I thank you for taking the time to try to explain
Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-12-05
In Reply to: Well, to tell the truth - gourdpainter
Difference in opinion is what makes horse races. I respect your opinion that the b/c is not authentic, I ask that you respect my opinion that it is.
Irregardless, I think the mayhem that would result in Obama not being inaugurated far outweighs his becoming president even IF his b/c should prove to be inaccurate. After all, we have the Congress to keep things in check although there is little comfort for me in THAT. I doubt the electoral college would dare defy the will of the people either and I would imagine all of them are a bucket full of crooks the same as all congress and other politicians.
I fear that Bush will find a reason to declare martial law and I will continue to fear that until he is OUT OF THERE. Would we really want to see that happen? Can you possibly imagine the bedlam at this 11th hour if we woke up and had no president elect? Please, I ask all of you who are trying to make this happen to stop and think what would be the result if you "win."
I did not want to see either Obama or McCain elected nor did I want to see Hillary elected or any of the other candidates. It's a fine kettle of fish we find ourselves in in any event.
And as a final note, I have no confidence in our crooky Supreme Court either. Look how THEY got in their positions.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thank you for taking the time to lay it all out
They will immediately go to Palin flaming because that's all they have. They can never refute any proof made on this board because they can't find any to refute with. Instead, they keep going round and round with the only thing they can remember from TV, Palin this, Palin that.
You don't see the republicans putting down Biden because they are decent people, unlike the dems on this board who refuse to see. AND, the dems on this board know that Biden LOVES McCain and they know in their hearts Biden can't stand Obama; he already said so.
For me, taking time every now and then
to look back and reflect on what we come from, where we're at, how far we've come and how far we have yet to go is a good thing. An Abe-Lincoln themed inauguration seems to be as appropriate of an occasion as any. I cannot pretend to understand how it feels to have the pain of slave ancestors' stories dragged up and thrust in my face, but I can speak to pain of a different sort.
The sight of hordes of GWTW southern belles all bedecked en masse in pools of pastel puke conjures up the shame I inherited from my own white ancestors. As a child, I felt plenty of it growing up in a southern metropolis in the 50s where cotton was still king and the vestiges of plantation life were still palpable and, at times, visceral. As a child, I lived in a wealthy community where some household "help" still stayed in "servants' quarters" behind the main residence (gag me). These were the days of segregation and separate but unequal when and the "N" word was still socially acceptable.
Enter MLK and the revolution of the 60s and 70s that turned our country up-side-down, thank you Jesus. The progress has been slow but steady since then, but the fact that I can still feel the stinging shame of where I came from and that you can still feel such outrage over a historical parade lets us both know that we have not yet reached the Promised Land.
When I watch the Azalea Trail Maids next Tuesday, they will not be marching toward me. They do not have the power to bring back the past and slap me in the face with it. Every step they take will be one step further away, back into a time we best not forget anytime soon, and I will be reminding myself that they are indeed GONE WITH THE WIND.
PS. I too am hoping for brisk winds that whip right past those pretty pastel pantaloons and chill them straight to the bone.
I appreciate you taking time out....(sm)
to respond to my post in such a reasonable and adult manner. Keep up the good work! You must be so proud.
Thank you for taking the time
I appreciate your reasonable and well-composed argument. I do see how recent actions by this administration could be construed as a power grab, but what actions do think they should have taken instead?
Regarding the private sector argument, if a company accepts federal funding to bail them out of a financial crisis, are they still truly a private company, at least until the money is paid back? I do not agree with all the actions of this administration with respect to the financial crisis, but I do think they had to demonstrate that there are strings attached to receiving taxpayer money. (I may not agree with how they choose to about demonstrating that, however.)
Thank you for taking the time to post this!! :-)
awesome post
Thanks for taking the time to post
Sorry, forgot to add that. Have a good afternoon.
When you find the time, please explain it. (nm)
:)
Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
I'm taking this to the top.
x
So you are taking up for the thugs
who are keeping the rescuers from help. You are mentally deranged....very mentally deranged.
doing taking tempature???
