Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJust a few minutes ago, the Obama Administration's $106 billion war supplemental passed on the House floor by a vote of 226-202. Congressional Democrats who oppose military escalation were in a tough position. They were whipped aggressively by both Speaker Pelosi and the White House. And they support President Obama.
Which is exactly why they did the right thing in voting no.
President Obama himself has said, "There's got to be an exit strategy." Yet we are sliding into a military escalation and commitments without a full and necessary national debate about the ends, means, or exit strategy for this war.
Progressive legislators are taking a principled stand in saying "No", as are millions of citizens across the nation who oppose the war in Afghanistan. The cynical fear mongering of the right -- arguing against the supplemental based on the possible transfer of detainees to US supermax prisons -- made this vote even more difficult. But unlike the Limbaughs and Cheneys, we want Obama to succeed.
The "Af-Pak" policy not only threatens to endanger Obama's domestic agenda -- bleeding vital resources needed for economic recovery -- but it also poses a threat to his eloquently stated desire to reengage the international community, including the Arab world. As Tom Andrews of Win Without War writes today, "The presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country."
This supplemental also continues a troubling pattern of allocating resources in a manner that contradicts the Administration's own stated counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. Nearly $80 billion of this bill goes towards military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only $10.4 billion is allotted to the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). But COIN strategy calls for 80 percent of resources to be used for non-military purposes like economic development, and just 20 percent for the military.
It's going to take time to reframe this debate, and shift the focus to a smart, effective, and responsible withdrawal plan from Afghanistan -- one linked to regional diplomacy, economic development, and a human security approach that would end air strikes and provide protection through multinational peacekeeping forces not special ops.
Those who voted against the supplemental are beginning to create the space for the debate we need and the still missing exit strategy (as are progressives like Robert Greenwald and Jane Hamsher). We need to continue to engage the Administration in a respectful but critical discussion about the dangers of military escalation. Progressives outside the Beltway can do their part by stepping up and supporting these courageous legislators as they continue to fight for alternative policies.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
And now, we'll have another round of disappointed, even bitter folks on the Left...
and "See? See? Obama's following Bush's policies" Right....contradicting their OTHER statements on how "Obama wants to surrender the War on Terrorism and just 'talk nice' to the bad guys".
Regardless, my two questions stand from the first post on this a few days ago-
1. Is Obama as stupid as Bush?
2. Does he want to go into 2012 with a messy war still going on?
I say "no" to both...and eventually, just not right now, the disappointed Left will be happier...
and those on the Right with their light praise, able to use only ONE version of their spin on Obama's foreign policy.
So atleast they'll be able to be consistant.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:30pm
KvH's optimism is endearing, but with a Congress and a President in the pockets of Wars R US, we ain't a-going nowhere.
Mr Commander in Chief says "There's got to be an exit strategy." Didn't LBJ and Nixon say the same thing? That's how I remember it.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/16/2009 @ 6:31pm
Didn't LBJ and Nixon say the same thing? That's how I remember it.----Posted by Citizen54 at 06/16/2009 @ 6:31pm |
You were privy to Pentagon internal memos?
Because other than those, the term "exit strategy" wasn't in the public lexicon until the early 90s.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:50pm
KvH, can we really, really defund and withdraw from Afghanistan? Are you positive that would be preferable to a sincere clear, hold, build approach? That's the propaganda I've been washing my brain with... compelling stuff. Aren't the children, especially the girls, likely to have no hope of anything unless force is part of the equation?
Posted by winyahn at 06/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Aren't the children, especially the girls, likely to have no hope of anything unless force is part of the equation? Posted by winyahn at 06/16/2009 @ 9:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it is the children who suffer most when force is part of the equation.
you are evidently another member of the grrr, kill, kill club.
"war is not the answer" M. Gaye
we have made war in Afghanistan for eight years now. how many more years?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 10:07pm
you are evidently another member of the grrr, kill, kill club.
"war is not the answer" M. Gaye
we have made war in Afghanistan for eight years now. how many more years?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 10:07pm
Once again, JR comes out in support of the Taliban over a future for women and children in Afghanistan.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 10:28pm
The irony of throwing more money at fruitless imperial wars, while virtually ignoring the BRIC mtg at Yekaterinburg (!), where de facto US bankruptcy proceedings got underway officially ... just brilliant, what a symmetry of stupidity.
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 01:01am
Posted by winyahn at 06/16/2009 @ 9:47pm We are fighting the same guys the Soviets did during their Afghan war. The Soviets were the bad guys back then. Who are we now? Oh, and by the way, the drain on the Soviet economy that resulted from their war in Afghanistan was a major factor in their unraveling. Perhaps history will repeat itself.
