4,000 dead Americans

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

At least Muskie didn't legislate HFCS into our food.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Libertarians may talk a good game when it comes to defending civil liberties, but they are also the party of unregulated capitalism and removing anything resembling a social safety net.

[NoCalMike 0]

The Libertarians may talk a good game when it comes to defending civil liberties, but they are also the party of unregulated capitalism and removing anything resembling a social safety net.

 

Yeah, like Larry Elder, who I believe now actually converted to being a Republican.

[snuffbox 0]

The Libertarians may talk a good game when it comes to defending civil liberties, but they are also the party of unregulated capitalism and removing anything resembling a social safety net.

 

Kotz or I must've forced you to type this just so we could respond and bait you into an argument, right?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Dude, fuck Libertarians. He's right.

[snuffbox 0]

Is this the part where I'm required to argue?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Not if you don't want to. Seriously, fuck Libtertarians. That's soooooo the wrong way to go with this country.

[snuffbox 0]

Hey, did anybody besides Invader think that Bush did well on Wed night?

[theintensifier 0]

He'll never do good speaking. With that knowledge, I fully expect him to stumble on his words and generally look like an idiot. Thus, I don't complain about it.

 

Kind of like the younger brother syndrome. You fully know in advance the little bastard is going to fuck up, and you'll pay the consequences. No point bitching, but the beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I do, believe it or not. I'll give him this last chance. He's the President! If we can't trust him, who can we trust? The guy knows he's fucked if he fails, but he's doing it anyway.

[Guest RayCo]

Georgey boy Jr. dosent know bugger all about whats going on, Georgey boy Sr. does, however.

[SuperJerk 0]

FactCheck.org's analysis of Pres. Bush's and Sen. Durbin's speeches

 

http://factcheck.org/article472.html

[snuffbox 0]

Georgey boy Jr. dosent know bugger all about whats going on, Georgey boy Sr. does, however.

 

I'm not sure what happened here.

[Guest RayCo]

Georgey boy Jr. dosent know bugger all about whats going on, Georgey boy Sr. does, however.

 

I'm not sure what happened here.

I'm just saying, the old lad is more smarter and insider than his son. Don't believe me? Ask David Icke.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

More smarter. RayCo is really making a splash here at forums.thesmartmarks.com.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the cutting edge of American politics.

 

Sen. Clinton: Bush has 'losing strategy' in Iraq

Story Highlights

• NEW: Nebraska Republican Hagel calls Iraq war "dangerous for our country"

• Clinton says extra troops should go to Afghanistan

• N.Y. Democrat's bill would cap Iraq troop strength at January 1 levels

• Bipartisan group unveils resolution against troop increase in Iraq

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bipartisan trio of senators on Wednesday unveiled a resolution opposing what Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- in proposing a separate bill -- called a "losing strategy" in Iraq.

 

"This resolution will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands on the president's plan," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "Iraq is not a partisan issue."

 

He was joined in presenting the resolution by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan.

 

"We need to change course," said Clinton, D-New York, who proposed a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq. (Watch to see if Clinton's proposal is 'presidential')

 

Clinton, just back from a trip to U.S. military facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and Germany, urged the Bush administration to return its focus to Afghanistan.

 

"It would be a great irony if the administration's emphasis on escalating our presence in Iraq caused it to ignore the threat facing Afghanistan, where those responsible for planning the September 11 attacks are still our enemies," Clinton said at an afternoon news conference.

 

"The president's team is pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq as it edges closer to collapse."

 

Speaking on CNN's "The Situation Room," Hagel said Congress needs to be more assertive in determining U.S. policy regarding what he called a civil war in Iraq.

 

"We are no longer just going to quietly stand by, as we have done for the last four years, and let our young men and women be thrown into this conflict when they cannot affect the outcome," Hagel told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

 

"This is the biggest issue facing our country since Vietnam," Hagel added. "It's dividing our nation. It is dangerous for our country. It's dangerous for the world. The Congress needs to be part of this."

 

The Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution says that "U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress."

 

"... It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq."

 

During a news conference announcing the resolution, Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran who is a leading Republican voice on foreign policy issues, called the president's plan "dangerously irresponsible."

 

Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said Iraq has a poor track record of meeting its commitments and benchmarks.

 

Deploying more troops is not a "recipe for success," he said, and would only postpone Iraqis from taking their future into their own hands.

 

Levin said only Iraqi political leaders, not U.S. military personnel, can end the violence in Iraq.

 

Biden said Iraqi leaders must be forced to deal with their own "political realities."

 

Passing the resolution would signal the seriousness of sentiment against an Iraq troop increase, Biden said. He said a Foreign Relations Committee vote was likely next week, after Bush's State of the Union address.

 

One Republican opponent of a troop increase, Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, said he opposes the resolution because it uses the word "escalating," which he said is a partisan term used by Democrats that "unnecessarily inflames the resolution." (Watch why 'escalate' is a key word)

 

Biden, Levin and Hagel said the wording could be changed to make the resolution more palatable.

 

The resolution is not expected to offer any alternative to Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq for deployment primarily in Baghdad.

 

Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at their January 1 level and require the president to seek congressional approval before sending more troops, Clinton said Wednesday.

