From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
And Harry Reid should resign his leadership post....for the good of the troops, and the country.
Published on April 24, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
Today, Vice President stood up before the cameras following his hospital visit involving a blod clot in his leg. Cheney blasted Reid for taking 3 positions in the last 6 months on the war. And Reid has.

He has gone from saying there will be no defunding of the troops, to saying that there will be a condition based bill, to suggesting that Senator Russ Feingold's bll to defund the troops will be brought before the Senate floor.

And Cheney was right in pointing out the Senator's movement on the issue. And Reid, as leader of the Senate, has been an embarrassment.

Even before the Nevada lawmaker became majority leader, he was linked to crook lobbyist Jack Abramoff, albeit loosely. He has been involved in other mis-steps, poorly worded statemements and poorly cast votes at least going back to his vote to authorize the war in 2002.

Harry Reid should resign his leadership post.

And the democrats (usual caveat about me not being of one or the other party) should have a leader who did not vote for the war in 2002. That might be the best and strongest statement the democrats can make about this war. If the democrats are going to have any standing in 2008 as the "anti war" party and the party that can responsibly and ASAPly as possible they should have a leader who is at least consistant on the issue.

I'm not a big fan of Reid. He was a coward at the beginning of his tenure as majority leader as he let Mitch McConnell push him around and now seems to be trying to say anything, no matter how over reaching and inconsistant with his past record to try to cover his behind. His leadership, in a nutshell, has been abysmal.

And anyone who reads my stuff knows that I like dick Cheney much less than I don't care for Reid. But again, here, he makes a valid point. One that the democrats should respond to. Not by letting Reid fire back more rhetoric at the vice president, surely making more bad statements just to try to win the argument.

The democrats should do better and send Reid back to a regular senate seat.

Then maybe they will have more credibility on the war to more people with leadership that has been consistant and principled on the issue.

The Republicans keep daring the Democrats to actually draw the line in the sand. The democrats should take that dare. The vast majority of Americans want a responsible departure from the civil war we are refereeing. Maybe if someone other than Mr Reid had been the party leader when the surge plan was pitched to Congress via the Patreaus nomination, he wouldn't have gotten confirmed 81 to 0. At least there were 19 Senators with some integrity. Maybe one of them should be leading the party at a time when our casualty list is approaching 30,000 and some things are just more important than winning a media soundbyte argument with Dick Cheney.

The administration and both the democrats are in a "state of denial," as Reid likes to say. the President & Co. by their ignorance of the facts on the ground and lack of respect for the American people, ntt to mention the Constitution. And the democrats for letting a bad leader continue to lead.


Comments (Page 1)
on Apr 24, 2007
First, NOTHING Cheney has said about Iraq has been shown to be true.

The Congress is acting to provide the funding and may attach the restrictions on the war if that is what the majority votes to do.

The American people in November 2006 voted for a change. Bush and Cheney refuse to act in accordance with what the vast majority want and they refuse to accept the fact we have placed our military in a NO WIN Civil War today. What Congress authorized was accomplished 4 years ago. Congress never authorized the U.S. to be engaged in a Civil War in Iraq.

When it was time for Chaney to serve he was a Draft Dogger using not less then 5 deferments to avoid Military service.

Bush got his father to keep him out of Vietnam with a commission in the National Guard he did not earn and then Bush failed to obey orders in the Guard and got away with it and was granted an early honorable discharge he did NOT EARN or DESERVE!

It is time for Congress to end this war and if Bush were to veto the funding bill the Congress should either pass the same bill again or provide funding for just a few months to give time to safely withdraw from Iraq!
on Apr 24, 2007
It is time for Congress to end this war and if Bush were to veto the funding bill the Congress should either pass the same bill again or provide funding for just a few months to give time to safely withdraw from Iraq!


Wait...you are the same person who called for INCREASING the level of troops in Iraq, Col. Can't even stay consistent with your OWN position, can you?
on Apr 24, 2007
on Apr 24, 2007
Gideon

Yes 4 years ago an increase of 350,000 troops is what was needed. 30,000 now will do no good. The time to control the sectarian violence was when Saddam fell. Not after both the internal groups as well as the foreign terrorists have organized and become the extreme danger we see almost every day. If Bush had listened to the generals in 2003 he might have been able to prevent the Civil War and the establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq. Did you even hear of the saying, “A day late and a dollar short"? To bring Iraq under control and disarm all the internal and foreign terrorists would require even more then the 500,000 that were needed in 2003.

Our military could end the fighting in Iraq with 5 times the troop levels we currently have in country and if we were willing to pay a huge cost in death and injuries, both American and Iraqi, as well as another trillion dollars. It is not going to happen with another 30,000 troops!!!!! By mid summer, the situation will either become untenable or the warring groups will go underground and wait until we leave. In no event will the long term result of the Bush policy be a stable Iraq. There will be a violent fight to settle what faction will control Iraq and we will be blamed for this carnage that will follow our departure from Iraq!
on Apr 24, 2007
That's all good, except you weren't SAYING this four years ago, Col. Try about six MONTHS ago! I don't remember the exact debate but I do remember the topic at hand: the 2006 budget!

With your doublespeak you're doing a marvelous job of following the herd, Col. Congratulations on your promotion to bleating sheep!
on Apr 24, 2007
Gideon

You are WRONG. In my first Book, Four More For George W? I said the very same thing. That book was written in late 2003 and published in early 2004. Look on page 29 of my first book.
on Apr 24, 2007
You are WRONG. In my first Book, Four More For George W? I said the very same thing. That book was written in late 2003 and published in early 2004. Look on page 29 of my first book.


1) I'm not BUYING your book. If you'll send me a free copy, I'll gladly peruse it, and probably even offer a review. But I won't buy it.

2) I don't care what you said in your book. What you said IN HERE when told that the budget could be cut was that it was impossible to cut the budget and that we needed to increase the troop level in Iraq. I remember it very well, so don't you EVER call me a liar again, got that? If need be, I'm sure I can find it.
on Apr 24, 2007
I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for, but I found several nice snippets. One's off topic about the war, but I wanted to post it because you need to start being held accountable for your words, Col.:

This post is hardly a plea for troop removal, is it?

Feb 15, 2005

Congress needs to act quickly to approve The President's $81.9 Billion request to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This money should not be added to the deficit. Two suggestions to pay for this added expenditure are to rescind the tax cuts for the top two income brackets or make the $82 billion a loan. In no event should Congress increase the deficit which is estimated by President Bush at $ 427 Billion without this $81.9 Billion. It is time to STOP charging and start paying for what we spend! In every other war, the American taxpayers have been asked to pay the added cost of war by increasing taxes.



Here's the off topic one. Since you feel so fine about calling ME a liar, let's just call you out on some of your own. You repeatedly insist taxes must be increased because there is no money in the budget to cut. Yet, your other face states:

Jan 30 2006

The results of the first Audit of our Iraq rebuilding program were released by the U S Inspector General for Iraq. The deficiencies are astounding. Tens of Millions of our tax dollars were totally wasted. The issues include both incompetence and fraud. The auditors found the inexperienced American Officials including workers from the Bush election campaign are responsible. In one program dealing with rebuilding oil revenue auditors were unable to account for $97 Million of the $120 million dollar project. The auditors concluded, those deficiencies were so significant that we were precluded from accomplishing our stated objectives.

Another example of how George W. Bush abused his power to appoint political cronies that were incapable of meeting the responsibilities of the offices to which they were appointed by Bush! Another FEMA!


And now, here are two articles calling for higher troop levels:

Jan 4, 2006

In the past few weeks Bush has been telling us that his Generals tell him more troops would just make the insurrection in Iraq worse. They may be correct and all that is the way Bush is trying to deflect criticism from the way he conducted the war.

From the very first day after Saddam fell, we began loosing control in Iraq. We did not have the force levels we needed as most of the Generals now admit and as Sen. McCain
told us. We did not prevent the old elements of Saddam's forces from operating in the areas we bypassed on our hurry to Baghdad. We did not prevent the terrorists from using the ammo from several hundred ammo dumps thought the country. We did not prevent foreign elements from coming into Iraq and begin terrorist operations. We allowed the insurrection to begin and that has resulted in most of the American deaths and injuries. If we had the forces needed, we would have established control from day one and never allowed the carnage we see day after day in Iraq.

Below is just one link that helps document how inept the Bush plan for this war has been from the start.


