s Opera.

  • As for the atmosphere in Congress, we’re not quite at the point in which lawmakers are beating each other senseless with canes, but we’re getting there.
    How then did the Republicans become senseless?

  • Maybe the Dems should throw a few crates of Lipton’s finest into Boston harbor. Since the legislative branch of the Bush Crime Syndicate has taken on the role of Mad King George, the symbolism would be scathingly appropriate.

  • I was on a plane out of DC last night, sitting near a congressional staffer who was quite gleeful about how they had “called Murtha’s bluff.” This comment is pretty indicative of the type of vile repugnant critters that the GOP attracts with its incessant flag waving. To think that a man who spent 30 years in the Marines and did 2 tours in Vietnam was playing a game is simply disgusting, but that’s what it is to the radical right. And as she thumbed through her society magazine with her candy-cane sunglasses perched on her head in the darkness, it was obvious that war to her is much like it was to Dick Cheney: something for other people to fight while she has other personal priorities.

  • Unforutnately, playing games with our soldiers is no laughing matter. Yes, these politicians can easily get away with this, but they shed no blood for our country. When will America have decent men and women in high office who know what duty, honor, and country really mean?

    -Tokyo

  • They crafted a one-sentence resolution that read, “[I]t is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”

    One bizarre and insidious footnote to this episdoe is that generally, resolutions of the form “the sense of the House/Senate” are resolutions w/r/t matters that aren’t really under their legislative control, like “it is the sense of the House that thing X is good and thing Y is bad.”

    A war in a foreign country, though, is not like that at all. Indeed, Congress is specifically entrusted with the war power by ye olde Constitution. So a resolution expressing the “sense” that we should immediately withdraw from a war zone is utter horseshit, even if it DID pass.

  • How then did the Republicans become senseless? – Rege

    Senselessness was always there. This is just the result of them finally having their time in the sun. A mummified carcass is the result. Grab a bone from that dead Iraqi over there and turn it over. Jean Schmidt’s horrified gaping maw and sunken eyes will greet you. It’s cursed. Acknowledge it. Work around it. Respect it like you would a smallpox laden sweater with a U.S. flag motif.

    But don’t touch it. The Tarbaby is this mummies first cousin.

  • The fact of the matter is that the neo-conservatives never wanted a quick victory and an exit from Iraq. That would have run counter to their grand vision. They want to keep the U.S. military presence in the Middle East permanently! And as long as the situation over there continues to appear unstable, the Bush administration and its neo-conservative core will continue to bait the American people with the “Americans don’t run and hide” propaganda. It’s a convenient – and generally quite effective – method of shaming us into supporting our military presence there>

  • This fiasco certainly makes the Republicans look despicable. But the Democrats didn’t walk away looking much better. On Thursday, Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel were falling over each other to distance themselves from Murtha’s resolution. Emanuel followed his disavowal by saying the caucus would be addressing the issue “at the right time.”

    How does having your leadership refuse to address the most pressing issue of the day make you look principled, responsible, reasonable and organized? Sure the Republicans went nuts yesterday defending a failed policy. But what’s the official Democratic position? “We’ll get back to you on that.”

    This Democratic fence sitting infuriates and disgusts me. And there is so much more at stake in terms of American and Iraqi lives and dollars than just a few seats up for grabs in the House. The American people are looking for a way out of this debacle. It’s time the Democrats tell us where they stand and how they’ll get us out of Iraq.

  • I agree in principle with “prm”, but by the same token, the Democrats sense a genuine opportunity to win back Congress next year. That – and ONLY that – will allow them to REALLY dig into this mess and get it sorted out. Until that happens, they’re at the mercy of the Republican majority, like it or not. Consequently, I think they’re playing their cards close to their proverbial vests. Do they appear too cautious at times? Absolutely. But I think they also realize that the numerous political maladies befalling a variety of Republicans on Capitol Hill and at the White House will do much of the job all by themselves. Meanwhile, we all watch…and wait.

  • There is a term in advertising called the “Heinz 57” ad. It’s an ad crammed with so many features and reasons to buy, that the confused prospect ignores the ad and the product. Bush has tossed out so many different rationales for the Iraq war that none of them ring true to Americans — particularly because they’re all vapors.

    It’s a slow process, but Bush is going down. He’s gone from feckless to heroic to popular to suspected to disliked. The next stage is “irrelevant,” then it’s downhill from there.

  • As Rodney King said, “why can’t we all just get along?” Fat chance for that. The Republicans have escaped the orbit of rationality and are drifting farther into deep space. BTW, we still going to Mars with that manned mission as GW envisioned?

