After 1012 posts and a complete ignorance of my opening note: "Here we are. A new topic. A new start. Play nice!", it's time to close our second New Developments Thread.
This thread started November 6, 2005 after the last New Developments thread passed 1000 (1008 to be exact) posts, so it's time to retire yet another thread.
The first New Developments thread, started by (if you can believe it) Criddic 3, started January 26, 2004.
21 months and 11 days later, it was closed and replaced by New Developments II.
This topic lasted 17 months and 6 days, so we've had a lot more to say in this cycle, but we're going to keep going. Look out for New Developments III.
New Developments II
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19628
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>3,391</span>
3 missing, 5 killed in attack on U.S. patrol
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American troops were on the hunt in a volatile region south of Baghdad for three members of a U.S.-led military patrol, who went missing after an insurgent attack Saturday that killed five others.
The U.S. military said attackers struck the team of seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter.
It was unclear whether the Iraqi was among the missing or among those killed, and it is not known whether the interpreter was a soldier or a civilian employee.
U.S. forces are using all assets in their search for the missing troops, who are listed as duty status whereabouts unknown, the military said.
Checkpoints have been established throughout the region and aircraft including helicopters, drones and jets have been deployed in the search.
The predawn attack occurred 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya, a city south of the capital in a region that has been nicknamed the Triangle of Death.
A nearby unit heard explosions, and 15 minutes later, a drone aircraft spotted two burning vehicles, according to a U.S. military statement.
"Coalition Forces are currently using every means at our disposal to find the missing Soldiers, and we will continue these efforts until all are accounted for," said a statement from military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell.
The search is reminiscent of the hunt last June for two soldiers who were seized at a checkpoint in Yusufiya.
The two also were listed as duty status whereabouts unknown until their bodies were found three days later.
Also Saturday, two Iraqi civilians were killed and five others were wounded when a parked car bomb detonated east of Baghdad in Mada'en, the Interior Ministry said.
Friday evening a roadside bomb explosion near a Shiite mosque in northeastern Baghdad killed one civilian and wounded five others, the official said.
Separately, the U.S. military said coalition forces arrested three insurgents and destroyed a car bomb Saturday morning during a raid in Baghdad's sprawling Sadr City.
The troops were targeting an bomb network and found bomb-making materials.
"The individuals have suspected ties to a secret cell network in the area known for facilitating the transport of weapons and EFPs from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," the military said.
The military also announced on Saturday that "several insurgents" attempting to plant roadside bombs in a southern Baghdad neighborhood were interrupted by U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces earlier in the week.
General asks for more troops
Friday, the U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province.
"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division.
Mixon's comments came as a political battle was being waged in Washington over whether funding for U.S. forces fighting in Iraq should be tied to a deadline for their withdrawal.
In Washington on Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill that would tie war funding beyond July to a progress report. The bill faced an uncertain future in the Senate, however, and President Bush vowed to veto it.
Mixon did not specify whether more U.S. or Iraqi forces were needed. He made his comments during a news briefing from Iraq via teleconference at the Pentagon.
"We have plans to put additional forces in that area. ... We have put additional forces in there over that last couple months, an additional Stryker battalion, but I'm going to need additional forces in Diyala province to get that situation to a more acceptable level."
About 3,500 U.S. soldiers, 10,000 Iraqi soldiers and several thousand police officers are stationed in Diyala. More than 3,000 additional police are needed, he said.
The level of violence has increased in Diyala, Mixon said, because the forces are increasing their offensive operations against the insurgents, many of whom have left Baghdad during the recent security crackdown, and because al Qaeda in Iraq has made Diyala a focus.
Other developments
• America's top military commander in Iraq sent a letter to troops challenging them to "occupy the moral high ground" after a Pentagon survey showed some service members were reluctant to report the "illegal actions" of fellow personnel. In the letter, dated Thursday, Gen. David Petraeus wrote he was "concerned" with the poll's findings. The survey of ethics, released last week, assessed the mental health and ethical attitudes of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines last year.
• Twenty-two people were killed and 60 were wounded Friday in two southeastern Baghdad bombings, an official with the Iraqi Interior Ministry told CNN. Two suicide bombs -- one in a car and another in a fuel tanker -- exploded in quick succession in the predominantly Shiite Zafaraniya district, each targeting an Iraqi police patrol. A bridge over the Tigris River was substantially damaged.
