Democrats in Revolt Over Obama’s Troop Surge

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Sunday, November 29, 2009 by The Times Online/UK

Democrats in Revolt Over Obama’s Troop Surge

by Christina Lamb in Washington

Barack Obama's much-vaunted eloquence faces the biggest test of his presidential career this week when he takes to the stage at West Point military academy to explain to a nation that thought it had elected an anti-war president why he is escalating the conflict in Afghanistan.

After almost three months of agonizing, nine war councils and endless leaks, the president will finally make his views known on Tuesday when he is expected to announce that he is sending about 30,000 more troops. This will push up American forces to 100,000 and the total number of allied forces to almost 140,000, as many troops as the Soviet Union had in Afghanistan.

<snip>

"I think the operative question is why we're there," said Anna Eshoo, a Democratic congresswoman who sits on the House intelligence committee. "That's what I'll be wanting to hear from the president."

Eshoo, who represents a seat in California where unemployment is at a post-war high of 12.5%, is one of a growing number of voices in the party questioning whether the nation can afford the war.

The annual bill for the extra troops is estimated at $30 billion (£18.2 billion), on top of the $10 billion-a-month the war is costing. "We're still not out of Iraq and we're getting deeper into Afghanistan, both of which are hugely expensive," she said.

She has joined David Obey, a Democratic congressman from Wisconsin, to introduce legislation that would impose a surtax on all taxpayers to fund the war. "It doesn't seem fair that the sacrifice is being made only by military and their families," she said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/29-2

[ClarkUSA]

1. Common Dreams is dreaming. Two House members do not a "revolt" make.

Where was this "revolt" last year, when Canddiate Obama campaigned on this issue? Just to stay real, every credible poll shows
a big majority of self-identified liberals (85% and more) not only strongly approve of President Obama's job performance, but
also support his foreign policy.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The article is from the London Times

Common Dreams merely republished it.

Are you even aware that there is going to be a summit on Afghanistan in London this coming January?

[ClarkUSA]

6. Same thing goes for the London Times.

<<Are you even aware that there is going to be a summit on Afghanistan in London this coming January?>>

I'd read about that a month ago. Thanks for reminding me. :)

[TheBigotBasher]

20. Which Political Party do you support again?

I seem to remember that the Green Party got almost no votes in the last election.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Go FRAK yourself

Ignorant toad!

[AllentownJake]

28. +1 For the Battlestar reference

[IndianaGreen]

33. Thank you! I loved that show!

Starbucks has a new show.

[AllentownJake]

34. Won't be the same

Although they got lazy with the ending.

[SIMPLYB1980]

78. You loved Battlestar?

You do realize that whole show is about how war can end terrorism by bringing the two sides together?

[vaberella]

81. Don't mess with their heads. They'll say it's fiction and move on. n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

82. LoL!

So say we all!

:evilgrin:

[AllentownJake]

86. Really

Well if we are planning on wiping out 99% of American and 99% of the Islamic world I guess I could buy that argument.

[TheBigotBasher]

39. Mildly amusing the first time

but not when done repeatedly, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=145&topic_id=11622&mesg_id=11651

so much so that the phrase when searched on google has you placed pretty near the the top.

Unlike you, I was polite.

[IndianaGreen]

41. You weren't polite. You were insulting and way off the mark!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

61. You weren't polite

and you broke DU rules.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

60. +2 For your direct response to idiotic posts

I didnt get the Battlestar Galatica reference.

[vaberella]

79. -5 for the BSG reference. I can't stand that word---always sound stupid to me. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

77. You live in the UK.

Are you even a citizen of this country?

[vaberella]

80. Anything as long as it attacks Obama. If the Disney Times targets Obama they'll use it.

Tons of mediawhores on this site. At this point, I have to say for the "leftists" it seems their president is the Media. Do you not see the amount of projection and noise when POTUS hasn't even spoken on the matter and is expected to speak on Tuesday?

