Bring troops home from Iraq
The only way that we can get out of this horrific tragedy is to STOP THE FUNDING OF THE IRAQ WAR. President George W. Bush trumped hand must be called. At the present rate of spending on the Iraq War, each person in the United States owes Uncle Sam more than $500 in taxes to cover the cost of this insane War. Congress must not allow this injustice to continue on. Only when the funding of this war ends, will we begin to see an end to this “War of Choice” — its’ President George W.Bush’s War — more than 60% percent of the American public are not in favor of this war, and they want to end. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW — STOP FUNDING THE IRAQ WAR
This letter has not been edited.
We should start drafting registered Republicans
Posted by on August 20, 2007 02:17 PMDon't you think most intelligent people would check their spelling before submitting a letter to the editor?
What does "pasted due" actually mean?
If President George W. Bush trumped hand is indeed called, wouldn't that mean that it has been called and trumped? Trumped means to best, so what is the point of this sentence?
There are 300+ million people in the United States, and the cost of the war is estimated at $440 Billion. Isn't that just under $1500 per person?
Doesn't Ms. Lowry understand that the war may also end when Iraq and the MIDDLE (not Mid) East becomes stable? Surely that would be preferable correct?
Doesn't she also understand that 76% of Congress approved this war?
What would Ms. Lowry propose to do to bring stability to the Middle East? Pull the troops out and have a nice sit down? And just who are these "reasoning minds" (maybe she means REASONED minds)?
How can anyone take this letter seriously when Ms. Lowry obviously is unable to intelligently write a letter?
Posted by Check your spelling on August 20, 2007 02:31 PMYour letter is nothing less than a show of contempt for the men and women who have died for your freedom.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on August 20, 2007 02:53 PMcys:
I knew what she was getting at I didn't need to understand with proper spelling. And Brian why do you continue to post. Why haven't you enlisted yet and headed over to Iraq to do your part? Or are you like the rest of the cowardly cons and sit over here and talk a tough game.
Actually I think that someone who just sticks their head in the sand is showing contempt for the troops. If you are stuck in a quagmire with no way of determining when a war has been won you are not supporting the troops by parroting the old stay the course routine. Bush has made a complete mess of the debacle in Iraq. If you support the troops then you should support doing all that you can to bring them home.
Posted by veteran on August 20, 2007 03:16 PMLarry,
My first sentence should explain why understanding grammar and spelling is important, don't you think? How are we all expected to take anything Ms. Lowry writes seriously, if she doesn't take the time to at least proof-read her comments? How someone presents an argument is as important as the argument itself, if the desire is to have it taken seriously.
Maybe Mr. Stuckey is past the age of service? He could be in his 50's and become a liability vs an asset. Don't know, just speculating. Or, maybe Mr. Stuckey has already served in the Military, or has decided that he may be of better service to his country in another capacity (I would stick up for you just the same if someone called you out on this).
Posted by Check your spelling on August 20, 2007 03:17 PMMs. Lowry was remiss in not mentioning that she is the leader of a local anti-war protest group. While that doesn't automatically invalidate her position, in the interest of honesty she should have stated that she has a vested interest in her position beyond that of just another concerned citizen.
And Brian Stuckey; get a grip man. This country was founded and nourished on dissent and different view points being debated in public. She's not showing contempt for the soldiers, like my son, who are serving in the military. She is simply expressing her displeasure at our participation as a nation in this war.
That is a right that she has as an American. It has been defended in the past by many people, including myself, in uniform. Don't you disgrace the past service of veterans nor the current service of those now serving by denigrating her right of civil disagreement or dissent. She's not giving aid and comfort to the enemy; she's just expressing her beliefs and social conscience.
While I do wish my son was home safe and functioning as a civilian paramedic in place of being a Combat Medic in a war, I cannot support the sudden and unilateral withdrawal of American troops from the Iraqi theater which we initiated.
The surge is working. We're gaining valuable ground and local support of the Iraqi citizens in driving back and eliminating the so-called insurgents and radical sectarian militants. We're not going to win a war in Iraq per se; but rather, we are providing the time and support necessary to get the 163,000 troops of Iraq into place to take over their own internal fight for democracy.