3 missing, 5 killed in attack on U.S. patrol
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American troops were on the hunt in a volatile region south of Baghdad for three members of a U.S.-led military patrol, who went missing after an insurgent attack Saturday that killed five others.
The U.S. military said attackers struck the team of seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter.
It was unclear whether the Iraqi was among the missing or among those killed, and it is not known whether the interpreter was a soldier or a civilian employee.
U.S. forces are using all assets in their search for the missing troops, who are listed as duty status whereabouts unknown, the military said.
Checkpoints have been established throughout the region and aircraft including helicopters, drones and jets have been deployed in the search.
The predawn attack occurred 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya, a city south of the capital in a region that has been nicknamed the Triangle of Death.
A nearby unit heard explosions, and 15 minutes later, a drone aircraft spotted two burning vehicles, according to a U.S. military statement.
"Coalition Forces are currently using every means at our disposal to find the missing Soldiers, and we will continue these efforts until all are accounted for," said a statement from military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell.
The search is reminiscent of the hunt last June for two soldiers who were seized at a checkpoint in Yusufiya.
The two also were listed as duty status whereabouts unknown until their bodies were found three days later.
Also Saturday, two Iraqi civilians were killed and five others were wounded when a parked car bomb detonated east of Baghdad in Mada'en, the Interior Ministry said.
Friday evening a roadside bomb explosion near a Shiite mosque in northeastern Baghdad killed one civilian and wounded five others, the official said.
Separately, the U.S. military said coalition forces arrested three insurgents and destroyed a car bomb Saturday morning during a raid in Baghdad's sprawling Sadr City.
The troops were targeting an bomb network and found bomb-making materials.
"The individuals have suspected ties to a secret cell network in the area known for facilitating the transport of weapons and EFPs from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," the military said.
The military also announced on Saturday that "several insurgents" attempting to plant roadside bombs in a southern Baghdad neighborhood were interrupted by U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces earlier in the week.
General asks for more troops
Friday, the U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province.
"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division.
Mixon's comments came as a political battle was being waged in Washington over whether funding for U.S. forces fighting in Iraq should be tied to a deadline for their withdrawal.
In Washington on Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill that would tie war funding beyond July to a progress report. The bill faced an uncertain future in the Senate, however, and President Bush vowed to veto it.
Mixon did not specify whether more U.S. or Iraqi forces were needed. He made his comments during a news briefing from Iraq via teleconference at the Pentagon.
"We have plans to put additional forces in that area. ... We have put additional forces in there over that last couple months, an additional Stryker battalion, but I'm going to need additional forces in Diyala province to get that situation to a more acceptable level."
About 3,500 U.S. soldiers, 10,000 Iraqi soldiers and several thousand police officers are stationed in Diyala. More than 3,000 additional police are needed, he said.
The level of violence has increased in Diyala, Mixon said, because the forces are increasing their offensive operations against the insurgents, many of whom have left Baghdad during the recent security crackdown, and because al Qaeda in Iraq has made Diyala a focus.
Other developments
• America's top military commander in Iraq sent a letter to troops challenging them to "occupy the moral high ground" after a Pentagon survey showed some service members were reluctant to report the "illegal actions" of fellow personnel. In the letter, dated Thursday, Gen. David Petraeus wrote he was "concerned" with the poll's findings. The survey of ethics, released last week, assessed the mental health and ethical attitudes of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines last year.
• Twenty-two people were killed and 60 were wounded Friday in two southeastern Baghdad bombings, an official with the Iraqi Interior Ministry told CNN. Two suicide bombs -- one in a car and another in a fuel tanker -- exploded in quick succession in the predominantly Shiite Zafaraniya district, each targeting an Iraqi police patrol. A bridge over the Tigris River was substantially damaged.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Iraq may demand timetable for U.S. to get outcriddic3 wrote:They send a bogus bill with things in it that have nothing to do with Iraq or military funds and a timetable (aka: the stupidest idea in the history of military strategy).
By The Washington Post and McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — A majority of Iraq's parliament has expressed support for a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels.
