<p>Too funny…Nice to see a public official who enjoys his job 
<a href=“Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday”>Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday;
<p>I think he should be Sec of Defense and let him tell Sen. Kennedy and Byrd what they should be told. I’ll bet that you could eliminate the deficit if you charged admission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The current Sec of Defense seems to have no problem going toe-to-toe with the Senator from Massachusetts. </p>
<p>In last week’s Armed Services Committee Hearing, Kennedy read a blistering speech to Rumsfeld ending with a call for him to resign. Rumsfeld began his response by saying, “Well…that was quite a speech Senator…” and then let him have it right back. He ended by telling Kennedy that he had offered his resignation twice and, apparently the President did not share Kennedy’s views.</p>
<p>It was good ol’ fashioned political brawling at its finest!</p>
<p>He offered to quit twice? I wonder why? So Rumsfeld didn’t think he should be in the job…</p>
<p>And for the public official to speak that way to a consituent is very crass and childish.</p>
<p>ANd what should Kennedy be told? To not ask questions about the war? TO not ask questions about the budget? </p>
<p>When you have the Vice President saying, well the insurgency is under control and almost over, and the Sec of Def saying it could go on for 4,6,8,10 12 years, , well, whom are we to believe</p>
<p>And the war being run soooo well that insurgents are coming INTO Iraq to fight Americans, where they never where before, and to not have the Sec of Def answer why the borders where not sealed, why the troops aren’t armored well, why so much money is given to “civilian contractors”- what do they do anyway, in cash with NO accountabilty, why our good soldiers veterans benefits were not being covered, while on one hand they say, a few thousand injuries, and on the other FORTY THOUSAND, and the story for what we are doing there keeps changing, that retired army generals say they aren’t doing the right thing with regards to how the war is being fought, </p>
<p>And as for the original politician discussed, he called her childish and then went there himself…my my, what a grown up</p>
<p>I work for a politician doing emails, we get all kinds, but we show restraint and manners, something this man is incapable of.</p>
<p>CGM, I have to admit, when I read the article I immediately thought of you. I think his point is well taken though–at least these folks got a genuine letter back from their congressman, letting them know how he honestly felt, instead of a form letter sent out by helpers.</p>
<p>Its a shame that a Congressman can be so harsh to those who supposedly voted for him. He is serving the CITIZENS, there is no need for his to turn his back.</p>
<p>King can afford to be obnoxious. He won his heavily Republican district by something like 63-37 last time around. I’m pretty sure he represents my life-in-a-bubble-playing-tennis-and-golf-when-not-in-Florida sister in-law and her CEO I’ve-got-mine-why-worry-about-the-little-people husband. There are worse people. They are kind to my D and they extend themselves more than most in take care of my 90-year-old mother in-law. But politically speaking they walk with their knuckles dragging the ground and are Completely Without A Clue. Their politics are pretty unnuanced: anything that’s good for multimillioinaires is the right thing and social policies and foreign policy to make much difference as long as that’s taken care of. With voters like them, King is safe.</p>
<p>When I worked in a U.S. Senate office as a low-level clerk, party of my job was dealing with correspondence. The auto-pen machine took care of authentic looking signatures for most correspondence. However, I got very good at forging (by direction) the Senator’s signature on his more personal replies where the auto-pen was good enough. I could do both his “formal” and “informal” “real” signatures. Give me about 10 minutes of practice and I could probably still both today…I’m kinda like the Lee Marvin character in “Cat Ballou”…I need a few minutes to warm up.</p>
<p>CGM, you forget the administration’s tortuous accomplishment: it turned a country that had nothing to do with terrorism (see the 9/11 Commission Report et alia) and turned it into a terrorist breeding ground.
I haven’t seen that yesterday’s dust-up in Samarra made the papers here yet. The truth is that we control such a small part of the country. The insurgents simply go where we ain’t. The number of troops available for Al Anbar province is something like one per 800 of population…the troops serving there are getting really depressed at the futility. According to recent polls, approximately 40 percent of the country is in sympathy with the insurgents. This breaks down to virtually all the Sunni’s and roughly a third of the Shiites. The only ones who really love us are the Kurds who are building the foundation for an independent state as fast as they can.</p>
<p>I take comfort that we are in the last throes of the Bush administration.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>Though you are quite critical of your sister and brother-in-law for their political views, I am happy to see that you appreciate them for the way they choose to treat others, in particular, your daughter and your mother-in-law. </p>
<p>I think it is quite safe to say that people on the right side of the aisle often not only support government programs, but also are quite generous in sharing their financial resources. In my case, I used to send a fair amount of money to my grandmother on a monthly basis while she was alive. Currently, I send a fair amount of money to my aunt and am providing substantial funds for my niece to attend college. My brother, from the left side of the aisle, can’t understand why the government won’t do more to send his daughter to college. But, my wife and I are more than happy to insure she gets a chance at a good education. I wont go into details about our other giving, but, even though we drag our knuckles, like your relatives, we do manage to support charitable causes we believe in</p>
<p>Although supporters of another political party may be, as you say, “unnuanced”, I am quite sure many of us are quite generous in supporting others outside our direct family, our places of worship and, through donations of time and expertise, our communities. </p>
<p>Best wishes to you.</p>
<p>I don’t think one political spectrum is less responsible for caring for relatives than the other.
