| If we STOP spending $100 Billion in Iraq, Cut the Pork and end tax cuts to people that do not need the added money, we can do a lot of things that we need more then the Iraq war, |
Good point, in fact it is the same point that was made in the 90's when the Soviet Union fell. We slashed the number of troops from 1.5 million people, cut funding of the military and no one in Congress wanted to hear about military increases. Because of this Secretary Rumsfled had to reorganize the military to fight with what we have. To be honest he had a breakfast meeting with Congressmen to talk them into either increasing troop strength or changeing the miliatry structure on September 11 2001, he warned that we were at war in slow motion and that we were due for an attack. This was seen as grandstanding because he could not tell them when the attack would happen, and that they had to keep money aside for the social security lock box. Again this meeting took place at 7 in the morning of Sept 11 2001 in the pentagon. A few hours later we wanted more troops because social security money is worthless if the nation is dead. So your point of view is the same as the political people in charge ten years ago. Still short sighted.
| are some of the changes we need to make and I hope the democrats begin making these changes. |
Good luck with that, your wish for change is the same one the GOP had when the Dems were swept from office. As a conservative I don't much care who is in office as long as they reduce spending, so as hard as it is for you to believe, I hope you are correct. I do understand that the war is something we have to fund because the last time the Democratic Congress cut funding to a war we lost Vietnam, another war we were winning but was unpopular. Lets win then leave this time. we can cut spending on research to save money, why waste money on the arts and other wasteful projects?
BTW Welcome back!
| Right now on TV I hear Pelosi whining about corruption, and the Dems are set to put someone being investigated by the FBI in the position of control over its funding |
You don't understand. The Republicans have rules that force a person out of a postion of leadership if under investigation, the Democrats don't. So it is ok to put convicted fellons in leadership positions while at the same time scream how corrupt the republicans are.
| Even though many Democrats voted to give Bush the ability to invade Iraq the Democrats DID NOT make the decision to invade Iraq. THAT WAS 100% Bush! |
I understand your dance around this one. Three Democrats voted against the attack on Iraq. Yes, the President made the decision but he could not have made this decision without the authorization of Congress. Wait that is not true, according to the war powers act the president can send the military into combat for 90 to 180 days without congress so congress had no real say in the matter but demanded to be polled on the subject by putting it to a vote, which authorized the president to use whatever force he wants to attack Iraq. Maybe they should have worded better.
| remember pelosi waving the "minority bill of rights" on the floor years back? this week the republicans, complaining already about thieir treatment as the minority, were touting pelosi's minority bill as well...funny... |
When was the last time a Democrat in power shared that power? Never but they will demand that the republicans share power which crippled them for two years. Then they blocked everything they could the next two years and now they have the power and don't want to share anything. I would say the 12 years they were out of power proved only one thing. The Republicans in power were spineless.
JoeUser Forums