Much like what Democrats have demanded in the U.S. Congress, the Iraq draft would create a timeline for a gradual departure and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.
"We haven't asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces; we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified and at that point there would be a withdrawal," said Baha al-Araji, a parliamentarian allied with anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. "But no one can accept the occupation of his country."
In Washington, White House officials reacted skeptically. "The prime minister, the president and the vice presidents of Iraq have made it clear that they think U.S. troops are needed in Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "We've heard these claims before [from al-Sadr supporters], but they rarely materialize."
It's also unclear whether approval by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani or Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be necessary for the measure to become law.
President Bush has fought similar efforts in Congress to impose a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. He vetoed legislation last week that would have required U.S. forces to begin leaving Iraq this year. The House on Thursday passed legislation that would release $43 billion immediately for military operations but would tie future money to Iraqi approval of laws dividing oil revenues among Iraq's ethnic groups and permitting some former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to hold government jobs.
In both Iraq and the United States, frustration is deepening among lawmakers and the public over Bush's elevated troop levels, a policy that has yet to prevent widespread violence. At the same time, Bush and al-Maliki are dispatching emissaries in an urgent trans-Atlantic gambit to shore up support.
Iraq's national-security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, was in Washington before Thursday's House vote to ask Democrats to have patience with Bush's strategy and to not abandon Iraq at such a precarious time. Vice President Dick Cheney landed in Baghdad on Wednesday to press the government to act quickly on divisive political issues that the Bush administration deems necessary for long-term stability.
But as in the United States, Iraq's lawmakers are moving further away from top leaders, particularly on the issue of an American presence in Iraq.
The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to al-Sadr, and it has gained support from other Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish legislators. As many as 144 lawmakers have signed the proposal, a majority in the 275-member parliament.
"We think that America has committed a grave injustice against the Iraqi people and against the glorious history of Iraq, when they destroyed our institutions, and then rebuilt them in the wrong way," said Hussein al-Falluji, from the largest Sunni coalition in parliament, and a supporter of the timetable proposal.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
cam, note that I called the person a liar who called ME a liar, so i wasn't calling anyone a liar for no reason. I was throwing the accusation back in Sonic's face. care to READ that post again?cam wrote:criddic3 wrote:-- Sonic Youth May 6, 2007So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples lines
This doesn't twist your meaning, liar. The statement clearly indicates that you believe that my posts, in their entirety, mimick, parrot and repeat rather than forming my own opinions and expressions of thought. You may try to appear more "nuanced," but the purpose of the statement is there in your own words. Again, if you didn't feel the need to call me a liar your statements might carry more credibility, since I am clearly not lying.
I believe that you haved been fed a lot of hokum, and that you ARE a mimic. Note spelling. I believe too that you do parrots others for whom you have sympathy . Shows how young and poorly eductaed your thought processes are. This is the first time that I have ever heard you call anyone a liar. I am surprised that OG let this through.
That is the first sign of fear--calling someone else a liar. And you should be afraid. It is not too long now before your GOP heroes are shown to have feet of clay. Will you start to really think then?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Oh, cut it out already.
And you got that from a sentence you quoted which says "So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>LINES</span>?"
I said lines. The words you use. Which have been used previously by others.
That's what parrots do. People who copy opinions and ideas are sheep. I called you a parrot because you repeat others' phrases.
You really panic when you've stepped in it, don't you? Most pathologicals do.
criddic3 wrote:-- Sonic Youth May 6, 2007So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples lines
This doesn't twist your meaning, liar. The statement clearly indicates that you believe that my posts, in their entirety, mimick, parrot and repeat rather than forming my own opinions and expressions of thought.
And you got that from a sentence you quoted which says "So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>LINES</span>?"
I said lines. The words you use. Which have been used previously by others.
That's what parrots do. People who copy opinions and ideas are sheep. I called you a parrot because you repeat others' phrases.