[Starry Messenger]

83. Did you mean to reply to me?

I don't understand your reply in the context of my question to TBB.

[azul]

47. California Democratic Party

End the U.S. Occupation & Air War in Afghanistan

WHEREAS the California Democratic Party, concerned citizens and lawmakers are calling for a U.S> exit strategy from Afghanistan that will end the occupation and air war while ensuring the safety and security of our troops, our nation, and the region; while even the U.S. Ambassador General Karl Eikenberry expresses concern about corruption in the Afghan government and our inability to stabilize the situation; and

WHEREAS the plight of women in Afghanistan is such that they continue to bear an especially heavy price under an eight-year occupation, and that far from eradicating the Taliban and other insurgencies, the presence of foreign troops has instead strengthened them, creating greater insecurity, death and impoverishment of the Afghan, people; and

WHEREAS a majority of Americans are increasingly disturbed about the toll the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is taking on the honorable young men and women who have been killed and wounded, on the families of the these young men and women, as our involvement there continues to cost billions each month while the United States and particularly the state of California are in an economic crisis without money to fund domestic needs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party, in addition to reiterating its support for a time-table for withdrawal of our military personnel, calls for an end to the use of mercenary contractors, as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties, and urges our President to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources and to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid, multi-party talks aimed at ensuring a democratic and legitimate representation of the people of Afghanistan, as well as multi-party regional diplomacy for the safety and stability of neighboring countries; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the California Democratic Party Congressional delegation, as well as to President Obama.

###

For immediate release | 17 November 2009

Contact: Daniel Tamm, 818-795-1455

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47836

[BzaDem]

3. Anyone who thought they elected an anti-war president is an idiot.

Obama campaigned on escalating this war.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Anyone that thinks they can have health reform on top of this expensive war is mistaken

The US will pay $1.3 billion to buy off the Taliban, while having zero dollars for a serious and viable public option.

War or Health?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Cost of additional troops= 40% of health care bill

[Phx_Dem]

7. lol! Common Dreams is dreaming if they think they speak for all Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

9. David Obey was on CNN today talking about a war tax

which is the only way to pay for this war and, in Obey's words, spread the pain.

[frylock]

10. laugh it up..

fucking hilarious, isn't it?

[IndianaGreen]

11. The Left warned you about Iraq. You all ignored us! The Left is warning you about Afghanistan.

Ignore us at your own, and the country's, peril.

[Lord Helmet]

12. "us" ????? you're sounding a bit officious there, mam

[ShortnFiery]

22. Yes, US and there were many. But the conservative democrats abdicated ...

as usual. :(

[David Zephyr]

8. Billions more to Karzai and his drug dealing brother, but no job creation at home.

Democrats have been triangulated masterfully.

[4dsc]

67. TRUTH spoken here

We are doing nothing more than protecting a drug dealer and corruption in Afganistan yet no one will speak up in the democratic party..

[LibDemAlways]

70. "no job creation at home" Yep. However, look at

the bright side.

:sarcasm:

Obama is creating plenty of jobs for American defense contractors - in Afghanistan. Here's a site dedicated to putting Americans to work over there.

http://www.alljobsinafghanistan.com/

[SandWalker1984]

13. Why we will lose in Afghanistan - but hey, we need to build that TAPI pipeline

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6570380/Why-we-will-lose-in-Afghanistan.html

Why we will lose in Afghanistan

What we are hardly ever told about the country is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:47PM Nov 2009

As both Britain and America are plunged into an orgy of tortured introspection over what we are doing in Afghanistan, a further very important factor needs to be fed into the discussion, because it helps to explain not only why we have got into such a tragic mess but also why our armed intervention in that unhappy country is doomed.
What we are hardly ever told about Afghanistan is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, between two tribal groups of Pashtuns (formerly known as Pathans). On one side are the Durranis – most of the settled population, farmers, traders, the professional middle class. On the other are the Ghilzai, traditionally nomadic, fiercely fundamentalist in religion, whose tribal homelands stretch across into Pakistan as far as Kashmir.