I worked as a civilian construction manager in Iraq for over two years, and I'm heading back the 28th of this month. What I observed while working in the then sectarian militant controlled territory of Ramadi and Mosul (Anbar Province) was much different than is reflected by any mainstream media coverage here. My wife used to send local newspapers to me and we'd laugh and shake our heads at what was reported.
You can't build or rebuild a nation overnight. But there was when I was there, and is still ongoing progress being made to the benefit of the average Iraqi citizen. Sectarian differences on the local level -- among the everyday citizen -- were subsiding dramatically when I was there two years ago. And, according to the letters and occasional phone calls I get from friends still there, including foreign nationals and Iraqi, they have done nothing but improve since I left.
My only request to the anti-war people is to be a little more tolerant. The end is in sight for the day-to-day participation of our military in local street fighting. But don't ever imagination, regardless of which party takes the White House, that you will see us remove our large footprint from the center of Iraq. We're there to stay just as we have been in Cuba, Korea and Europe to name a few locations.
Posted by Trinity on August 20, 2007 03:59 PM"The surge is working. We're gaining valuable ground and local support of the Iraqi citizens in driving back and eliminating the so-called insurgents and radical sectarian militants. "
Trinity, can you back this up at all? I'm curious to see your source on this. All of the empirical data would suggest that the exact opposite is true. Poll after poll of rising anti-US sentiment accross Iraq aside, the rate of violence and casualties continue unabated, and more Iraqis than ever believe violence against the US is justified.
As for your request to be a little more tolerant, I'm afraid I can't oblige. My tolerance is maxed out. Already in Iraq we've "turned a corner," entered the "last throes," experienced the "birth pangs of a new democracy," "turned a corner" again, had "insurgents on the run," etc, etc, ad nauseaum. If you want to continue to believe that the end is in sight, then that's your business, but some of us learn from being lied to again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to the point that it really just insults our intelligence.
Posted by Grog on August 20, 2007 04:19 PMTrinity,
You always seem to bring a voice of reason and sanity to these posts, it would be nice if more people could post without the name calling etc. I do have a question for you since you have some experience there. Don't you think that if we are there for 100 years that they will be trying to kill and blow us up for 100 years? I know we will never completely leave there just as the examples you posted so don't you think there will always be tension? Sorry, one more question, Do you think the dollar amount costing us and the loss of American life is worth whatever it is we are trying to accomplish there? Thanks for your time.
Posted by Mike D. on August 20, 2007 04:21 PMGrog:
Will you accept the word of Senators Levin and Warner -- two big anti-war voices. While they acknowledge there are still problems with a dysfunctional government (much like our own), they admit the surge is working:
"The Maliki government is non-functional," Levin, D-Mich., said in a conference call with reporters.
Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the panel's top Republican, just returned from a fact-finding mission to the country. The two reported that they are encouraged by the effects of the recent U.S. military surge there, but their enthusiasm is tempered by concerns about Iraq's political climate.
"We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents," the two said in a statement issued after leaving the country.
Perhaps Trinity could give us more info as to his point of view. And, Grog, you're justing chanting your same old anti everything spiel using polls and reports that he said didn't jibe with what he experienced there. Face it, no one is going to give you any answer you don't already have conceived as being the only "right" answer, so lay off.
CA
Posted by on August 20, 2007 04:30 PMThe only thing we learn from history is, that we learn nothing from history.
Mike D.,
A thousand years from now there would be little, or no, observable change. About the only difference would be in the advanced weaponry, and the body count.
But of course, who needs to bother with history? Just keep on keeping on; and . . . prove that nothing is learned anyway. After all, those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 20, 2007 04:47 PM4:30:
Well nobody told me that "tangible results" were being made in "several areas of the capital!" And "some of the Sunni tribes" in one province have decided to fight Al Qaeda? That's exactly what we've been trying to accomplish! When will all the war critics realize that a small percentage of the people who used to be killing us in a specific province have agreed to accept our weapons? Forgive me if I'm not awash in optimism, as this sort of drivel has been coming out of Washington for the last 4 years.