I am practically a socialist and I cared for my grandfather when he was in the last stages of colon cancer. I give at least 10% of our income to non profits mostly education, environmental and organizations that support children and I give at least that much of my time. In my volunteer work although it is generally nonpartisan, I see liberals represented much more than conservatives. Of course our conservative voters may have the viewpoint of our local Democratic representative when asked if she wouldn’t work to get more money for a tested reading program in the schools. She feels that if only parents would read to their children more, we wouldn’t have need for tutoring, so she wouldn’t vote for it and I doubt she would be out there doing it.</p>
<p>
I guess this is a case of if you say it enough times with conviction that you actually begin to believe that it is true. I think a good evening of reading the 9/11 report, the Deulfer report, the Butler Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, the Senate resolution authorizing war, etc, is in order.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4,</p>
<p>I agree with you. We all need to give and help others in the way we best see fit. The point I am trying to make is that just because we are accused of “not-worrying-about-the-little-people”, most of us do worry, we just do it in a different way. </p>
<p>By the way, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that my family has no idea what we are doing for other individuals in our family, it is a totally private matter that I only used to illustrate the point that there are a lot of ways to give. It doesnt have to be primarily through government, nor can it be left solely in the hands of the individuals. </p>
<p>ek4, the kind of volunteer you are seeing may be a function of location. If you were in the heavily “knuckle dragging” district referred to by the other poster, you may have a different demographic mix of volunteers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He did not specify the occasions, but one would have been the standard offer of resignation after the election. I would guess that the other was probably an offer to fall on his sword after Abu Grave.</p>
<p>The first hour or so of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing is very informative discourse. Rumsfeld, JCS Chairman Myers, and the two highest ranking military commanders, questioned by the highest ranking members of the committee. Carl Levin and John McCains’ questioning was at a very high level of insight. The Kennedy/Rumsfeld exchange was a classic slugfest – two heavyweights exchanging blows, toe-to-toe, in the center of the ring, both dripping with contempt for each other.</p>
<p>A link to the 6/23 committee hearing can be found here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Defense/Security&CatCodePairs=Issue,DESE;[/url]”>http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Defense/Security&CatCodePairs=Issue,DESE;</a></p>
<p>The Carl Levin (Swarthmore grad, BTW) statement and questioning was extremely perceptive. He did perhaps the best job I’ve seen of laying out the geo-politics of the region and a strategy for applying pressure on Iraq to reach political compromise. Rumsfeld could not explicitly endorse Levin’s proposal (because it would have over-stepped his bounds in setting US policy), but when asked to carry the proposal to the White House, Rumsfeld was able to communicate that he was in total agreement with Levin.</p>
<p>Levin’s premise is that virtually every key constituency has a vested interest in continued US presence to stabilize the country and a successful political structure in Iraq.</p>
<p>The Kurds certainly want a continued US presence because they get both protection and representation. They would be at great risk in an all-out civil war.</p>
<p>The Shiites, led by Sistani, have voiced consistent support for US presence and benefit the most from a compromise representative political structure because they are the majority party. Should the US pull-out and allow civil war to break out, the eventual outcome for the Shiites goes from a sure-bet to uncertainty as they would be the biggest target for the forces trying to prevent a stable government. They also would lose any hope of a stabilized economy and basic services for the Shiia population.</p>
<p>The Sunni leaders have now realized that their best bet is also continued US stabilization and a political compromise and have communicated that to the US. As the minority group, they have the most to lose in a free-for-all civil war. In effect, the US is their only protection against the Shiia majority. They could fight for a very long time, but they would evenually lose against an Iranian supported Shiia opponent.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Levin argues that key nations in the region benefit from continued US presence and a successful political structure in Iraq. The key Sunni nations (Saudi, Jordan, and Syria) have everything to lose from radical Shiite government in Iraq allied with Iran. Many other countries lose with a civil war because the Kurds would likely push for a Kurdish separatist movement that would include Kurdish elements in both Turkey and Iran.</p>
<p>As for policy, Levin argues that announcing a pull-out timetable would be a mistake, because it would simply tell the insurgents to wait us out. Conversely, announcing an open-ended commitment (as C. Rice did the other day) is a mistake because it removes the pressure to get a political deal done.</p>
