ouch

[BT]

"Why don't we go stand in the corner and stomp our feet like an 8-year-old?"

-- John Edwards, quoted by the Orlando Sentinel, chastising Senate Democratic leaders for their non-binding resolution opposing the troop build-up.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/01/19/quote_of_the_day.html

[sirs]

Ouch is right.  There's the fella that should be the Dem lead for President.  He's been consistent in his criticisms, principled in his stands, and I'm not aware of any flip flops with the wave of the polls

[Michael Tee]

Neither the website that sirs linked to nor the Orlando Sentinel article that it quoted contained anything more from Edwards' speech, just that one sentence.  Talk about quoting without context, you can't tell from the quote for sure if he's pissed off at the Democrats for their duplicity in talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time or for their cowardice in not going all the way.

[Plane]

Neither the website that sirs linked to nor the Orlando Sentinel article that it quoted contained anything more from Edwards' speech, just that one sentence.  Talk about quoting without context, you can't tell from the quote for sure if he's pissed off at the Democrats for their duplicity in talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time or for their cowardice in not going all the way.

I would guess that he wants to encourage the same language in a binding form rather than a non binding resolution .

On his own website he discusses what he wants.

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070109-escalation/

[Michael Tee]

Good for him!  (Edwards)

Blocking the funding for the escalation is a good, bold first step.  I'm sure it'll have the war-mongers screaming in pain.  Here's hoping he grows the balls to take the next step: call for cutting off all funding for all troops in Iraq in sixty days.   

Then if the "President" doesn't immediately commence evacuating the troops, move for instant impeachment on the grounds of his recklessly endangering their lives by failing to move them out of harm's way after Congress has indicated that they'll be without funds in 60 days' time.

[BT]

Then if the "President" doesn't immediately commence evacuating the troops, move for instant impeachment on the grounds of his recklessly endangering their lives by failing to move them out of harm's way after Congress has indicated that they'll be without funds in 60 days' time.

Congress and the dems will lose that PR battle.

But they are welcome to pursue it.

[Michael Tee]

How could they lose a PR battle if they defund an unpopular war and leave Bush holding the bag and looking like a schmuck if the troops are left without any funds like abandoned targets in a shooting gallery?  Every dead GI after the 60th day is laid right on Bush's doorstep.   The son-of-a-bitch would be LYNCHED.

[BT]

How could they lose a PR battle if they defund an unpopular war and leave Bush holding the bag and looking like a schmuck

Simple. Americans don't like seeing soldiers used as pawns in political games. Even if the soldiers are "too dumb to get real jobs and are low laying fruit".

[Michael Tee]

<<Americans don't like seeing soldiers used as pawns in political games. Even if the soldiers are "too dumb to get real jobs and are low laying fruit".>>

Good.  Then they'll realize not only who it was that placed those pawns way out there on the board, but who it was that refused to bring them home safely after Congress turned off the tap.  Who left them as exposed as ducks in a shooting gallery without the money to buy fuel, ammo or even food.  When he had sixty days to bring 'em all back home safe.  Ain't gonna be pretty, BT.

[BT]

Ain't gonna be pretty, BT.

Sounds like you have all your ducks in a row.

Pull the trigger and let's see who has a better read on the pulse of america.

[Michael Tee]

<<Pull the trigger and let's see who has a better read on the pulse of america. >.

I'd love to, but first the Democrats have got to grow themselves a pair of balls.

[Brassmask]

Simple. Americans don't like seeing soldiers used as pawns in political games.

Then they should be pretty pissed by all of W's actions since 9.11.

Even if they only look at this new escalation, it should be enough to send Americans flocking the DC to lynch Bush on the White House lawn.  Or is it only "political games" when the Dems do it?

[BT]

Even if they only look at this new escalation, it should be enough to send Americans flocking the DC to lynch Bush on the White House lawn.  Or is it only "political games" when the Dems do it?

When you consider how many leading dems insisted we needed more troops in Iraq and only when Bush goes along do they have a change of heart, yeah i'd say the dems are playing major political games.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When you consider how many leading dems insisted we needed more troops in Iraq and only when Bush goes along do they have a change of heart, yeah i'd say the dems are playing major political games.
================================================================
There was a time when more troops might have helped, BEFORE this mess turned into a civil war.


Juniorbush will get to shoot his last wad, but I really doubt that it'll work, and if it does, we need to remember that the one think he is really good at is screwing up and losing: it's what he's done most of his sorry-assed life.

[BT]

There was a time when more troops might have helped, BEFORE this mess turned into a civil war.

Even the Iraq Study Group recommended a surge.