Ever since Afghanistan emerged as an independent nation in 1709, when the Ghilzai kicked out the Persians, its history has been written in the ancient hatred between these two groups. During most of that time, the country has been ruled by Durrani, who in 1775 moved its capital from the Ghilzai stronghold of Kandahar up to Kabul in the north. Nothing has more fired Ghilzai enmity than the many occasions when the Durrani have attempted to impose their rule from Kabul with the aid of "foreigners", either Tajiks from the north or outsiders such as the British, who invaded Afghanistan three times between 1838 and 1919 in a bid to secure the North-west Frontier of their Indian empire against the rebellious Ghilzai.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after years of Durrani rule, it was to support a revolutionary Ghilzai government. But this new foreign presence inspired general Afghan resistance which was why, by the late 1980s, the Americans were supporting the almost entirely Ghilzai-run Taleban and their ally Osama bin Laden. In 1996 the Taleban-Ghilzai got their revenge, imposing their theocratic rule over almost the whole country. In 2001, we invaded to topple the Taleban, again imposing Durrani rule, now under the Durrani President Karzai.

As so often before, the Ghilzai have seen their country hijacked by a Durrani regime, supported by a largely Tajik army and by hated outsiders from the West. One reason why we find it so hard to win "hearts and minds" in Helmand is that we are up against a sullenly resentful population, fired by a timeless hatred and able to call on unlimited support, in men and materiel, from their Ghilzai brothers across the border in Pakistan.

Only in towns such as Sanguin and Garmsir are there islands of Durrani, willing to support the Durrani government in distant Kabul. No sooner have our forces "secured" a village from the Taleban, than their fighters re-emerge from the surrounding countryside to reclaim it for the Ghilzai cause. Without recognizing this, and that what the Ghilzai really want is an independent "Pashtunistan" stretching across the border, we shall never properly understand why, like so many foreigners who have become embroiled in Afghanistan before, we have stumbled into a war we can never hope to win.

*****

The US went to war in Afghanistan because the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan & India (TAPI)pipeline deal that Unocal was trying to cut with Afghanistan was rejected by the Taliban in favor of a deal with a South American company. Karzai was negotiating in favor of the Unocal deal. Bush, Cheney & company weren't going to let the Taliban negotiate "their" pipeline away.

Our soldiers are dying and our Congress is bankrupting our country so Unocal & friends can have their damn gas pipeline.

Democrats and Republicans alike are authorizing the continuation of this mega deficit creating war so a handful of corporations and private investment groups can reap billions of profits.

It's time to call it as it really is!

[LooseWilly]

38. I think that article has a couple of details reversed...

(according to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan )
Your article, the third paragraph, says: "When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after years of Durrani rule, it was to support a revolutionary Ghilzai government." ... but I think that is a spot of mangled history. According to my friend the Wiki:

On 27 April 1978, the PDPA, led by Nur Mohammad Taraki, Babrak Karmal and Amin Taha overthrew the regime of Mohammad Daoud, who was assassinated along with all his family members. The uprising was known as the Saur Revolution. On 1 May, Taraki became President, Prime Minister and General Secretary of the PDPA. The country was then renamed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA), and the PDPA regime lasted, in some form or another, until April 1992.
Once in power, the PDPA implemented a liberal and socialist agenda. It moved to replace religious and traditional laws with secular and Marxist ones. Men were obliged to cut their beards, women couldn't wear a burqa, and mosques were placed off limits. It carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers' debts countrywide and banning usury.
The government also made a number of decrees on women’s rights, banning forced marriages, giving state recognition of women’s right to vote, and introducing women to political life. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, who was a major Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council. Ratebzad wrote the famous New Kabul Times editorial (May 28, 1978) which declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.”

