OPEC, I mean APEC, I mean Austrians, I mean Australians. What a moron. As far as the Democrats are concerned, they failed us, just as the Republicans failed us in the last 7 years. Democrats failed to cut funding for this stupid stupid war, despite having a majority in both houses.
I have lost all confidence in our leaders. We elect the people who master the sound bites and those are usually the folks with the most money to spend on swaying the moronic American masses. Our leaders are perverts who solicit other men in bathrooms and then lie to us when caught. Our leaders are swindlers and charlatans. Our leaders are what America has become. We've met the enemy and he is us.
I understand your frustration......last fall, I gave $$$ to political campaigns for the first time in my life. I really thought once the Democrats took control that that would change the course of things. I realize now that was pretty naive thinking. Nonetheless, when they called last week, I turned them down....."prove to me you can do the job before I will give more money".
But forget for a moment about the Dems....this mess we are in didn't happen overnite........we have been on this road for a long, long time. Decades. Our leaders have worked overtime to convince us we are the good guys and are invincible. That whatever we do is for the ultimate good of the world. None of it is all that true....or at least, we are not the good guys all the time and we definitely are not invincible nor are we all that altruistic.
Secondly, many Americans have been bewitched into thinking that the way we win in Iraq is by killing everyone. They don't seem to understand the concept that we can win by weaning ourselves off oil. That's as true of the American public as it is congressional leaders.
Finally, when did a press secretary start speaking definitively for the president. Read the article below......if I didn't know better, I would think Snow was the president.
Things are so messed up that the more we dig the more we find out exactly how bad things really are. I think the only solution is to hang tough and keep pushing.
White House and Democrats Clash Ahead of Bush’s Speech
By DAVID STOUT
Published: September 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — The battle of words over Iraq intensified today, on the eve of President Bush’s speech to the nation, as Democrats renewed their criticism and the White House accused them of distorting, intentionally or otherwise, what Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said this week.
“It’s pretty clear that it’s not a war without end,” Mr. Snow said. “And as a matter of fact, it is a war that actually has victory as its aim. And victory is defined as helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves.”
Mr. Snow said he would let General Petraeus speak for himself. “The president will give his analysis tomorrow night,” Mr. Snow said. The president is to deliver his speech at 9 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday.
“But I think Speaker Pelosi knows precisely — well, maybe she doesn’t,” Mr. Snow said. “Maybe she just didn’t follow General Petraeus’s testimony carefully enough. But there is nothing in his testimony to insinuate that he looks upon this in the way she has characterized it.”
Perhaps, Mr. Snow suggested, Ms. Pelosi’s comments were part of “an attempt to try to create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place as a result of the surge in recent months.”
But Democrats said “success” in Iraq was an illusion.
“His plan is more of the same,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said. “This is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to the American people.”
Possibly reflecting his inability so far to muster the votes he needs to set a new course in Iraq, Mr. Reid urged Senate Republicans to work with Democrats on legislation to change the mission and begin “a true redeployment of our troops.”
President Bush is expected to tell the nation that he embraces the recommendations of General Petraeus, the American military commander in Iraq. That would mean a gradual reduction in force by next summer, leaving about 130,000 Americans in Iraq. In that case, the troop strength would be back to what it was before this year’s 30,000-troop “surge.”
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said today that the size of the troop drawdown was unacceptable. He said Congress needed to press for a larger reduction “to get our troops out of a civil war.”
Another Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the Pentagon simply could not sustain the current troop levels, let alone supply more troops, for very long.
“We need to continue hunting down terrorists operating in Iraq,” Mr. Reed said. “But we do not need to put American soldiers in harm’s way to buy Iraqi politicians another six months of political breathing room.”
Earlier today, General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker held a news conference, during which they made many of the same points they did on Monday and Tuesday before two House committees and two Senate committees.
Mr. Crocker said he saw encouraging signs on the diplomatic level. “The Saudis are preparing to reopen their embassy in Baghdad for the first time since 2003,” he said, adding that there is “a good opportunity for other Arab states, I think, to follow suit.”
More diplomatic activity could bring “some focused pressure” on Iran and Syria, “who have been part of the problem more than part of the solution” with their meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker said. |