I get it now. You figure if you spout enough of your illiteracy on the Liberal board, you will dumb us down to your level.
Taking a survey...
Anyone have any thoughts on Romney being Mormon, will it hurt, help, doesn't matter....Did he convert to Mormonism; I don't remember his father being a Mormon.
Taking this response
x
I'm taking this to the top to enlist
nm
THis is not about taking anything away from kids...they
still have access to birth control...health departments, planned parenthood, clinics, any number of places. It is common knowledge. You hear about it on television on a daily basis, and television, movies, and the internet are where most kids get their information. And frankly, listen to it much more closely than to their parents. Throwing more federal money into any kind of sex ed and/or abstinence programs to me is a waste of money. That was the original question, did I think federal funds should be used for sex ed and abstinence programs.
No, in this culture we live in today, to remove contraception would be idiotic. Sex has been reduced to "expression," having one partner for life has disappeared, multiple partners are fine, yada yada...in that kind of culture to remove birth control would be nuts. Think what the abortion rate would be if that was done...good grief.
By education and programs that doesn't mean dispensing actual birth control. At many schools kids can get condoms. Nearly every health department in the country will dispense birth control and any planned parenthood place will, and that is not going to change.
If you want to reach kids, put those programs on the internet or introduce that kind of information to the shows the kids watch all the time. If you want the information to get to them, that is where it should be covered.
God isn't the problem....taking God out of our
=
fabulous? When he is taking away a better one?
Letting Bush's tax cuts expire? Have you done the math?
profit taking
The rules have not changed yet and the hedge funds are still running loose, betting ups, betting downs. Everything they were doing to get us into this mess is still going on and still legal. Leverage is still high.
Taking money out
is actually a good idea, since there has been talk of bank runs under the current situation THAT IS NOW HAPPENING UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH.
Government is taking over
everything and they aren't even smart enough to run the government let alone every business in the US. I just cannot believe you Obamabotics find this okay. This is total government control going on here!!!! This is scary crap!
So you are taking the word of
a guy who others consider a little off, Jolie's father? Not a good selection. Can you do better?
You said you had no problem taking on the Taliban...
there is no evidence THEY had anything to do with 9-11 either. Iraq had as much to do with 9-11 as the Taliban did. Both countries had Al Qaeda training camps. Both harbored Al Qaeda operatives. Saddam Hussein funded all kinds of terror operations, including bounties to families of suicide bombers. It was proven that a member of the Sadam Feyadeen met with Mohammed Atta prior to 9-11. Of course, they could have been discussing the weather. Saddam harbored the man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair off the Achille Lauro...he harbored Al Zarqawi. What more do you need? Him on one of the planes? Your arguments make no sense. Basically, bottom line...you do not care if your protests hurt the effort in Iraq and thereby the soldiers fighting there..and as to soldiers dying for something they did not believe in...the vast majority are not of that mind. If you watched anything but CNN and listened to anything but liberal spin you would see the interview after interview after interview where soldiers do affirm their mission and affirm their disappointment in lack of support of some Americans.
As to Cindy Sheehan's son...other members of her family, her husband included...have said numerous times on the record that Casey Sheehan believed in the effort, and would be appalled at what his mother was doing. We do not make those things up...just because the liberal press does not report it does not mean it does not happen...oh...but I guess in YOUR world, that is true. Because you just pooh-pooh it and say that means nothing to me. Why is it that liberals are so arrogant? Why is it ALL about you? I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around that and just can't. I cannot understand what it is that makes someone disregard the lives and the mission of our military in harm's way just so they can hold a sign and call attention to THEMselves. There is nothing noble about that. The noble ones are the ones in Iraq. How profoundly sad that you cannot see that...in one breath okay to fight the Taliban, in the other just throw Iraq and our boys and girls there to the dogs. How twisted is that...sigh. So...go on about your protesting. Only call a spade a spade. It is about YOU...and making yourself feel good. It is not, nor has it ever been, for anyone else.