Posted by raaustin at 06/17/2009 @ 07:23am
In connection with Katrina's article, here's and article that paints a very grim picture of the future.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/usa-news/the-american-empire-is-bankrupt/5827/
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 07:52am
You were privy to Pentagon internal memos? Because other than those, the term "exit strategy" wasn't in the public lexicon until the early 90s. Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes, yes I was privy to Pentagon internal memos.
But even you, Mask, an expert etymologist, can glean this information by reading a few biographies of LBJ and Nixon.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:18am
Enter exit strategy. When? The earliest use I can find is from a March 1979 Harvard Business Review article by Profs. Robert Hayes and Steven Wheelwright: "The company must now make two kinds of decisions. The first relates to both the entrance and the exit strategies for a specific market."
Reached in Cambridge, Mass., and notified that his is the earliest citation in the data bank, Professor Hayes says: "We did not coin the term exit strategy for that article. I'm sure I had heard the term elsewhere. We were writing for people out in the manufacturing field, and we used terms that would have already been familiar to them."
Honest Bob's firm disclaimer of what is surely a major coinage leaves us with an etymological mystery: who did coin exit strategy, and when? This is a job for the Phrasedick Brigade. Anyone with specific citations earlier than 1979 -- not fuzzy recollections, but hard clippings or transcripts -- can send them to Exit Strategy, The New York Times Washington Bureau, 1627 I Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. (How do I get out of this?)
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:18am
Citizen, YOU were the one who used the phrase "That's how I remember it" concerning "exit strategy" use by Johnson and Nixon...not me.
Not "as I believe" or "as I would assume"...but "how I REMEMBER it."
And I assume you are over 45 years old or were a very advanced child.
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:50pm
He could be remembering the early 90s, Mask. Wikipedia could also be wrong. One could also reasonably reinterpret Peace with Honor as "exit strategy" once that term became available.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 09:29am
OED puts the first mention in 1973 by Stephen A. Wakefield of the Interior Department. Given this phrase has military connotations, I think we could reasonably assume that it originated there, gained some currency and then was co-opted by other departments. So, I would say anyone working at higher levels of government possibly heard the phrase prior to 1973.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/17/2009 @ 09:54am
There is certainly nothing wrong with allocating funds in a continued attempt to eliminate those who kill anyone indiscriminately and purposely in the pursuit of their goals, so I'd refer to those who voted against the measure REgressives, not PROgressives.
Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 06/17/2009 @ 10:50am
Posted by srjenkins at 06/17/2009 @ 09:54am
Well, 1. 1973 was Nixon, not Johnson.
2. Citizen said he "remembered it that way"...not "interpreted it that way".
3. Wakefield in the Interior Dept. may have heard it, but that's still not general public useage, as would be seen in newspapers or TV....unless, again, maybe Citizen was in the Executive Branch during the late 60s/early 70s?
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 11:20am
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 11:20am
I can't speak for Citizen. I think you are correct in pointing out that Johnson gave up the notion of containment late, but while looking for a peace settlement, I don't think he made any promises about anything. So, I don't think this part of Citizen's comment is true.
You are also correct in pointing out that there is some ambiguity in Citizen's comment. However, he could be remembering reading a biography, what he learned in a class or whatever - and semantically the statement would be true, even though it is ambiguous.
I'd also nitpick and say that remembering is interpreting. For example, you might talk about your network of friends when you were a child - but you are applying a concept that was developed later to the past. It's no different here.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/17/2009 @ 11:57am
As for what LBJ did or didn't do, we have the Pentagon Papers & MacNamara's partial testimony. Perhaps Caro's final volume of the LBJ bio will reveal more.
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 12:41pm
good one Sloper. Caro is a great historian. he has the ability to illuminate our "sacred monsters" from all sides, revealing them to be complicated and human.
by all means read his bio of Robert Moses in NYC
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 1:37pm
while virtually ignoring the BRIC mtg at Yekaterinburg (!), where de facto US bankruptcy proceedings got underway officially ... just brilliant, what a symmetry of stupidity.
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 01:01am
sloper,
You imply that the administration is "ignoring" what's going on at BRIC. Just because they're not talking publicly about it yet (or reacting hysterically as you would seem to want them to do), please don't confuse that with ignorance of the situation. There is a thing called "diplomacy" which is best used when NOT played out in the public sphere.
Regardless of what they may or may not decide to do to "punish" the USA for our economic arrogance, we STILL have the largest economy in the history of the world. If they want to bring it down, they will only hurt themselves.
But I ask you, who gave them the keys to the car that could bring it all down? NOTE: the answer is NOT Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:37pm
while virtually ignoring the BRIC mtg at Yekaterinburg (!), where de facto US bankruptcy proceedings got underway officially ... just brilliant, what a symmetry of stupidity.
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 01:01am
sloper,
You imply that the administration is "ignoring" what's going on at BRIC. Just because they're not talking publicly about it yet (or reacting hysterically as you would seem to want them to do), please don't confuse that with ignorance of the situation. There is a thing called "diplomacy" which is best used when NOT played out in the public sphere.