From the descriptions of your article, that Soviet leaning government would have to have consisted of the Durrani. The Wiki then goes on to point out:

The majority of people in the cities including Kabul either welcomed or were ambivalent to these policies. However, the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with conservative Afghans in the villages and the countryside, who favoured traditionalist 'Islamic' restrictions on women's rights and in daily life. Many groups - partly led by members of the traditional establishment who lost their privileges in the land reform - were formed in an attempt to reverse dependence on the Soviet Union, some resorting to violence and sabotage of the country's industry and infrastructure. The government responded with heavy-handed military reprisals and arrested, exiled and executed many Mujahideen "holy Muslim warriors". The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology.
The United States saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, (according to Brzezinski).

The Mujaheddin here described seem to correspond to the "Ghilzai" mentioned in your article's history. The Wiki then goes on to mention that Brzezinski & ISI efforts were successful, the training and funding of the Mujaheddin did provoke a call by the communist government of Afghanistan for Soviet assistance, which was described in US media as a Soviet invasion (was there arm twisting preceding the invitation? I don't know)... and "in response to the Soviet invasion" the US (continued) funding & training, through the ISI, of the Mujaheddin.

For the most part, I think the two articles are pretty much complementary and in agreement though. The fact that the US thought it a good idea to train and fund fundamentalists to undermine a government that was trying to extend more rights to women and bring more prosperity to the populace as a whole... I find to be coloring how much credence I, for one, feel confident in giving whatever stories of "Concern for Justice" might be shoehorned into any policy speeches in the near future.

(Ohh, and you might want to check out a Mother Jones story about "pipelineistan": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/welcome-pipelineistan)

(As well as something about the geopolitics of petrodollars from energy bulletin: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707)

[RBInMaine]

14. Democrats overwhelmingly approved Afghanistan and repeatedly criticized Iraq as a diversion from it.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Al-Qaeda leadership that was in Afghanistan in 2001-2002

is now in Pakistan. Your logic in support of Obama's war is like saying that FDR invaded Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor attack.

[ClarkUSA]

16. What is the source for that statement re: "Al-Qaeda leadership" you just made?

Unless you're privy to Top Secret National Security briefings at the WH and Pentagon, I'm not sure how you
or anyone else can say that with any level of veracity.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Are you saying that Osama bin Laden is still in Afghanistan?

Not even the Pentagon says that!

[ClarkUSA]

18. I asked you a question that I'd like you to answer without trying to deflect my attention elsewhere.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

26. I said Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and you said it was in Afghanistan

[ClarkUSA]

27. That's false. I never said anything about Afghanistan here. Again, what's your source?

Here's what you said:

IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-29-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #14

15. The Al-Qaeda leadership that was in Afghanistan in 2001-2002
is now in Pakistan. Your logic in support of Obama's war is like saying that FDR invaded Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor attack.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=24033&mesg_id=24463

What's the source for your statement above re: the location of "Al-Qaeda leadership"? It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it?

:shrug:

[mcablue]

29. Petraeus: Al Qaeda no longer operating in Afghanistan

The great Dan Froomkin on the Washington Post earlier this year, before being fired for being too liberal:

"and did you know that Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, recently said that al Qaeda was no longer operating in Afghanistan -- at all?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/2009/06/25/pf.htm


Moreover:
AP: Al Qaeda no longer operating in Afghanistan: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3870206

[ClarkUSA]

30. Nonetheless, that wasn't my question. The OP claims she knows where "Al-Qaeda leadership" is.

So I politely asked what was the source for her claim. I am still waiting for a straight answer but I doubt I'll get one.
So far, she has falsely claimed I said something I did not but that's about it.

BTW, Petraus also "says affiliated organizations still have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in the country' so he's all over the place.

:shrug:

[mcablue]

32. The leadership is in Pakistan, Petraeus said

Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in an interview that Pakistan has become the nerve center of al Qaeda's global operations, allowing the terror group to re-establish its organizational structure and build stronger ties to al Qaeda offshoots in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and parts of Europe.


GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS
The comments underscore a growing U.S. belief that Pakistan has displaced Afghanistan as al Qaeda's main stronghold. "It is the headquarters of the al Qaeda senior leadership," said the general, who took the helm of the military's Central Command last fall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182556238902393.html

[ClarkUSA]

35. Thank you for finding a source, even though it is a bit dated.

I will note again that Petraus also says of Al-Qaeda that its "affiliated organizations still have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in the
country' of Afghanistan, which explains why U.S. mission plan has been given the green light by the governments of both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Your sources illustrate the basic reasoning behind why Pres. Obama's decision to "finish the job" that Bush II refused to makes
his decision a necessary one.

Thanks again. :)

[IndianaGreen]

36. How about today (Sunday), is that current enough for you?

Page last updated at 17:39 GMT, Sunday, 29 November 2009

Pakistan must help break al-Qaeda, says Brown

Gordon Brown has told the BBC that Pakistan must do more to "break" al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden.

Questions must be asked about why nobody had been able "to spot or detain or get close to" the al-Qaeda leader, the prime minister said.

He said he wanted to see "more progress in taking out" Bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8384994.stm

[ClarkUSA]

37. All of the sources underscore the reasoning behind Pres. Obama's wanting to "finish the job"

Also from the BBC article you linked to in your previous reply: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8384994.stm

Later Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain wanted Pakistan to "join us in upping our game" in tackling terrorism
on its border with Afghanistan... he said it was "right that we recognise that stability in Afghanistan requires stability in
Pakistan too and that requires a combined effort."

We've all got to do more, Pakistan has got to do more, Afghanistan has got to do more and the international community
has got to do more, but we've also got to do better."

Thanks for this recent article. Between this source and the other sources that quoted Petraeus, they all bolster the
reasons why Candidate wanted and why President Obama wants to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and why he has the
support of both the Afghanistan President and the Pakistani PM to do so, especially since fighting will take place along
the mountainous Af-Pak border region where the Al-Qaida leadership is ostensibly hiding. And it's interesting that
PM Brown may be sending 500 more British troops into the region.

:)

[IndianaGreen]

42. The only thing that will be finished in Afghanistan is the US

We will join the other empires that tasted failure in Afghanistan.

[ClarkUSA]

44. I disagree. Pres. Obama has firmly focused on exit plans recently, not empire-building.

That alone sets us far apart from "other empires that tasted failure in Afghanistan."

:)

[IndianaGreen]

49. There are no dates in the milestones announced by PM Gordon Brown

in fact, there are no penalties for missing the milestones. This is another bullshit PR to justify an unjustifiable war.

[ClarkUSA]

63. lol! Did you really expect one? Pres. Obama won't announce one implicitly on Tuesday, either.

He will, however, make it clear that this will not be an open-ended military action. Unbiased observers understand exactly why
he postponed his long awaited decision weeks ago to demand exit plans from his Pentagon chiefs, no matter what those in the
24/7 Obama Outrage Club might say.

As for "bullshit PR" it's interesting how you take what PM Brown and Gen. Petraeus say at face value, but discount what our own
President says. I guess anything that doesn't fit into your rhetorical narrative is "bullshit PR" but if it suits your purposes, then
it's not. Suddenly, the British government, the ones who suppressed the Downing Street memos, are trustworthy dispensers
of news? :eyes:

[freddie mertz]

75. You demanded a source, in effect accusing these posters of making it up.

You owe them a statement of thanks and an apology for your uncalled for belligerence.

[ClarkUSA]

85. lol! You're the only one "making it up" as you go along. Go and nag someone else who gives a damn.

:)

[freddie mertz]

74. You never answer a direct question, in my experience.

Why do you demand that others do so?

[mikekohr]

69. Al Queda is active and present in both countries

This is the war that needed attention and action in 2001/2002. Bush's attention span, shorter than a third grader's, was diverted to Iraq.