Thanks for taking up for me Brunson, the problem is SM
I didn't post any of these posts. Someone is playing a stupid joke and not a very funny one. However, since Lurker seems content to know me so well, I am not sure who got the real butt of the joke ;)
taking things out of context
I agree that it's not fair to take Michelle Obama's statements out of context, but then you turn around and take Cindy McCain's problem out of context. I say leave both wives alone. I know what Cindy did was illegal, so it's kind of apples and oranges, but she's worked through her recovery and worked it out with the law, so I don't think she needs to be beat over the head with it the rest of her life.
I'm taking my response to a new thread
nm
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
He wan't taking care of a 4-mo old Down infant
nm
All the while, his supporters taking notes
X
Why do you "whiners" think that taking money from
nm
oh, REALLY? So snipers or bombs taking out
In many ways, Christianity is even worse than Islam. And it's disgusting to see the US has been so thoroughly infested with it.
Taking a rest today.
Yes, you go ahead. Take a rest. Freedom of speech.
Taking from Peter to pay Paul.....
Well, h@ll........I suppose with this glorious reform package of Obama's, I should just go sit under a bridge, kiss my hard working years goodbye. Obama will kill this society. My husband has also worked his butt off since he was 12 years old and he definitely does not owe anyone his money. They can get off their butts and shovel dirt, dig ditches, work in a powder factory, haul hay, move furniture, dig sewages, whatever. WORK FOR A CHANGE! Live within their means. My husband did it. They wanna go to college, do like us, work your butt off and pay for your college education. Quit whining!!!
Even those families at the low end of the income bracket will be paying dearly in taxes, more than now, and they actually think they will be getting a break. Tax credits are NOT tax cuts.
Socialists are whining, sniveling, moaning, groaning....
You wanna see free money given to people who DO NOT pay taxes? If you don't contribute, don't expect anything else.
GP was taking issue with the stereotype
characterize all poor people as freeloaders in the linked post. In the current post, she is addressing an entirely different subject...corporate welfare.
Are you taking about Stevens in Alaska?
Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.
I thought it was ridiculous.
I've been taking the package apart.
I see no jobs for this area.
In fact, 2 years ago, they turned a whole mountain into windmills. Who has those jobs? The company that put them there. Their guys come from another state to maintain and repair them. No locals are employed by that company. Doesn't make sense but that's the way they do it.
So you think government officials taking a pay
solve the issue of $2 trillion dollars worth of toxic paper held by the our financial institutions and stop the hemorrhaging of 650,000 job losses per month? Will that really restart the flow of credit to businesses and put people back to work? Will government officials taking a pay cut restore the million and billion dollar budget deficits faced by the states?
I just finished taking a tax class --
The instructor never lets anything be an open book test in our other classes, but the tax class is because it is some complex and confusing that even doing just the basics you cannot get it all in your head.
It is CRAZY!!!
Obama is taking our money... you would be
nm
taking back our country
So, most of us agree that Obama should not be in office for another term. As well, most of want our country back. How do we, as Americans, do this? Contacting our representatives or senators is not the answer, since they are "in bed" with each other. There must be a way.
right on, it is about justice, not about taking sides!...nm
nm
Taking a course on common sense
nm
Well, of course you have no problem taking welfare from a communist. sm
That's your problem. You believe people should get something for nothing. You believe in support of the masses equally, i.e., socialism where everyone is equally poor but that's okay. I have no problem believing you would think that was okay. He is also virulently anti-American, but then so is the left. Perfect match!
I don't have a problem with taking the "under God" part out...sm
However, it should not be banned all together. The students who wish to say under God should be given the choice to say it though while the others are silent. Maybe hand out two different versions.
Why are you taking drugs and then posting on this board?
Your mind seems jumbled and confused. Remember this one?
Antiwar Protestors Feed Muslim Murderers.
There are too many others to cut and paste. They are slanderous and at times shocking. They fuel intolerance and negative stereotypes. We have some of the same on this board, but cannot even begin to approach what is posted on the CON board. Not all of this scum journalism passing for the truth that is posted on the CON board is even commented on by the libs.
You don't play fair, you don't tell the truth. You are only making these ridiculous and moronic claims in order to get a flame going. I am going to ignore you and hope others will, too. (It's a hard thing to do when someone is posting such nonsense).
