Why aren't the Senate Dems arguing the truth re: the occupation?

[Skidmore]

That * and the Rs want to keep us in Iraq to own the oil fields. They don't want out ever! That's what this whole stinking thing was about. The one who has come the closest amazingly is Feinstein, who concluded her presentation with "Iraq for the Iraqis."

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Thank you for calling it the "occupation."

You must have read my earlier post. :hug:

[mdmc]

3. I opposed this war due to the fact that regime change would

result in decades of occupation. "In for a penny, in for a pound."

The Dems (with the exception of Ted Kennedy, the black caucus, and the progressive caucus) are almost as responsible as w. and the GOP for the situation in Iraq.

By not opposing this war, they enabled the occupation.

[BOSSHOG]

2. One would think a rational individual

would be doing everything in their power seeking alternative fuels for his country. But we are talking bush. He and cheney and rove and the rest of the pnac morons screwed the fucking pooch and now they are resorting to labeling liberals as cowards. Totally fucking pathetic human beings. We fucked up, now what are you going to do about it. And their base slurps it down like a bourbon street whore.

[Vincardog]

4. Because opposing the occupation would allow them to be labeled as weak.

That is what the corporate strategists age telling them. I say have the strength to speak Truth To Power. End the Occupation NOW.

[BeHereNow]

5. Because their asses are owned by the coporate thugs that profit most?

You know, the same thugs that own the republican asses
sitting in the senate?

Because there is no two party system under
corporate rule?

Sorry but this debate is a cruel joke
and an insult to any thinking person.

It's like an elaborate piece of theater-
a farce paid for by we, the people.

BHN

[Amy6627]

6. Because they do whatever the repukes tell them to do! With few exceptions