<p>His proposal is to announce that, should the Iraqis fail to enact a consititution and establish a viable compromise government by their own timeframe (August with one permissable six-month extension), the US will re-evaluate its commitment, including the continued presence in Iraq. In other words, if the Iraqis don’t reach a compromise political structure, the US might walk away and let them have at it. His logic is that stating such a policy applies major pressure on all Iraqi groups to get the job done AND applies pressure to Saudi, Jordan, and Syria to stop the flow of foreign fighters and strongarm the Sunnis in Iraq to get with the program or risk being left unprotected in a Shiite civil war.</p>
<p>In response, Rumsfeld said that he could not endorse Levin’s proposal because it is not his role to make US policy. However, he told Levin that, from a military standpoint, even the allowable six-month extension would be unacceptable and the Iraqis must get a constitution written by August and hold elections for a representative government by December. He indicated that he would be happy to carry Levin’s proposal to the White House.</p>
<p>Gnus, they really do live in a bubble and are pretty much unaware and untouched by need. I’ve known people of comparable wealth who weren’t that way at all.</p>
<p>FF, keep waving the terrorism voodoo doll and and chanting “Oooga booga! Terrorism!!!” like that lying sack of manure did at Fort Bragg the other night. Terrorism is the only card you can play that has even vestigial support, so you and he are going to play it and play it and play it no matter that it’s wrong because it’s about the only card you’ve got left.</p>
<p>The Senate war resolution? You mean the one based on cooked intelligence? GMAFB. The best you can do to tie Iraq into terrorism is the Ansar al Islam camps in the northeast corner of Iraq along the Iranian border and which were beyond control of Saddam Hussein. If you’re going to hold Saddam responsible for the ragtag group, then you should hold George Bush, aka that lying sack of manure, responsible for the terrorists in Iraq that we can’t control now. (N.B., even now, the insurgents are 95-percent domestic Iraqis whose activity has been prompted by our occupation.)</p>
<p>And you have the dubious and disputed assertion of a ranking Al Qaeda member having received medical care in Iraq under Hussein. </p>
<p>The defenders of Iraq = Terrorism can cite specific after specific that is subject to rebuttal such that by the end of it they will be standing shivering in their underwear…not a pretty sight. </p>
<p>Long live Curveball!!! Long live Chalabi!!! </p>
<p>Feh.</p>
<p>As I said, I take comfort that the Bush regime is in its last throes.</p>
<p>We’ve been told lie after lie, offered false milestone after false milestone, and the administration assessments aren’t based in reality on the ground, as even some of the rats on the GOP’s sinking ship are now beginning to admit.</p>
<p>TheDad, I fear the Bush regime will only be followed by more of the same. It’s as though the whole country were a hippo that lumbers incredibly slowly and is so thick-skinned it doesn’t feel the blows that land on it…:eek:</p>
<p>
My hearty chuckle for the day!!!</p>
<p>Nice Rant! I listened to a lot of Air America last week and I think that rant is on a par with what I heard. You should call in some time - or perhaps I’ve already heard you.</p>
<p>Authorizing us for war,why did we go to war? Any one figure that one out. </p>
<p>Afganistan, I get and supported</p>
<p>Iraq- still have no clue- um wmd, no, wait, nuclear weapons, no wait, democracy, no wait, 9-11, no wait, terrorists, no wait, </p>
<p>jsut give us one answer and don’t keep shifting it around</p>
<p>this is one giant mess, we are stuck</p>
<p>Yeah, congress voted fo the war resolution, but the information given was not accurate, and has been admitted as such</p>
<p>And do you want the exact quote where Bush says Saddem Hussiem had mothing to do with 9-11?</p>
<p>Egads, we are not stupid Funding Father, we do some research, and its interesting how you tell us to read stuff, and gee WE HAVE READ IT!@!!</p>
<p>SUPRISE</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the root cause of your problem in denying a link to terrorism; there’s a heck of a lot more than that (a partial sample):
</p>
<p>To summarize, here is what Lee hamilton, 9/11 Commission Vice-Chair said on ABC’s “This Week”
But, perhaps you could point me to where in the 9/11 report that said that Iraq “had nothing to do with terrorism”.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>As I mentioned I don’t make a big deal about things we do for family and you may not know your relatives entire story, either. But, maybe you are right and they don’t do anything other than pay their taxes and live as law abiding citizens, which is fine with me. Seems to me that saying “they walk with their knuckles dragging the ground and are Completely Without A Clue” is a bit harsh, particularly in the context of their living in the heavily Republican district, with which you obviously take offense. </p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand why somebody would write in a public forum with words and phrases to purposely offend others. It is easy enough to offend others accidentally. Lot of names being hurled about on this board, which I find quite suprising. But, I have only been here about three weeks, so I am getting accustomed to it. </p>
<p>For a couple of years I have been visiting a NASCAR-oriented message board, where people share discussions about their main interest, make plenty of off topic messages (like in this forum), but accusations and name calling are never an issue. It seems to me that one can make their point in a more polite way. </p>
<p>I’ll go back to my knuckle-dragging now.</p>
<p>
No, because it doesn’t exist. Bush has never said that Iraq was involved with 9/11. In fact he has said that there is no proof that they were.</p>
<p>
Then don’t misrepresent it. Isn’t that a LIE???</p>