Things are always right about to work, we're on the road to progress, things are trending better, look, I just got back from there, and there's a lot of things in Iraq going right that just don't get reported in the US media, I think we're on the right track in Iraq, based on what the military chose to show me in my heavily insulated bubble I feel comfortable making feel-good statements about how well things are going. And yet...somehow...more and more Iraqis want to kill us, the violence never seems to die out, the government never seems to get set up, and in short, nothing ever really changes.
So, CA, you are free to believe that the 47th time is the charm, and that this time, as opposed to every other time, progress is actually being made.
Do not, however, tell me who has been right about this whole fiasco since day one, to "lay off" of your ignorant compatriots who continue to willfully allow themselves to be led astray by the latest lie-du-jour.
I am not anti-everything. I'm just anti touching a hot stove for the 47th time in a row when any idiot should have learned better by now.
Posted by on August 20, 2007 05:10 PMI'll give them my $1500 if you whiny liberals quit whining and let the military do what it is supposed to do...kill the enemy. Dear god, you whined over a few pictures at a prison, you whine about a prison in Cuba. Waaa, freaking waaaa! Shut the hell up and let the troops fight! For some reason, politicians listen to your dumb asses, then soldiers get killed. We need a draft again so you idiots will run back to Canada!
Posted by on August 20, 2007 06:35 PMHoooo Ahhhh! The draft got them running the first time! 2:17 would be the first coward to head North!
Posted by on August 20, 2007 06:42 PMIn response to the questions raised due to my last post I offer a few comments. But, I am commenting only on my position and not debating the so-called pros and cons of the Iraqi war. Feel free to accept or reject my thoughts as neither action will bother me in the least. Attempting to defend or condemn a war already in progress results only in inane bickering back and forth with nothing being achieved. It’s similar to debating the existence of God – it goes nowhere fast and never deviates course.
The time to effectively debate war is before your enter into it. We’re well beyond that point now. War is perhaps man’s greatest folly, initiated and repeated innumerable times since before written history. To validate that one only has to look at what “Old Grouch” posted above: “The only thing we learn from history is, that we learn nothing from history.” There will always be leaders who feel justified in committing his/her country to a war based on real or perceived injustices initiated by some other leader or sect of people who felt righteous and justified in their actions. The results always include the slaughter of many and the everlasting domination of none. Human nature is not going to change; we’ll never as a species learn from our own history of past mistakes.
I have been in the center of two wars. One as a combat soldier (5th Special Forces, MACV SOG) in Vietnam; and later as a civilian working to help rebuild a war torn Iraq for the civilians of Iraq – not for the US or US interests. I worked for a foreign owned and financed company who had no interest in Iraq other than helping the civilians. We worked on rebuilding the small infrastructure, housing and medical facilities that the big boys financed by the US felt too small for their efforts.
We worked away from US Military protection other than their occasional normal operations in the area. I worked with crews drawn from Sunni and Shiite sects side by side. We withstood attacks by “insurgents” supporting and defending one another. Most of the local “sectarian militias” in the areas I worked were essentially armed neighborhood “watch groups” trying to keep the violence from their doorstep. Those groups never bothered us; in fact, quite often they would rise to our defense when “outsiders” (often labeled as al-Qaeda) would attack or harass us with sniper or rocket fire.
I talked (I speak Arabic) with many captured “insurgents” (captured by the locals), usually before their being turned over to the US Military (small bounties offered), or summarily executed by their captors. The vast majority of them were not Iraqi, but fighters recruited outside of Iraq to come in and fight the “Great Satan trying to annihilate the Muslim world”. Many of them trained and were supplied by camps located in Syria or Iran. They attacked and killed civilians as that caused the greatest impact and civil unrest in the area. Besides, many admitted that they were not equipped to go directly against the American military.
The Iraqis want their own country back without a doubt. But the civilians and militias I lived among and worked with indicated to me that they needed the US until they were strong enough to stand up for themselves. They believed that the outsiders were not going to stop creating havoc and attempting to take control of their country in order to establish a religious government for years to come – long after the United States leaves. Fighting, random bombings and other violence is not going to end in Iraq in the foreseeable future. They only want, and we need to provide, enough stability for them to fend for themselves.