  • Michael Wells is worth repeating: “Rep. Murtha did not call for an “immediate withdrawal” of troops from Iraq and that is why the Republican backed resolution was a fraud and a stunt. Please read Murtha’s complete statement.”

    Why repeat the Republicans’ “immediate withdrawal” spin?

  • Michael and Owen, I guess I didn’t express myself adequately. The “spurious resolution” I mentioned was the Republican one that just said “immediate withdrawal” which was a travesty of what Murtha proposed. No Republican spin intended.

  • Carboy Quirky: I was referring to Steve (Carpetbagger), among many many others, writing that Murtha called for “immediate withdrawal”.

    Murtha called for a phased, 6 month withdrawal. Whether anyone agrees with his position or not, it is not a proposal for immediate withdrawal. And the Republicans did not even vote on Murtha’s proposal. Instead, they voted on an immediate withdrawal and attributed it to him, while many spindoctors attributed it to all Democrats.

    No offense intended for you or Steve.

  • Drew,

    I see your point … but I’m not convinced Dems are going to be propelled to victory based solely on Republican scandals. At some point in time and certainly well before they are elected, they are going to have to tell voters where they stand on Iraq and other issues. Simply saying your opponent is a bad man and a screw-up isn’t going to sway many voters.

    Here’s an idea: Iraqi parlimentary elections are in December. As Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Repubs declare yet another “success,” the Dems should essentially agree and renew their calls for withdrawing U.S. troops. Bush has said we went to war to remove Saddam and build “democracy,” right? Great! Mission accomplished! Now let’s bring the troops home!

    It’ll never happen … but it does put the Republicans in the position of defending an unpopular war. And it puts Bush in the position of defining “victory” in Iraq.

  • Owen, I see what you and Michael were referring to. Thanks for the clarification.

    I just regret that the Republicans got the headline they were after and that Bush could say that the vote offered bi-partisan suport. That’s all most Americans will get out of the whole episode probably.

  • There is a lot more here than meets the eye. It’s politics all around. I think the Repugs are planning to “heroically” bring the troops home right before the 2006 elections, giving them a big tickertape parade thorugh DC, and sweep the midterm elections. That’s what I think their plan is.

    We’re doing this now because, first of all, we don’t want another 2000 soldiers dead between now and tickertape parade day. Also because we don’t want the Repugs to get away with claiming to have “ended” the war that they started, when in fact they will be doing the same thing we’re proposing: get out because it’s unwinnable.

    Finally, I *loved* Murtha’s speech. I watched to it twice. Murtha called for an IMMEDIATE, then he repeated it several more times, IMMEDIATE IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops. Granted, that wasn’t the text of his resoution, but it absolutely is what he said. Repugs ain’t making this up. Watch the video.

    The main difference between Murtha’s real resolution and the fake Hunter one were:
    1) Murtha’s was a binding joint house/senate resolution. The fake one was a non-binding “sense of the House”.
    2) Murtha’s resolution included a scathing indictment of the war and ran down a litany of the errors and sleazery the Repugs have committed– including misusing intelligence and misleading the American public. No wonder Hunter stripped all that out. All of it was true, indeed, but it was grandstanding. I’m sure that’s the main thing that gave them heartburn.

  • I agree with carboy. If a resolution is baited, don’t even dignify it with a vote.

    On withdrawal of troops, if we should do it anywhere, it should be in the Korean DMZ. North Korea is going to crumble from within soon, and the South Koreans are amply equipped to repel an invasion- unless nuclear weapons are used, and then neither our troops nor theirs will do any good on the border.

    We should have a timetable for withdrawal on Iraq. But our enemies should not be provided the tactical advantage of knowing when that will be.

    And lastly, things aren’t nearly so bad in Iraq as the press would have us believe. Less than one soldier per thousand becomes a casualty of war in Iraq thus far. In WWII, it was twelve per thousand, and we averaged 73,000 servicemen killed per year from 1941 to 1945, but Roosevelt did not execute a withdrawal from the war before anything but total victory. Our military leaders, dispite their various tactical mistakes and misjudgments, are more than capable of seeing this operation through. Have faith in them, folks. We can win this thing.