Taking a look at the data proves your points...sm
From 2000 - 2004, America has seen a significant increase in poverty each year.
I agree with sm that people must have personal responsibility and not sit around waiting on a check when they are able bodied and can work. These are not the poor that I'm concerned with. I speak of the poor single mother or father who works 2 jobs, the poor mother and father who both work and still can't make ends meet. Heck, you can still just be getting by with a college education in today's economy. Look at inflation. In just ONE year gas prices have doubled. And look at the housing market. Prices of other necesities are also rising and the mean income is still 40,000.
I agree with Zauber, everyone can't be on the top, some people have to settle for lower paying jobs due to life circumstances. But if the big business had it their way, they would still be paying 4.25 an hour. They griped about going to 5.15 an hour.
Do you think this administration will even attempt to increase min. wage? They think and obviously believe Rush Limmy when he says, only teenagers who are working for extra money to buy Ipods are working min. wage jobs. They are out of touch.
Not having a good father in the household is one of the root cause issues that needs to be addressed, but I wouldn't be so quick to put this as the main or only cause of poverty. There's no one answer to the problem, but I do hold our local, state, and federal government responsible to do their part - make sure employers pay a fair wage and have fair labor practices, control inflation, and education.
Taking from the poor, giving to the rich
US House of Representatives approves $50 billion in social cuts
By Joseph Kay
19 November 2005
In the early hours of Friday morning, the House of Representatives
passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes cuts of nearly $50
billion over five years, primarily in social programs for the poor.
At the same time, Congress is considering extending tax cuts that
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy in the amount of $60 billion-$70
billion over the same period.
The budget reconciliation bill modifies requirements for mandatory
spending programs, in particular, entitlement programs such as
Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare. Unlike the rest
of government outlays, known as discretionary spending, which are
allocated each year in appropriation bills, spending for these
mandatory programs is determined by legal requirements. If the
reconciliation bill is signed into law, it will mark the first time
since 1997 that entitlement programs have been slashed.
The House passed the bill 217-215 after Republican leaders kept the
vote open 25 minutes to drum up sufficient support. It will now go
to a House-Senate conference committee, where negotiators from the
two chambers will work out a compromise between the House bill and a
Senate bill passed earlier this month.
The Senate version includes cuts amounting to $35 billion over five
years. While leaving out some of the most egregious cuts in the
House version, the Senate bill includes one major provision left out
by the House: the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration.
The compromise will then be subject to a final vote in both chambers
before going to President Bush to be signed into law.
Major cuts in the House bill include:
* Cutting Medicaid spending by $11.8 billion. The bill would place
new restrictions on the ability of elderly people to transfer assets
to relatives so as to become eligible for Medicaid, and would allow
states to charge higher premiums and co-payments for emergency room
visits and some drugs. It would give states greater discretion to
cut services for low-income recipients who earn more than the
poverty level, including such services as eye and ear care.
* A $14.3 billion reduction in spending on financial assistance for
college students. The bill repeals a previous 6.8 percent cap on
interest rates for federal student loans, increasing it to 8.25
percent. One estimate calculates that this would lead to an increase
of $5,800 in payments for a college student graduating with a debt
load of $17,500. The bill includes other increases in taxes and
interest on a variety of loans, as well as a provision to reduce
subsidies to lenders.
* Cuts in the Food Stamp program totaling $700 million. The bill
would end a provision that automatically enrolls welfare recipients
in Food Stamps, denying eligibility to approximately 165,000 people,
mainly among the working poor. It would deny Food Stamps to
approximately 70,000 legal immigrants by extending the waiting
period for eligibility from five to seven years. Since eligibility
for Food Stamps automatically gives children access to free school
lunches, thousands of students may be stripped of this benefit. This
cut will worsen an already growing problem of hunger in the US. An
article in the Boston Globe of October 29 noted, The number of
people who are hungry because they cannot afford to buy enough food
rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five
years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of US households.
* Other measures include nearly $5 billion in cuts associated with
child support enforcement; $577 million in cuts for child welfare
programs; a reduction of $732 million in social security income
payments, including payments to some disabled people; and more
stringent work requirements for welfare eligibility.
