I sent a variation of the letter below to Senators Lugar and Warner. I need to continue down the list and call when I have the chance.

"With all due respect Senator, if you do not know what the current Iraq War objectives are you must be either an ignoramus or intellectually challenged. Here it is a rehash so that even you may understand it: Kill and deter the enemies of peace and stability so as to prevent the Iraqis from giving up on their fledgling democracy due to the constant, outrageous murder of innocent people; Strengthen the Iraqi Security forces (Army and Police) so that they can do this work with minimal assistance from the US -- where we will only need to advise them and help develop their supply infrastructure. Is that too difficult for you to understand, Senator or should I send a more detailed explanation?

I have come to see the congress as filled with pompous, egomaniacal, intellectually dishonest idiots whose only concern is their careers and not the safety of our families and our children's children. With some exceptions the whole lot of you are cowardly, immoral, and suicidal. Got it now, Senator?"

I am besides myself with disgust for these fools in elected positions.

NO. It was not always this bad. I can't think of a time when half the nation was willing to play politics with our very survival while seemingly oblivious to the threat so undeniably forced upon us with the events of 9/11. Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye cause it is impossible to save a society so ill. Maybe the military will take over after two or three of our cities are nuked. We can still dream. There's really no point in continuing this sham of freedom and democracy when half the population are psychotic.

This is not the time to fight. The resolutions are symbolic - and thus, not going to do much, if anything.

The real battle will be over the funding. And as long as Bush has enough support to sustain filibusters and vetoes, then he has the trump card.

Even some of those who voted for the symbolic resolutions probably will not go for pulling the rug out from undr the troops.

The resolutions are symbolic - and thus, not going to do much, if anything.

Might hearten our adversaries a bit, which often translates into more killing of our troops. Not only one's determination but an enemy's perception of it can affect the duration and tempo of hostilities, and also political settlement. Defeatist resolutions can be morale busters for our side and builders for the wrong side.

And this is why I'm now for single term limits.

First termers more often are there to try to do things for the right reasons; it takes a few years to twist them into the DC mold. That they don't understand the system is now a plus in my eyes: the system IS the problem. It corrupts everything that is in its presence too long.

The US Senate has certainly become a reprehensible body. I can think of few good uses for the members. Your attitude, D., matches mine.

WE are a republic in name, but between ordinary citizen and Senator Warner or Hagel lies complex layers of media, corporate/special interest groups, political networks, bureaucracy. Identifying the view of the basic citizen is made impossible for these Senators.

The question is: To whom does these men owe their duty?

I should like to see the creation of a citizens Court or Forum wherein intelligent, concerned citizens were allowed to publicly cross examine Kennedy, Levin, Hagel, Warner about their duties and responsibilities. To challenge their views and behaviour. OR: in current media slang-- to make THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

To ascertain how well these figures answer to their constituents, and to other American citizens-- how well indeed to their nation.

I contacted people too and told them that if our people in Iraq are not deserting under fire thne how dare they?

The polls are weird on all this too. People want to pull out, but not right now. People think we need more troops, but not right now. People don't want the funding cut but they want the war over.

I think this is why these Senators are doing this. They are trying to straddle the line. Look like they want to end the war, but not do anything that might actually do that. It is called fence straddling.

charlotte

Having them more willing to engage in the short term gives us a chance to kill more of them.

It's interesting that the Administration has not fought this one. That tells me they are not worried about that. They're going to deploy - and then the question is whether the Dems will pull the rug out from under the troops.

Petraeus seemed to be all but saying that in his testimony.

Having them more willing to engage in the short term gives us a chance to kill more of them.

Harold, I would agree with this, and assume by "them" you're referencing the insurgents over there and not in DC :)

Seems like we are getting the answers to the wrong questions when we talk about the war. For instance, very few people will say that they 'like' or 'prefer' war. (It's hard to find in the West at least; some Iranian leaders think War is better than Peace.) But the same people will likely say that they recognize war's necessity, even THIS war, but they will not ever say they like it. That allows the press to claim that most of America is against the war... which is an answer to a different question.

I truly wish somebody would at the top (ahem, GEORGE...) and say "I don't like this war either. I want to bring our troops home and out of harms way, too. But if I do that, I'm afraid some of YOU will die, and it's my responsibility to try my best to keep that from happening. We're out of good choices here, folks... the terrorists have forced our hands."

You think a presidential candidate could say that and get elected? I do. Certainly it's not an idea that is being heard now, and the cowardly acts of the Senate and House show that they are unable to stand up and promote a new idea; they need a new idea to follow and we need somebody who is not tied to a group of cowards to promote it.

On a total side note to Dafydd: You list Sen. Joseph Lieberman as (D-CT, 80%)? Did he become a Democrat again? I thought he was still legally an independant. Sure it's his caucus... but he's not really a Democrat; that party should not profit by his actions after they purposely threw him out.

Here's what I don't understand: If they pass this resolution, Bush is going to beef up the troops and follow the new plan, just as if they didn't. So, if members of Congress openly vote against this and it succeeds, Bush gets all the credit, right? If it goes badly, Bush gets all credit. Why would Congress want to commit itself to "betting against" the most obvious course of action when they cannot affect it anyway?

Mr. Michael:

On a total side note to Dafydd: You list Sen. Joseph Lieberman as (D-CT,80%)? Did he become a Democrat again?

No, he's still an independent. But I don't play those games here: he caucuses with the Democrats, he voted for Harry Reid, he's a Democrat in all but name.

(And to be fair, the Democrats did not "purposely [throw] him out;" they simply backed another candidate against him in the primary, as we should have done in the Rhode Island primary. Lieberman voluntarily chose to leave; and as it turns out, it was a good choice, for he won reelection.)

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)