We took away what they perceived to be stability when we invaded and toppled Saddam. Like any tort situation we have to restore the relative safety of the country to that which was there prior to our invasion. That includes providing the time, training and materials to rebuild and implement their own military which can provide that safety.
Mike D you asked if I thought “…the dollar amount costing us and the loss of American life is worth whatever it is we are trying to accomplish there?” In a word, no. But I believe that we created an obligation to those people when we invaded their country and then totally misunderstood the ramifications of that invasion and totally mismanaged the aftermath. Rather work with their existing military and police to establish a civilian authority we disbanded them in the belief that the vacuum created would be filled by the tooth fairy. Like the carnival game “Whack-A-Mole”, our administration of the war became “Whack-A-Terrorist” and they’ll go away. Help put together a government and the opposition will melt back into the sands.
We’re now rebuilding the police and military after years of fiddle-farting around trying to play peace keeper when all we were doing was thwarting the efforts of Iraqi from taking care of themselves. Now, at least, we have a US Commanding General in place that is racing toward the ultimate goal of placing Iraqi police and military in the front lines in lieu of Americans. I would expect that over the next few months we’ll see more withdrawal of American forces from the front line street fighting and more of a supportive role being assumed by the remaining US forces. The letters and phone calls I personally get from friends in Iraq tell me that this is what is happening at the present time in Anbar.
I don’t mind the extravagant financial cost of this war (though I don’t blindly accept it either) near as much as I cry over the loss of American lives on a daily basis. Although I’m very thankful that I haven’t gotten one of those dreaded visits of condolence to my home yet concerning my son, I feel as if every American soldier who is killed over there is one of my own. It’s a tragic price we are paying to right the situation we created when, through our own blind arrogance and ignorance as a nation, we invaded a sovereign nation based on now discredited intelligence. That discredited intelligence originated and survived for many years through two separate administrations.
By fighting them there, are we going to keep them from coming here? No, they already know our address and how to get here. I'm fairly confident that we already have a few groups or cells of these folks sitting around and just biding their time. Whether or not we're in Iraq, or chasing Bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan is not going to change a thing.
As a final note, almost to emphasize what I parroted from “Old Grouch” before, many (not all) of the people who want to “redeploy our troops” want that redeployment to include intervention in Darfur as it would justifiably stop the genocide occurring there. I’ve listened to that argument many times in the past few weeks. Again, human nature is not going to change; we’ll never as a species learn from our own history of past mistakes.
Brian (Stoogie) Stuckey, you are a moron so STFU.
Posted by A True American on August 20, 2007 07:45 PMCheck your spelling, check this. Perhaps, you sir are beyond even considering service to your country. Who are you to question anyone who has served his country with such dimminishing terms as you use? Perhaps, you should stand up for your country, rather than, advise someone who has been there. Chicken heart, just like bush and cheney, all balls and no glory. Monday night quarterbacking is easy when you don't have a gun shooting back at you. It's easy to provide anonymous suggestions to a quagmire rather, than actually doing something about it. Wussie!
Posted by a vet on August 20, 2007 07:47 PMTrinity:
Thank you. I don't agree with everything you say, but I do respect your opinion. We asked, you answered based on your observations and experience living there.
I ask again if you can to please get online with us if possible after you get back to Iraq next month. It would be interesting to see things through a civilians eyes.
It looks like you killed this thread. I guess some are afraid of insulting you since you opened up. That's to bad.
CA
Posted by on August 20, 2007 09:08 PMGorg - Even Hillary Clinton admits that the surge is working while complaining about the government's effectiveness:
Clinton said she wanted to restore America's image abroad.
"People have to root for America," she said. "They have to want to be on our side."
In Iraq, she said, the government must take responsibility for itself and its people.
"I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet," she said. "I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation."
Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.
"It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."
She's not going to pull out soon if elected. I bet she doesn't push for a fast withdrawal in the senate or her campaign!
And yes I do agree that it's sad that it took years to finally do it right. She's just saying what Trinity says he saw while there himself.