House passage of these draconian measures demonstrates the
determination of the ruling elite to continue its assault on social
programs. Hurricane Katrina, which laid bare the persistence of
poverty and the growth of social inequality, as well as the
devastating consequences of decades of neglect of the social
infrastructure, is being used as an excuse to accelerate the very
policies that compounded the disaster.
The position of the Bush administration and the Republican-
controlled Congress is that the tens of billions appropriated for
immediate hurricane relief and reconstruction in New Orleans and
other Gulf Coast areas must be offset by a more determined assault
on entitlement programs for working people and the poor. At the same
time, there is to be no retreat in providing tax windfalls for big
business and the rich.
This was spelled out in a summary of an earlier version of the bill
published by the House Budget Committee, which stated that the bill
was intended to provide a down-payment toward hurricane recovery
and reconstruction costs and begin a longer-term effort at slowing
the growth of entitlement spending and stimulate reform of
entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and
excessively costly.
Speaking before the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation,
Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who was forced to step
down after being indicted on corruption charges, made clear that the
budget was intended to spearhead a permanent rollback of social
programs. He said the budget would not only provide the nation
immediate fiscal relief, but also institute permanent reforms of the
way our government spends money and solves problems.
Last month, Bush urged Republican congressmen to push the envelope
when it comes to cutting spending. On Friday, he welcomed the House
bill and called for Congress to quickly pass a final version for him
to sign into law.
The ultimate bill as agreed by the conference committee will likely
include many of the cuts in the House bill. Senate leaders,
moreover, have vowed to reject any bill that does not include the
opening up of the ANWR, which has been a major goal of the energy
industry and the Bush administration.
At the same time that Congress is negotiating these cuts in social
spending, it is preparing the passage of a separate tax cut
reconciliation bill. The two bills were deliberately separated in an
effort to obscure the connection between tax cuts for the wealthy
and cuts in social programs.
Early on Friday, the Senate passed a bill that would cut taxes by
$60 billion over five years. This includes $30 billion in cuts
resulting from an extension in exemptions to the alternative minimum
tax. It also includes $7 billion in tax cuts for corporations as
part of Bush's so-called Gulf Opportunity Zone—a scheme to use the
hurricane as an opportunity to give handouts to businesses. The
Senate rejected any windfall tax on record oil company profits;
however, it did include an accounting rule change that is expected
to increase taxes for oil companies by about $4.3 billion over five
years.
The House is considering a companion bill. However, its version
would focus on extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
that are not due to expire until 2008. These taxes are paid
overwhelmingly by the wealthy. Once the House version is passed, the
two bills will go to a conference committee. Bush has vowed to veto
any bill that includes the accounting change for oil companies.
There is some nervousness within the political establishment over
the budget process. House Republican leaders were forced to delay
their budget bill for a week as they sought to win enough support
within their own party to push the bill through, and the final
version slightly pared down some of the cuts in Food Stamps and
other programs.
The two measures—the one cutting social programs for the poor, and
the other providing tax cuts for the rich—constitute such a blatant
redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that several
Republicans have opposed the measures. Congressional elections are
only a year away, and the mounting popular opposition to the Bush
administration has caused Republican representatives to fear losing
their seats.
On Thursday, the House voted down the appropriations bill for the
departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, after
the defection of a number of Republicans. The bill, which includes
cuts in various pet projects for representatives as well as in
social programs such as rural health care, may have to be modified
or attached to the defense appropriations bill in order to push it
through.
In spite of this nervousness, the consensus within the ruling elite
is that social programs must be cut one way or another. Democratic
opposition to the size of the current cuts notwithstanding, both
parties agree on this basic policy, which has been ongoing for more
than a quarter century.
The Democrats are themselves proposing no significant measures—
whether for jobs, housing, health care or education—to deal with the
acute social crisis exposed by the Hurricane Katrina disaster,
underscoring their abandonment of any policy of social reform.