You really panic when you've stepped in it, don't you? Most pathologicals do.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
99-1100896887
I believe that you haved been fed a lot of hokum, and that you ARE a mimic. Note spelling. I believe too that you do parrots others for whom you have sympathy . Shows how young and poorly eductaed your thought processes are. This is the first time that I have ever heard you call anyone a liar. I am surprised that OG let this through.criddic3 wrote:-- Sonic Youth May 6, 2007So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples lines
This doesn't twist your meaning, liar. The statement clearly indicates that you believe that my posts, in their entirety, mimick, parrot and repeat rather than forming my own opinions and expressions of thought. You may try to appear more "nuanced," but the purpose of the statement is there in your own words. Again, if you didn't feel the need to call me a liar your statements might carry more credibility, since I am clearly not lying.
That is the first sign of fear--calling someone else a liar. And you should be afraid. It is not too long now before your GOP heroes are shown to have feet of clay. Will you start to really think then?
-- Sonic Youth May 6, 2007So, you're a parrot repeating other peoples lines
This doesn't twist your meaning, liar. The statement clearly indicates that you believe that my posts, in their entirety, mimick, parrot and repeat rather than forming my own opinions and expressions of thought. You may try to appear more "nuanced," but the purpose of the statement is there in your own words. Again, if you didn't feel the need to call me a liar your statements might carry more credibility, since I am clearly not lying.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8789
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Sonic Youth wrote:Analyzing the InsiderAdvantage polling numbers, Barr said, "This indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush.
"I'm not sure we -- [the leaders behind Clinton's impeachment] -- ever really had hard polling numbers in favor of impeachment that were this high when we were in the midst of the process. Perhaps, but I don't recall it."
This quote is of course wildly dishonest, despite its pose of candor. Anyone who paid attention that year can tell you flat out the GOP never had 39% supporting impeachment. It was the story of that whole lamentable year: how the right wing pushed an impeachment that over 2/3 of the public opposed from start to finish. (With, of course, a huge swath of the press egging them on -- a fine contrast to today, when such action is deemed unthinkabkle by the Russert class)
The last paragraphs of this piece reflect my view: the importance of the number is not that it makes impeachment any kind of likelihood (there's really not even time for it, at this point), but that it shows what a deep hole the Republican party is in for next year's election. Chris Bowers at MyDD has it right: forget impeachment; give me realignment.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Bush-Cheney Impeachment Might Be Idle Talk, But Numbers Show True Trouble
By Matt Towery
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Townhall.com
Anti-war Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania is prominent among some Democrats in his use of the "I" word -- impeachment -- about President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Murtha made his comments on CBS's "Face the Nation" and elsewhere.
Few serious observers think things will ever get to actual impeachment. And yet the American public seems more open to the concept than many imagine, according to a new national poll. The implications of this public sentiment could be huge for the 2008 presidential elections.
Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll asked this:
"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"
Favor: 39 percent.
Oppose: 55 percent.
Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.
The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
About four out of 10 Americans favor impeaching the president and vice president. But the biggest news from this survey is not the overall results, but the opinions of independent voters, who usually decide presidential elections.
Forty-two percent of independents want Bush and Cheney impeached. These aren't just voters who disapprove of the White House. Instead, they're for initiating a process that could remove them from office.
To help put these startling numbers into perspective, I turned to the man most identified with the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, former Congressman Bob Barr.
Recall that Barr initiated the Clinton impeachment process by filing what's called an "Inquiry of Impeachment." That's a resolution that precedes an actual "Bill of Impeachment." In the case of Clinton, it was filed long before anybody had heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Analyzing the InsiderAdvantage polling numbers, Barr said, "This indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush.
"I'm not sure we -- [the leaders behind Clinton's impeachment] -- ever really had hard polling numbers in favor of impeachment that were this high when we were in the midst of the process. Perhaps, but I don't recall it."
Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now. That's probably justifiable. Their reasons for impeachment look specious.
Yet one can't help but recall that Barr sounded like a lone voice in the wilderness when he first targeted Clinton. And one of his "charges" against President Clinton was the catchall accusation of "violation of oath of office."
It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge.
Be all that as it may, the main significance of this public opinion survey isn't its potential predictive value regarding the careers of Bush and Cheney. Rather, the poll tells us that the Republican team readying to assume the party's mantle when the presidential campaign kicks off in earnest in the summer of 2008 might be facing insurmountable odds.
Independent voters are the critical demographic in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio. We track this segment of voters carefully throughout presidential contests, and we know it well. Having no true party alliance, independents can drift into either side's camp and thereby elect the president.