Mike D - did you see the answer to your question about the costs of the war? Honesty was what you asked for even if you don't agree with the answer.
CA
Posted by on August 20, 2007 10:34 PMA Vet, so what would you call someone, also a vet, me for instance, who has seen combat, seen friends wounded and die and was wounded myself who would be more than happy to fight an enemy outside the US rather than have them attacking us here? I would rather keep going back to Iraq and fight there until it is over and yes, I would rather die doing that, than sit on my ass here and let them have a free shot at me, my family or friends or ANY American.
Posted by Nick on August 20, 2007 11:49 PMHoooo Ahhhh! The draft got them running the first time! 2:17 would be the first coward to head North!
Posted by on August 20, 2007 06:42 PM
Actually 2:17 is not a Registered Republican. It would be all the chickenhawks running North.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 07:28 AMNick, so we just continue the War forever? You go back to avenge a freinds death ( who would be alive if we hadnt started this stupid war). Then someone gioes over to avnge your death. then another to avenge their death..endless war what a brilliant idea. I applaud your serving in the military. The military can make decisions on the actual fghting of a war but they are the LAST people I want deciding whether we should be in a war. Their decisions to fight become self-serving
Posted by Vet II on August 21, 2007 07:52 AMNick is a true brave American.The Democrats can not understand a person like him because they operate from being cowards or US haters.They want the terrorists to win.
Posted by An American on August 21, 2007 08:32 AMwell, it looks like Vet and Vet II have proven that indeed the greatest generation of Americans were those in WW II. They fought a war pn 2 different fronts and didn't cry or run like babies just because they lost friends or family. They continued to fight for they knew that if they quit, they would lose more than they were willing to handle, freedom, their country, their lives. Looks like Vet and Vet II have ignored the fact that being in the military might actually mean you may have to fight, kill or yes even die. I knew that before joining and I accept that fact. I hope they remember the code of conduct, and that being a soldier must mean to ignore ourselves and look toward the greater good of country. The survivors of Battaan and the Frozen Chosin knew that and didn't run, they fought on as soldiers.
Posted by Nick on August 21, 2007 11:15 AMVet II
You speak from a perspective of wisdom when you say that the military should not make the decision to engage in a war in place of civilian authority. However, the converse is equally true. Once the civilian authority has committed to the war the operation should be turned over to the military to execute.
I saw the same thing which happened in Vietnam being repeated, and actually intensified, in Iraq. The politicians believe that they know best in the actual execution of a war rather than the military and micro-manage it from afar. Actual field decisions regarding combat cannot be made intelligently made by non military personnel.
In many of my BS sessions with US Military officers I heard the same critical thoughts repeatedly expressed concerning the disbanding of the Iraqi military and police, the restrictive rules of engagement and operation plans that didn't adequately take into account the location and formation of the enemy.
I can't prove it, but I firmly believe that if the military had been left to their own operation planning and execution that we would have had a dramatically lower casualty rate among both US Forces and Iraqi citizens during the last few years. As an example, look at Operation Desert Storm: once initiated by the politicians it was totally executed by the military until the politicians ended it. A slightly different war plan, but executed efficiently and successfully by the military with minimal political intervention.
War should be avoided if at all possible. The military has no business initiating a war; and, politicians have no business executing a war.
Posted by Trinity on August 21, 2007 11:17 AMAnd yet in WWII when we were atttacked we focused on WHO ATTACKED US! We waged war against the Japanese and the Germans. We didnt decide to attack every asian country who looked liek the Japanese, we declared war on our attackers. The right keeps forgetting that Iraq didnt attack us, never have and never will.
Posted by Another Vet on August 21, 2007 12:47 PMGrog - I suppose now that even the more cynic Democrats in congress are admitting that the surge is working (and today is the first day of the full complement surge - full troop strength), you think Bush is wrong by not bowing to demands to change PMs in Iraq?
WASHINGTON — It is up to the Iraqi parliament and public to determine the fate of the government led by Nouri al-Maliki, President Bush said Tuesday, responding to calls by war critics who now acknowledge the military surge in Iraq is working but say the prime minister must go.