Today, eight years later, President Obama has a number of painful/bad options before him. Fixing massive "F" ups like Afghanistan, like the economy, is never easy. That is why it is so important to get it right from the start.

mike kohr

[Enrique]

62. I didn't think that was a controversial claim

I thought everyone, regardless of how they feel about the war, assumed Al Qaeda was in Pakistan.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Al-Qaida's "affilated organizations" still has "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan.

According to Gen. Petraeus:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3870206

[freddie mertz]

76. We all did. This was just a typical flame-war tactic from this person.

He hijacks threads and creates abandoned sub-threads with these tactics every day.

You were just the latest target.

[polichick]

31. Sure, almost a decade ago. The window of opportunity closed long ago. nt

[IndianaGreen]

43. That opportunity was lost in Tora Bora

Our troops had bin Laden surrounded and asked for reinforcements, they only heard crickets!

[polichick]

46. Absolutely - and I don't think it was a mistake that we lost him...

I don't believe Bush ever intended to capture him "dead or alive."

[mcablue]

21. 57% of Democrats want Obama to reduce troop levels

Only 29% want him to increase troop levels:

[ShortnFiery]

23. You can bet that the M$M will mince the polling designs enough to "manufacture consent"

beginning the moment after President's Obama's speech.

There's a whole lot of money (TRILLION DOLLARS) to be made if the past invasions and occupations are any precedent.

Those boys and girls who comprise the private multinational corporations of the Military Industrial Complex need their MONEY. Therefore, cough up 34,000 troops to PROTECT the independent contractors who presently OUTNUMBER the military. The foregoing is the dirty little secret to this escalation. :grr: :nuke:

If you want to get to "the truth" about WAR ---> Follow the Money!

[smalll]

51. You know, if you stopped rounding off your comments with those cards,

maybe the rest of us could begin to think that maybe you're just a militant pacifist --

rather than a reason-free America-hater.

Sorry, no joke. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

54. I'm an America-hater? Whoa! You're way off base, I'm a proud AMERICAN ...

military veteran.

You are way out of line and shall I suggest UNPATRIOTIC.

[krawhitham]

45. He is everyone's president not just the Dems

[jefferson_dem]

40. It's a good thing Anna Eshoo is raising questions.

Otherwise, "Common Dreams" headline would have to read "Democrat in Revolt"...

:)

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smalll]

50. Leftbagger deviationists "in revolt:" -- those of us who paid attention last year?

Not so much. :shrug:

[msallied]

52. Leftbagger

Brilliant word.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

53. Yes, it's hilarious now but I doubt you'll get any joy from using it come 2010 and 2012? eom

[msallied]

55. I prefer to do the sensible thing.

And wait until 2010 and 2012 before making any official predictions.

[ShortnFiery]

56. It's not looking good so far ...

:evilgrin:

[msallied]

57. Don't look too happy about that, now.

I know you have a lot of vindication riding on this...

[ShortnFiery]

58. No, not at all. I'm simply attempting to get folks to THINK before we go off ...

sending our youth to KILL and DIE for a corrupt THUG government (Karzai).

But you're right in a sense: Moderate and Conservative democrats NEVER listen yet are quick to blame us liberals when you don't win in future elections.

Yes, just perhaps our LARGE democratic tent is TOO LARGE? :(

[Aramchek]

68. oooooooo, we're so scared of the LBags!!

horrified, even!! (in my best Snagglepuss)

[Starry Messenger]

59. Dittocrat.

How's that one! :rofl:

[QC]

65. Don't make her mad--she might threaten to vote Libertarian again! n/t

[Aramchek]

66. LBags for short?

[HamdenRice]

71. "Leftbagger deviationists"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dag, now I have to create some kind of macro to spit that phrase out a dozen or so times a day around here!

[Phx_Dem]

72. Let me know when progressives aren't in revolt about something.

The only Democrats "revolting" are progressives. So, what else is new?

[SIMPLYB1980]

73. LoL! Not this one.

Common Dreams never has spoken for me. :rofl: :popcorn:

[IndianaGreen]

84. The article is from the London Times

Common Dreams merely republished it.