I would love to watch Amy Carter debate Chelsea Clinton.

And by "debate" I mean . . .

Never mind.

This is a harsh, but excellent, article. Very thought provoking.

Interestingly, saw it referenced on a blog about non-custodial parents' rights (where he related the 10 steps to the ways the "system" works against fathers)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

I could related the 10 things to a few other things, but for now, I'll let the article stand for itself.

OK I get it. The Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq war so now they are going to make it hard to pursue the war by cutting off supply routes.

Huh. Somehow I always thought that was more or less the enemy's job.

Yep...it's amazing what they do in "support" of our troops. One has to wonder why many of these legislators didn't support this same resolution 12 years ago when Clinton opposed it.

Don't like the war....show some backbone and end it straight up; don't undercut those fighting it:mad:

Oh, so we should support rank hypocricy and, by extension, GENOCIDE ... just because it was our allies whom we depend on militarily who commited the GENOCIDE?!?


That's pretty fu<king disgusting. Bad enough that we declare it genocide 60 years later, and do nothing about Darfour's genocide in the here and now. But to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM.

Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.

And how would you characterize using Genocide as a tool of political expediency? That's what the democrats are doing in this case. A vote on this amendment now is not a vote of conscience, it is an end-run to try and reverse an unpopular political situation.

So it wasn't Genocide 12 years ago when Dole was pushing for this resolution but now it is?

As for Darfur....The State Department has called it genocide(something the UN refuses to do).

Don't worry....

When the actual subject is genocide I think exceptions should be made.

This resolution, as sleepyjeff pointed out, has been in the works for years. If the democrats have, only since the last election, come into enough of a majority to pass it ... that can only most cynically be called politically expedient timing to damage the opposing party.

A resolution about a 60-year-old genocide could hardly be expected to be at the top of the Dems legislative agenda, and it could - mind you, could be an innocent matter of timing.

That said, I'll concede that nothing in politics is an innocent matter of timing. It could be timed with electoral politics in mind. But to suggest that the timing is treasonous, and designed specifically to cut off supply lines to our own troops in wartime, is a scurolous accusation of dispicable political intent.

The only reason it is politically timed now is because it is widely believed in both parties that the surge is working very well. The dems need to make the surge not work. What possible other explanation could there be? The best way to damage the republicans politically is to make the war go as poorly as possible without making it look like they want the war to go as poorly as possible. Perhaps it is more that their own opposition to the surge and continuous rhetoric about failure and how it is unwinnable makes them look for ways to have the war go more poorly.

But make no mistake. If the dems win the Presidency, nothihng is going to change except they will find a way to support doing whatever is necessary to win in Iraq. Troops will not be withdrawn (in any less than a small symbolic way).