Speaking at a North American summit in Quebec with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Bush said the Iraqi parliament has not completed key benchmarks set out by the U.S. Congress, but has passed 60 pieces of legislation.
He added that the public has already begun "to reject the extremists" who are daily trying to undo progress by U.S. troops there, and said a "bottom-up reconciliation" is taking place.
"The fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people," the president said, without mentioning al-Maliki by name. "And if the government doesn't ... respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians.
Damned it works, damned if it doesn't; right?
CA
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:22 PMHmmmm....
Sen. Joe Lieberman says the great majority of foreign fighters who become suicide bombers in Iraq enter the country from Syria – and most arrive there by landing in the Syrian capital at Damascus International Airport.
In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Lieberman asserts that cutting off the flow of terrorists traveling through Damascus is a key to success in Iraq.
"Al-Qaida in Iraq is sustained by a transnational network of facilitators and human smugglers, who replenish its supply of suicide bombers – approximately 60 to 80 Islamist extremists, recruited every month from across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, and sent to meet their al-Qaida handlers in Syria, from where they are taken to Iraq to blow themselves up to kill countless others,” Lieberman writes.
Up to 80 percent of those extremists enter Iraq via Syria, according to Lieberman, "because of the permissive environment for terrorism that the Syrian government has fostered.”
Most U.S. intelligence estimates are that the overwhelming majority of foreign fighters reach Syria "by flying into Damascus International Airport, making the airport the central hub of al-Qaida travel in the Middle East, and the most vulnerable chokepoint in al-Qaida’s war against Iraq and the U.S. in Iraq.”
That airport has also long been the central transit point for Iranian weapons intended for Hezbollah, Lieberman writes in the Journal.
The Connecticut Senator declares it is "time to demand that the Syrian regime stop playing travel agent for al-Qaida in Iraq,” and he says the U.S. government should develop a range of options to take against Damascus International if the Syrian government does not take appropriate action soon.
One option, he said, would be to ask "responsible air carriers” that fly there, such as Alitalia and British Airways, to stop flights into Damascus International.
Lieberman concludes: "Simply put, for the U.S. and our Iraqi allies, defeating al-Qaida in Iraq means locking shut Syria's ‘Open Door’ policy to terrorists. It is past time for Syria to do so.”
Posted by on August 21, 2007 06:33 PMPosted by on August 21, 2007 06:33 PM
Since you're so unoriginal that you must employ cut and paste on every thread:
Sir: Lieberman is a disgrace and you are a hack:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 07:44 PMHey fruitloop Charles B - Nice cut and paste like the dude you were chastising. But Lieberman was only talking about the Syrian airport being a terminal, debarkation point for terrorists from throughout the Arab world.
So what you cut and paste was just as valid as 6:33 cut and paste was. They compliment each other.
Now take your self righteous, egotistical attitude and STFU...you do the same shit and call it intelligent. So you're a little more sophisticated than him..it's still pure arrogance talking.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 08:14 PMheh.
Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 09:45 AMWhat CB doesn't recognize is the difference between a country like Iran where the government is actively supporting the terrorists and other terrorists simply originating from a country like Saudi.
Big difference.
CB - Do you understand the term discernment? You might want to apply some of it when seeking factual news sources.
Posted by KW on August 22, 2007 11:54 AMLieberman is the only democrat who would tell the truth and actually supports our troops.That's why the dems. kicked him out of the party.That's why charles b. hates Lieberman.
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 10:26 AMHas anyone else noticed that there aren't a lot of Democrats that make any sense at all. Lieberman was one who did.
As you look at their presidential hopefuls, I find myself amazed that Hillary Clinton is the only one that seem to have a lick of sense. That's scarey.
Posted by Jim on August 23, 2007 10:51 AMNo Jim, what is scary is that Republicans with one track minds like you have a vote to cast. Who do you vote for Jim? Mitt? Lazy Fred? Rotten Rudi? Senile McClain? I'll take Hilary, Obama or Edwards in a heartbeat. Though Id rather have Kucinich over any of them. Is a frontal lobotomy a requirement to join the Republican Party?
Posted by shani on August 23, 2007 11:59 AMshani,another "child left behind"
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 12:36 PM