The fact that such a large percentage of these voters are willing to support something as drastic as the impeachment of the president and vice president tells me that the depth of the irritation with the president over his handling of the war, and over his political tin ear when (not) listening to the public's rising discontent, is becoming a powerful political force in itself.
Having been close to former Speaker Newt Gingrich when his Republican-majority House of Representatives pushed for the impeachment of a president, I can vouch that pursuit of impeachment can be tricky enough to backfire on those who initiate it.
That's why I don't expect current Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California to allow the nascent impeachment movement to grow much larger.
Nevertheless, the astounding public sentiment expressed in this poll illustrates just how far Bush and Cheney may have set their party back.
By Matt Towery
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Townhall.com
Anti-war Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania is prominent among some Democrats in his use of the "I" word -- impeachment -- about President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Murtha made his comments on CBS's "Face the Nation" and elsewhere.
Few serious observers think things will ever get to actual impeachment. And yet the American public seems more open to the concept than many imagine, according to a new national poll. The implications of this public sentiment could be huge for the 2008 presidential elections.
Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll asked this:
"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"
Favor: 39 percent.
Oppose: 55 percent.
Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.
The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
About four out of 10 Americans favor impeaching the president and vice president. But the biggest news from this survey is not the overall results, but the opinions of independent voters, who usually decide presidential elections.
Forty-two percent of independents want Bush and Cheney impeached. These aren't just voters who disapprove of the White House. Instead, they're for initiating a process that could remove them from office.
To help put these startling numbers into perspective, I turned to the man most identified with the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, former Congressman Bob Barr.
Recall that Barr initiated the Clinton impeachment process by filing what's called an "Inquiry of Impeachment." That's a resolution that precedes an actual "Bill of Impeachment." In the case of Clinton, it was filed long before anybody had heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Analyzing the InsiderAdvantage polling numbers, Barr said, "This indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush.
"I'm not sure we -- [the leaders behind Clinton's impeachment] -- ever really had hard polling numbers in favor of impeachment that were this high when we were in the midst of the process. Perhaps, but I don't recall it."
Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now. That's probably justifiable. Their reasons for impeachment look specious.
Yet one can't help but recall that Barr sounded like a lone voice in the wilderness when he first targeted Clinton. And one of his "charges" against President Clinton was the catchall accusation of "violation of oath of office."
It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge.
Be all that as it may, the main significance of this public opinion survey isn't its potential predictive value regarding the careers of Bush and Cheney. Rather, the poll tells us that the Republican team readying to assume the party's mantle when the presidential campaign kicks off in earnest in the summer of 2008 might be facing insurmountable odds.
Independent voters are the critical demographic in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio. We track this segment of voters carefully throughout presidential contests, and we know it well. Having no true party alliance, independents can drift into either side's camp and thereby elect the president.
The fact that such a large percentage of these voters are willing to support something as drastic as the impeachment of the president and vice president tells me that the depth of the irritation with the president over his handling of the war, and over his political tin ear when (not) listening to the public's rising discontent, is becoming a powerful political force in itself.
Having been close to former Speaker Newt Gingrich when his Republican-majority House of Representatives pushed for the impeachment of a president, I can vouch that pursuit of impeachment can be tricky enough to backfire on those who initiate it.
That's why I don't expect current Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California to allow the nascent impeachment movement to grow much larger.
Nevertheless, the astounding public sentiment expressed in this poll illustrates just how far Bush and Cheney may have set their party back.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8068
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
criddic3 wrote:I don't see that my believing this particular explanation means that I am simply a parrot, but then again you aren't full of original ideas in your opposition, either.
Never said that believing in this particular explanation means you're a parrot. Did you just make that up?
Never said your ideas regarding your stance on the war made you a parrot. Did you just make that up?
I said two things: 1). the way you STATE YOUR IDEAS by using shopworn, cliched phrases means you're parroting what other people say, and 2). your dishonest interpretation of what "changing the course" means from our perspective makes you a parrot, because it's the dishonest, inaccurate, lying explanation that others have made before you in the prior weeks. But as long as you can twist my meaning, liar, who cares what I REALLY said?
On the other hand, if you honestly misunderstood what I meant, I will graciously accept that, you reading comprehension impaired goof.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler