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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 25, 2007
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!


Send 'em. I'll gladly review them. For FREE.

Your books may be highly rated, but they ain't selling, Gene, despite you relentlessly pimping them on JU and elsewhere. Think there's a REASON for that?

I have not twisted one single word of yours, Col. Those were quotes taken in context. Chicken hawks like you make me sick because you only choose the most politically expedient side.
on Apr 25, 2007
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.


No, that is NOT correct, Col. You just mentioned in the quote I listed an area where the budget CAN be cut. Where was that in the budget that you deemed "untouchable"? What I, and others, have contended since the beginning is that there is so much pork (many, MANY instances of such overspending) that when you add them together, there are a lot of areas that could be cut before we even TOUCH "pet" programs. And your example is but one of those areas.

I know EXACTLY what you said, Col, because I ASKED YOU for clarification about the troop levels and you said specifically they needed to be escalated.

You may want to see a specialist, Col. I think the metal plate in your head is coming loose!
on Apr 25, 2007
As for calling about 50% of the voting public in America nuts, I think it is fair to say that YOU, not I, are the one who is out of touch!
2 Pages1 2