The current budget reconciliation process is in many ways a
continuation and deepening of cuts initiated by the Clinton
administration, which ended welfare as a federal entitlement. The
1996 budget act, moreover, permanently barred legal immigrants from
receiving Food Stamps. In 2001, the Bush administration modified
this provision to allow legal immigrants to receive Food Stamps
after a five-year waiting period. The House is now proposing to
extend the waiting period to seven years.
The bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under Bush were
voted in with the support of the Democratic Party leadership, while
at the state level Democratic governors are overseeing massive cuts
in Medicaid and education programs.
The new budget bill places in sharp relief the fact that the entire
political system is an instrument of big business, dedicated to
increasing the wealth of a financial aristocracy at the expense of
the working class. It is one more _expression of the crisis and rot
of the profit system.
Obama Has Democrats Taking Notice...sm
My personal pick for 08.
Obama's Profile Has Democrats Taking Notice
Popular Senator Is Mentioned as 2008 Contender
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page A01
EAST ORANGE, N.J. -- Barack Obama was standing before a packed high school auditorium when he noticed a familiar face in the crowd -- none other than singer Dionne Warwick. He paused, flashed a mischievous smile, then let loose with a perfectly on-key performance of the opening line of her hit song Walk On By.
The audience of 300 students and adults roared with approval.
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was sworn into office as a U.S. Senator on January 4, 2005. There is speculation that the popular former Illinois state senator will run for president in 2008.
Photos
Sen. Barack Obama
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was sworn into office as a U.S. Senator on January 4, 2005. There is speculation that the popular former Illinois state senator will run for president in 2008.
U.S. Congress
Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear.
His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.
The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer -- less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature -- is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.
I think he is unique, said Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). I don't believe there is another candidate I've seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does. As for the 2008 presidential race, I said to him, 'Why don't you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?' I know what's going to happen. And I think it's going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision.
Republicans taking a different tone on Iraq...sm
Republican lawmakers losing positive tone on course of war
Jonathan Weisman, Anushka Asthana, Washington Post
(07-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage, Republicans are shifting their message on the war in Iraq from optimistic talk of progress to acknowledging serious problems and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse than we'd been led to believe, and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.
Other Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media is ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war. About 4,338 Iraqi civilians died violent deaths during the first six months of 2006, according to a new report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. Last month alone, 3,149 civilians were killed -- an average of more than 100 a day.
It's like after (Hurricane) Katrina, when the secretary of Homeland Security was saying all those people weren't really stranded (at the New Orleans civic center) when we were all watching it on TV, said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. I still hear about that. We can't look like we won't face reality.
Essentially, what the White House is saying is, 'Stay the course, stay the course,' Gutknecht said. I don't think that course is politically sustainable.
Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, a swing-district Republican facing a tough re-election race, has introduced legislation to create clear measurements of progress in Iraq, from territory under the control of Iraqi forces to government stability.
Congress needs to be more proactive and aggressive in evaluating what is the progress in Iraq, he said. The Iraqi government shouldn't feel like it's got a blank check on American lives and American dollars.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., meanwhile, is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of war.
On Tuesday, Shays joined U.S. Comptroller General David Walker in criticizing unreliable cost estimates of a war that is nearly 3 1/2 years old.
Even Democrats say they see a change in tone on the other side of the aisle.
I think there is a lot less arrogance about the war in Iraq than there once was -- and people are much more sober in their assessment, said Rep. Chris VanHollen, D-Md.
The evolving Republican message on the war contrasts with the strong rhetoric used by House and Senate Republicans recently in opposing a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement hailing the turnover of Iraq's Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces under the headline, Progress in Iraq ... Despite Doomsday Democrats.
During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, Members, now is not the time to go wobbly. This week, he conceded I guess I didn't understand the situation, saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you.
Republicans, especially those in swing districts, had no choice but to shift the emphasis of their war talk, lawmakers said.
The Iraq issue is the lens through which people are looking at the federal government, said Rep. Charles Dent of Pennsylvania, another swing-district Republican. That is the issue to most people. There's no question about that.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
This is what a republican taking personal responsibility
su
Taking care of things that actually MATTER
nm
|