  • Since the “patriotic” Republican members of Congress are so hell-bent
    on keeping this war going then maybe it is time to separate the men from the boys.
    I suggest that a complete list of the Republican members of Congress be made showing their personal military service records. I wonder how
    many of these “warriors” were at home during Vietnam or other conflicts
    when our country needed them? This list should be then widely published
    across the country in newspapers and on various weblogs. The
    American people need to see for themselves who really sacrified
    themselves to preserve our freedoms and who is merely posturing.
    I think we will find that many of the Republicans who are shouting the
    loudest for war war war were nowhere to be found when it was their
    turn to serve in the military.
    A man like Congressman Murtha has total credibilty since he was
    personally involved in military life. Unlike Bush and Cheney he didn’t
    “cut and run” when he was needed. He stayed the course.
    The Republicans vilify a man like Murtha to their eternal shame.
    We need more honest and forthright men like him to tell us what we
    need to hear to make sound decisions about our nation’s future.
    Let’s find out who are the real heros and who are the fakes.

  • At the very least, Shrub will go through the motions of bringing a few troops home so he can mention it in the State of the Union Address in February. There is a lot of controversy about the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah resulting in civilian casualties. But is there a “residual” hazard from depleted uranium bullets and shells fired by US troops all over Iraq and how could you find out since the media is apparently still slanted towards Shrub and his unethical administration?

  • re: force majure’s comparison of WWII to Iraq.

    We can come up with almost any metric to compare one conflict to another but it might not be salient. WWII had the all or nothing goal of defeating the military forces of Japan and Germany; in Iraq we have to, um, continue the bug hunt to eradicate anyone who might shoot at a Shiite mosque. See the impossibility of this deployment? There is no terrorist commander with whom we can conduct negotiations. Even the plain old non-terrorist insurgents can only negotiate amnesty with the government; that doesn’t account for the seething internal tension between the Shia militias and the Sunnis. When compared to the national interest reasons when given to invade (ie WMDs, state-sponsored terrorism), we’ve gotten far afield from the normal use of our military.

  • I agree with Ed. There has never been a clear definition of a “win” or “total victory” in Iraq.

  • My problem with the term *victory* as applied to Iraq is how it is measured. The most specific definition I’ve heard is something close to *Vietnamization.” The Vietnam war was Vietnamized, and the South Vietnamese were promptly defeated. It should be remembered that S. Vietnam had a trained and veteran army.

    Such is not the case in Iraq, and likely won’t be for a long, long time. Worse, a new Iraqi army is likely to be riddled with undercover insurgents.

    In addition, the nature of the Iraqi insurgency is different than Vietnam’s. The insurgenty is more random than that of the Vietcong. It is predicated on general fear rather than the Vietcong’s strategy of winning over the populace and defeating the U.S. and ARVN.

    The U. S. military is now fighting a defensive war. The troops are simply trying to stay alive in a shooting gallery. To me, the most telling aspect of all is that, after three years of fighting, we still have not identified the enemy. The enemy has been variously described as foreign fighters, ex-Baathists, dead-enders, al queda, feyadeen, former Saddam troops, etc. In all our wars we have at least known who we were fighting.

    Iraq is in the midst of a civil war sparked by our invasion. It will continue to be a civil war — no matter how long we stay, and to a degree, our presence is unimportant to the insurgents except as a rationale for continued terror.

    I agree with ‘force’s’ observation on U. S. military presence in S. Korea. But I don’t agree that things aren’t so bad in Iraq — in regard to the Iraqis. Other accounts of the situation (Juan Cole.com for example) are frightening. I still maintain that toppling Saddam was both the best and the worst thing we did.

  • Murtha gracefully ignored that Schmidt was calling him names (a coward), and reasoned that she had been put up to it by others so that she could make her reputation. Well, she has. She’s an insane witch bitch.

  • Whatever the merits of Murtha’s specific position, he has certainly brought the debate to the nation and Congress.

    Withdrawal will no longer be viewed as a “fringe” position at family get-togethers during the holidays. Nor at the congressional level, where he seems to have broken the ice on alternatives to staying the course.

  • Alibubba- Your observations on vietnam are factually true, but incomplete. The North Vietnamise were backed by the second and third most powerful military forces in the world- USSR and China. And the USSR during 1960-70 was a very, very close number two. When we pulled out, the South Vietnamese didn’t stand a chance. Now I could be wrong, but I think Iraq as she stands (and thats not very well) on her own would fair much better than South Vietnam ever could.

    Ed- Defining the war objectives and what constitutes victory is concededly not a simple matter. I also recognize that the Bush administration hasn’t done this adequately. But as I see it, from a pragmatic point of view, winning would be;
    1. Establishing an Iraqi government that can defend itself from outside invading countries and deal with the terrorists, and not go back to being a threat to its neighbors and the world community. This doesn’t mean that they wil be totally free of terror attacks-we don’t even have that status.
    2. Reducing our troop levels to the point where we only keep maybe a couple of bases in Iraq for the purposes of maintaining a presence in the region that can have a deterrant effect on future conflicts. We have done this in both Germany and Japan for over fifty years, so its not like that is an unheard of proposition.

  • WAKE UP AMERICA!

    We were attacked on 9/11 by Bin Laden because we have American troops in Saudi Arabia protecting the unpopular Saudi family that is in control over there. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but the Saudi royal family wanted the US and it’s coalition to do it. After the Gulf War in ’91, we left even more US troops in Saudi Arabia. We all
    know the terrrible events that followed on 9/11. We did not “take Baghdad” in the Gulf War because the pictures of the “Highway of Death” were making it to the TV
    screens and Bush, Sr. didn’t want the bad “press” of more pictures of dead, burned Iraqis trying to get away, still seated in their trucks lowering his poll numbers before an election. Co-cabalists Cheney and Rumsfeld having been through the Vietnam and Gulf War (not actually participating), felt that the Vietnam War was lost because the media turned against the war. This is why the media has not given adequate or accurate coverage of the Iraq war. Making deals with the administration in order to get “embedded reporters” has cost the US media
    organizations their credibility since they would only air items approved by the White House for a substantial part of the war.
    Bush, Sr., did encourage the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam Hussein immediately after the Gulf War but didn’t offer any support to them. General Schwartzkopf when asked by the Iraqi generals, allowed the Iraqi military to fly armed helicopters in areas not designated as No-Fly Zones. These helicopters were
    then used to kill up to 200,000 civilians. The ones that did revolt when Bush, Sr., urged them to. They were expecting some type of support from Bush, Sr. Why
    should the Iraqis trust us now? They have already tasted more American style democracy. Halliburton overcharged them by 200 million dollars for repairs to the pipelines.
    Skip ahead, skip ahead, skip ahead. Bush, Jr., and his cronies invaded Iraq under false pretenses and exaggerations before the UN weapons inspectors can
    even finish their inspections. Undoubtedly, Chalabi will wind up in power since that was his intention from the very beginning and this administration would make a deal with the devil himself to gain points in the polls and appear to make progress in the war. Chalabi will probably be the only candidate flown around campaigning in a US helicopter like Karzai in Afghanistan. The Iraqi people will
    Dieboldt Chalabi into power and then we can cut US forces down to just a few “enduring” (you might as well say permanent) bases so we can protect the unpopular
    government there and be perpetual targets for snipers and roadside bombs for years to come.
    We do have a history of dealing with people that are willing to die to kill us. August 6th and 9th aren’t exactly celebrated in Japan. It was estimated that we would have suffered up to 200,000 casualties with a full scale invasion of Japan. When I was stationed in Iwakuni, Japan, we were shown a memo encouraging us to not leave the base on those 2 days.
    In Iraq, we have created countless future Bin Ladens. Soviet fighter pilots fighting the Moslems scraped the numbers off their planes for fear that if the plane went down, the plane number would one day be linked to their families and children of people they had bombed would come after their own families. The Moslem faith has based many of their laws upon “an eye for an eye” and we have put out a lot eyes in Iraq. They have children our children will one day have to worry about. I hate to agree with a Republican in any way, shape or form but John
    McCain was right. “When we lost the war in Vietnam, we didn’t have to worry about them coming after us. If we lose in Iraq, they will come after us.” As I see it, there are two alternatives:
    1. Send in enough troops to disarm the whole goddamn country, close the borders and start from scratch. Not likely, thank goodness.
    2. Face the facts and get the hell out of Iraq. We’ve “broken” it thoroughly and we can’t fix it. Bush and his administration or any other administration can’t fix it. They are fighting us because we are there. Same as Bin Laden attacking us because our troops are in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is already in a civil war and we have no control over the outcome.

    We definitely need to think of our own future. Thanks to Bush, our children will have many more things to worry about. I say regime change begins at home. I feel there needs to be a reckoning for the deeds of this administration. Hey Congress, listen up. In the meantime, we need some things:
    1. All of the oil for food investigations have backed the UN down from investigating the actions of this administration in carrying out this war. If Annan won’t look into the actions of this administration or has been made
    ineffectual, get rid of him.
    2. Voting machines that can be relied on to actually make your vote count. There must be a recountable paper receipt for each vote cast. NO EXCEPTIONS!

