Connecticut Republican = Anti-American.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/25/ira...s.ap/index.html

 

Republican lawmaker to offer timetable for Iraq withdrawal

'Out troops cannot be there indefinitely,' Rep. Shays says

 

Friday, August 25, 2006; Posted: 9:28 a.m. EDT (13:28 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican defending his seat from an anti-war challenger, says the U.S. should consider setting a timeline for troop withdrawals from Iraq.

 

Shays, long a supporter of the war and previously an opponent of withdrawal timetables, said he hopes to offer a specific time frame after he holds congressional hearings on Iraq next month. Few other congressional Republicans have supported setting a timeline.

 

"Our troops cannot be there indefinitely," Shays said Thursday from London during a telephone conference call with reporters after his 14th visit to Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

 

"We should be able to tell the American people what kind of timeline we can have to begin to draw down our troops," he said. "It may be a timeline the American people don't want to hear. It may not be something that brings them out quickly."

 

Shays has come under fire for his support of the Iraq war from Democratic challenger Diane Farrell in a race widely seen as a showdown on the war.

 

"I don't think Chris needed to go to Iraq 14 times to know it's a mess," she said. "To have a time line, there needs to be an exit plan. There's no exit strategy."

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Chuck Hagel says "hello."

[2GOLD 0]

I still say it's stupid to set a date for the pull out. That's like setting an exact date for the break-up. Just do it slowly, if the news wants to report it fine but don't announce it to the damn country and world yourselves.

[snuffbox 0]

It's not so much about a 'set date' as it is that this Administration refuses to even consider the notion of the troops coming home ever...along with the atrocious 'planning' for this war at large, the blatant lack of any exit strategy is only compounding the problems. And, with there being no logical reason for this kind of stance (and, no, the military bases we are building in Iraq is not a good reason for staying there Forever), the only response the Administration can come up with is sophomoric rhetoric like 'antiAmerican'.

[Guest Tsukuyomi]

It's not about setting a date to get out. But putting something into action to give measureable goals is what we need. We can't just stay there indefinitely with no idea what we are looking for. Even if you agree with the invasion, you have to agree with things like setting these sorts of benchmarks to measure progress for the future.

 

If the Republicans could offer something like this, then i'd be a little less angry at them. Of course, they don't seem to want to offer anything at moment.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Meanwhile, Katherine Harris dwells in the opposite world of close-mindedness:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/sen...s.ap/index.html

[snuffbox 0]

God supports abortion in cases of the Katherine Harris family.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Meanwhile...

http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/A...P_Candidate.htm

 

GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax

ALBERT McKEON - Telegraph

August 25, 2006

 

A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

 

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

 

Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

 

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

 

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”

 

Read the full article here

 

 

 

Article Continued...

 

She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.

 

In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.

 

Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 

Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.

 

In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.

 

Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)

 

“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.

 

Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.

 

She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.

 

Albert McKeon can be reached at 594-5832 or [email protected].

[snuffbox 0]

But, but, only Ultra Liberal Whackos have a copyright on that opinion!

[Jingus 0]

Yikes. Talk about a deluded, frothing-at-the-mouth bitch. Any word on how the polls are showing her election chances?