May 1, 2006

When the invasion plan was presented after Bush took over the plan called for just under 500,000 troops of all types to successfully invade and CONTROL Iraq. Under intense pressure as clearly documented in Gen Trainor's book, when Rumsfeld learned the plan required 500,000 troops he said that was not correct and told Franks it would only take 150,000. Gen Franks was instructed to revise the plan and reduce the number of troops. He returned with a requirement of 385,000 And Rumsfeld rejected it again. Gen Franks went back and came with the final number 300,000. What did Bush send? 150,000. All this advice except Ambassador Bremer's input was BEFORE the war and was TOTALLY rejected by Bush. Zinni warned a Senate committee BEFORE THE WAR that the lower troop levels WOULD NOT enable us to control IRAQ.


Like every other chickenhawk, you did not call for bringing the troops home until it was politically advantageous to do so, Col. I don't give a damn what you SAY you said three years ago in your book, the truth is, I remember what you DID say in here. And if that contradicted your actual opinion, then it says a lot about you, doesn't it?
on Apr 25, 2007
Gideon

“1) I'm not BUYING your book. If you'll send me a free copy, I'll gladly peruse it, and probably even offer a review. But I won't buy it.” That is your loss. I have demonstrated that I know what I am talking about. All the issues I covered and the predictions in my 2004 book about the impact of GWB have come to pass.

“2) I don't care what you said in your book. What you said IN HERE when told that the budget could be cut was that it was impossible to cut the budget and that we needed to increase the troop level in Iraq. I remember it very well, so don't you EVER call me a liar again, got that? If need be, I'm sure I can find it”.

I NEVER said the budget could not be cut. What I said is the budget could not be cut to achieve a balanced budget and to repay the debt. That is correct. The only way to cut enough to accomplish that objective would be to eliminate programs that are needed and that would harm millions of Americans. It would also require cuts that will not happen and do not agree with what the majority want. The cuts may satisfy some right wing NUTS but not the majority of Americans.

I said we needed 500,000 troops at the OUTSET of the war. Again you twist what I post. I said adding 30,000 troops today will just result in MORE American dead and wounded with no chance to end the violence. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I SAID!

YOU NEED TO READ BOTH OF MY BOOKS since your posts show you live in a world different from the one that exists!!! YOUR posts are like what the some misguided members of the Army have done with distorting the Tillman and Lynch stories. They took these incidents and tried to make a PR story to gain popular support for the Iraq War! You twist what I posted to support the failed policies of Bush. That is what is CLEARLY DOCUMENTED in both of my books! You may not like the facts I point out but that are accurate!
on Apr 25, 2007
Gideon

Unlike the statements about Iraq made by Cheney, which have been shown to be just about 100% WRONG, my observations have proven accurate. The same is true about what I said concerning the Budget, deficit, trade, energy etc.

Both my books received HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by Midwest Book Review.
on Apr 25, 2007
Both my books received HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by Midwest Book Review.


So is Mein Kampf.
on Apr 25, 2007
Both my books received HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by Midwest Book Review.


So is Mein Kampf.


ummm,,,feel free to discuss policy and opinion differences here...but the cheap shots aren't necessary.

on Apr 25, 2007
Sean

If you had read my books you would know they have NOTHING to do with Mein Kampf!

Again you interject something that has NOTHING to do with my post. How many books have you written that have been reviewed and received a similar recommendation? Nothing you say can change the fact that I went on RECORD in my books and the facts now have shown that what I have written was correct. There are some elements in my books that deal with future outcomes. Just wait and see how accurate I will prove to be in the future.
on Apr 25, 2007
Sean

If you had read my books you would know they have NOTHING to do with Mein Kampf!


i'm sure they don't. and i'd read your books, but honestly, i must claim ignorance to the titles. what are they and where can i find em? i've read everything from barack's book to culture warrior in the last several months et al...i enjoy a wide variety of perspectives. i'm currently trudging thru "team of rivals" about lincoln and his presidency. it's a little slow for my tastes, so i could use a break from it. do ya want a formal review?

btw,,,i'm guessin the rest of your response has nuttin to do with me, lol.

on Apr 25, 2007
Sean

My books are available from Amazon or go to www.saveusanow.com