 

Clinton said Iraq's government "is not committed to taking the steps both militarily and politically that would help them to gain control over Baghdad and other places in the country."

 

She said Washington should cut off financial support for the Iraqi government until it does so.

 

Clinton's legislation is similar to a bill introduced Wednesday by another Democrat, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, that would cap troop levels in Iraq at existing numbers.

 

House GOP trying to block cuts to war funding

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prohibit Congress from cutting off money for troops in the field. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, will sponsor the bill.

 

Boehner argued that the president's Iraq strategy deserves a full hearing and called on Democratic leaders who are criticizing it to offer their own plan.

 

"And for those who don't agree with the president's plan, what's their alternative, what's their plan?" he asked. "We have a new majority in the House and Senate, and I think that at some point they need to begin acting like a majority. And that means that if you don't approve of the president's idea and his plan, you're required, really, to put one forward. And we've not seen that yet."

 

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said Johnson's experience in Vietnam gives him insight into the debate on money for the Iraq war.

 

"He knows what it feels like sitting in a cell when Congress cuts off funding for a war, and he'll never let that happen again," Cantor said.

 

In response to Republican criticism, Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said, "It sounds like [Republicans are]trying to play politics. We've said repeatedly we support funding for troops in the field."

 

Countering Boehner's claim that Democrats don't have an alternative plan for Iraq, Daly said that the party has been saying for months it's for "responsible redeployment" of troops out of Iraq.

 

"That's the united position. We've written several letters to the president," he said, pointing to the letter Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, sent to Bush before last week's Iraq speech.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/ira...ress/index.html

 

Nice of the party's frontrunner for the presidential nomination to say something about the war besides "I support the troops" and "we need to do more to win it."

[Art Sandusky 0]

Whatever dude. She was actually on the ground in Iraq for like, six hours. Fuck Hillary. I've honestly never understood why she was anointed a future Presidential candidate in the first place, and this is shit people can say without going on token "fact-finding missions" anyway. Cap troop levels, what a fuckin' cop-out Washington focus group compromise idea.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hey, did anybody besides Invader think that Bush did well on Wed night?

 

I didn't think it was a great speech, just good for him compared to all his other addresses. Clearly it was heavily scripted, as is expected.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Where are these extra troops supposed to come from? It's come out recently that things are slipping away in Afghanistan right now (though I'm not sure if those are facts, or the Dems exagerrating things). It's not like our "allies" are helping us any.

 

Not sure what capping troop levels is supposed to accomplish, either.

[EricMM 0]

I do believe some are coming FROM Afghanistan.

 

And, they're going to extend tours of duty and cut down the ratio of work vs. leave.

 

Joy.

[snuffbox 0]

Team Bush Jr apparently doesn't like the use of words like 'escalation' or 'surge'

 

It was ok to call other Americans 'unpatriotic' and 'with the terrorists' but calling 20,000 more troops & several billion more dollars an 'escalation' is just not right.

[Special K 0]

Hilary will never be a candidate. She's crap in terms of speaking, and she's absolute mush in term of politics. You think they got on Kerry for 'Flip-flopping?' She's the wrost in that regard.

[NoCalMike 0]

I do believe some are coming FROM Afghanistan.

 

And, they're going to extend tours of duty and cut down the ratio of work vs. leave.

 

Joy.

 

 

Right. Bush didn't want to come out and say it, but the truth is, some of the surge will be coming from troops that are SUPPOSED to be done and coming home, instead they will be told they are going BACK.

[snuffbox 0]

Many soldiers will be on their third tours of duty, or more.

[Guest RayCo]

These hard nut dumb arses who think their so tough they can do the army after leaving school need to stop and realise, the only way the war is ever going to end is if they refuse to fight.

[snuffbox 0]

Are you French?

[Guest RayCo]

As a matter of fact, I am of French ethnic origin, so you could say so, but i was born in Britain, so that makes me British.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Hilary will never be a candidate. She's crap in terms of speaking, and she's absolute mush in term of politics. You think they got on Kerry for 'Flip-flopping?' She's the wrost in that regard.

That reminds me, all of the people I know who want her to run have only given these reasons: She'd be better than Bush, and it would piss Republicans off. While I do think she'd be better than Bush (though that really isn't saying much), those aren't good enough reasons. Sorry, but as much as I hate Bush, "They'd be better than Bush" is not good enough.

[theintensifier 0]

These hard nut dumb arses who think their so tough they can do the army after leaving school need to stop and realise, the only way the war is ever going to end is if they refuse to fight.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

The United States’ Uniform Code of Military Justice defines mutiny thus:

 

Art. 94. (§ 894.) Mutiny or Sedition.

(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concern with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty tof attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

The penalty for insubordination in military organizations can range from dishonorable discharge, incarceration for a term of years, to capital punishment. The penalty varies depending on the type of infraction, the circumstances, and the culture of the military force. In modern Western armed forces, the penalty tends to be dishonorable discharge and/or a prison term. In other circumstances such as the German or Russian armies on the Eastern Front during World War II, the penalty tended to be an immediate execution without trial.

 

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences.

Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation

Maximum punishment:

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

[snuffbox 0]

He's gone.