    My own experience with touch screen paperless voting machines in the 2004 election-I made my choices (Kerry among others) as I “stepped” through the individual races. When I got to the final summary screen, my Kerry vote had been changed to Bush. I was a red button push away from voting for a man with an IQ of 81 to run the country (into the ground) for 4 more years. I had to step through all of the screens again to make the same choices again. This time the summary screen was accurate and I pushed the red button. I heard many stories after the
    election that this happened to others. How many people just hit the red button and didn’t even look closely at their choices on the summary screen? I did not hear one mention or story of a Bush vote being “converted” to a Kerry vote. If we would believe that this was actually just a “random computer error” shouldn’t the split have been half and half, not all Kerry votes being changed to Bush.

    3. Conduct of Congress must change. You people were elected to represent us, the people, remember “For the People”, not “for your party” and not “for yourself and
    friends and relatives”. I believe the actual phrase needed here is that there will not be any improprieties or the appearance of improprieties. What I would suggest is mandatory minimum jail terms for crooked politicians that that are convicted that would not allow for even presidential pardons. Maybe future Delays and Frists will think twice about deals, coincidental stock sales and near sighted trusts. That will go a long way to eliminate cronyism. If we don’t have room for all the politicians
    we catch, we can house them in Guantanamo since they are such comfortable quarters according to Rumsfeld. All contracts will be properly bid upon except in extreme
    emergencies after which the contract is subject to review.
    Controls on lobbyists maybe to include multimillion dollar bonds. You will have to pay to play in the future. No selling off or leasing of parks, period. A good
    explanation of why countries in Europe require roads to last 7 years before repaving while we pay extraordinary amounts on transportation bills to repave roads every 2 years here. We’ve budgeted over a 100 billion dollars for a missile defense system that can’t differentiate between the inevitable decoys from a real attack and the actual warhead. Coincidentally, this thing has been built in
    Alaska where congressman porkbarrel, I mean Stevens resides. I say make it work and then sell it to us. Seniors, you’ll appreciate this. The new medicare plans
    with all the confusing choices was brought to you by the pharmaceutical companies because Congress pandered to them. The pharmaceutical companies don’t want just a
    few plans that could collectively bargain for cheaper drug prices.

    Years ago, I heard that the right to bear arms was put in place so that the citizens could take their government back if it got out of control. I would never advocate such a thing, but, I DEMAND THAT MY VOTE ACTUALLY BE COUNTED IN THE FUTURE, not be electronically “converted” or spirited away. It is also time to examine our future conduct as a country in the world. Will we continue to support governments that are unpopular with their citizens. Hey Shrub, if you are intent
    on spreading democracy, start with Saudi Arabia. Here’s a suggestion for a future law. If a former president or
    vice-president has assets worth more than, say, $10 million, require them to pay for their own secret service protection after they leave the office.
    By the way, has anyone seen Bin Laden lately? We’ve been so distracted by watching the Bush administration self destruct, take away our rights under the Constitution and mismanage a war that we are open to attack from Bin Laden again. We need to speed Bin Laden on his way to allah so we can get busy training our
    kids to get ready for attacks from the future Bin Ladens Bush created in Iraq. Call it “part of an eye for an eye” for 9/11.
    Bush, get somebody to explain this to you. In Admiral Yamamoto’s terms “the sleeping giant has awoken” and he is mighty unhappy with you. Finally, I want to thank Dick Cheney because now when I think of the concept of evil, I have a face I can put with it.
    If somebody actually reads my tirade to this point, thankyou. Let’s remind this congress that we will be closely watching their actions before the 2006 and 2008 elections.

  • Jean Schmidt is a pile of putrefacted, slimy, maggot ridden dogshit without a heart and surely without any common sense….but then again, she’s a REPUBELICKAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    too bad these morons bash real patriots and every single one of them NEVER WORE A FUCKING UNIFORM IN THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!! (least not a military one)

  • force–

    You’re right about North Vietnam’s backing by the Soviet Union, although I don’t think NV and the Chinese were too close. So you’re also right about the inevitablity of S. Vietnam’s fall. Bear in mind, though, that the USSR provided a lot of material, but virtually no personnel below the DMZ. The U.S. did likewise following our pullout. At any rate, I think the final result was based on one faction simply being far more committed to victory than the other.

    Nevertheless, I’m not sure Iraq is in any better position than S. Vietnam in regard to a U.S. pullout, maybe worse. I say that because in Vietnam one semi-oraganized government (S. Vietnam’s) was supplanted by another government. At least the war ended. Iraq, I think, is faced with chaos and violence exceeding that it’s now experiencing once we’re gone.

    The basic question is whether or not Iraq can build a genuinely effective security force, and fairly quickly. I just don’t think it can. My main reason for thinking that is my perception that Iraq is in a civil war between multiple factions. I don’t see any unifying force other than a triumphant faction that rules by repression — which would be a reprise of Saddam.

    • Comments are closed.