Regardless of what they may or may not decide to do to "punish" the USA for our economic arrogance, we STILL have the largest economy in the history of the world. If they want to bring it down, they will only hurt themselves.
But I ask you, who gave them the keys to the car that could bring it all down? NOTE: the answer is NOT Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:38pm
sorry for the double post. Computer problems....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:42pm
But I ask you, who gave them the keys to the car that could bring it all down? NOTE: the answer is NOT Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:38pm The right wingers posting here will say it was FDR and that Commie Repub Eisenhower.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 3:11pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/17/2009 @ 11:57am
I don't like people who "fudge" on things they "remember". PONTIFICUS tried that once with -
"I'll never forget Tom Brokaw's 'analysis' the day Carter got booted. Tom intoned: "America threw a collective temper tantrum yesterday."
A. It wasn't Carter, it was the 1994 midterms.
B. It wasn't Brokaw, it was an EDITIORIAL...on the radio...by Peter Jennings.
Too much "interpreting is remembering" leads down Winston Smith's "memory hole", sj.
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 3:24pm
There is no doubt that memory is unreliable, particularly over time. I'd argue that part of the problem is that it is reinterpreted in the light of subsequent experience.
You can see that everywhere, including your own posts where you talk about presidential elections. For example, your comments about George McGovern and the youth vote have to change in light of Obama winning the under 30 crowd by 34% points. The impact of blacks also shows how locking up 80+% of a minority can change the momentum in an election.
By the same token, you have to be careful that fiction doesn't replace reality. I remember reading in George Vaillant's Aging Well that one of the people in the Harvard Study on Adult Development had received a questionaire, and he thought it was mistakenly sent to him. He had reinterpreted his history so much that he no longer recognized documented behaviors of his past.
It is an interesting issue. It's not one that lends itself to much discussion here among the Google pundits.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/17/2009 @ 3:53pm
Typical of that prissy little socialist, wanting to spend money on anything, as long as nothing is accomplished.
In this case, I share some of her concerns re. troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'd like to see them all pulled immediately, before another one of our precious sons is injured.
Then I would like to see the skies of both countries swarming with Predator drones armed to the teeth and obliterating anything that even looks unfriendly, as in carrying a weapon, and bombing anything that resembles a terrorist training camp.
We should do this for the next twenty years, if necessary, no matter what the cost to our treasury or the population of those countries. Those who want freedom should be willing to finance it, and those who harbor terrorists should be ready to face the consequences.
Posted by Elcobar at 06/17/2009 @ 4:15pm
Obama and his administration have NO Plans to pull out of either Iraq or Afghanistan at all - we will be in those countries well past the SOFA agreement, the next election, etc. We are building massive bases over there so that we can keep control of the OIL - the HEROIN and the BORDERS of those countries.
OBAMA IS GEORGE W. BUSH the 3rd! Obama is a LIAR and A WAR Mongewer! Obama is a HOAX!
Plain and Simple.
One Big Ass Mistake America!
Posted by kristofeR! at 06/17/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by Elcobar at 06/17/2009 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 5:15pm
Obama is a HOAX! Plain and Simple. One Big Ass Mistake America! Posted by kristofeR! at 06/17/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
be that as it may, Obama is president at least until Jan. 19th 2013.
suffer
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 5:17pm
You have turned "The Nation" into an apologist for the warmongering Democratic Party. I've lost track of The Nation" in recent years, reading only articles that people mail to me or that I come across on the Web, but as someone who, as a college student, once grabbed The Nation and read it cover to cover, I'm shocked.
You want Obama to succeed? At what? What do you think Obama's goals are? Throughout the campaign he said "More troops! Strong defense! Finish the job in Afghanistan! Gotta get rid of this 'don't ask, don't tell' rule."
You want Obama to succeed at this? These are the goals he laid out and he's pursuing them. You want him to succeed?
Posted by Ann_Garrison at 06/17/2009 @ 8:40pm
what would McCain do, Ann?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 8:50pm
IMHO the downside potential (following) calls for even an imperfect, chronic effort on our part, with lives lost = 100:1 over doing nothing, and a real upside for the next generation:
increasing Taliban fascism stretching into decades.
But I respect differing, progressive views.
Posted by winyahn at 06/17/2009 @ 9:05pm
Posted by Ann_Garrison at 06/17/2009 @ 8:40pm
Neocon poser or pure as the driven snow? Anyway, can you name any other "warmongers" in the world? Really think the Taliban aren't? How about the Apache or Maori or Hezbollah or Mossad?
http://www.milnet.com/tgp/tgpndx2.htm
I'm banking some are worse than others, e.g. Taliban-vs. Obama et al, and this is the very messy reality you're not confronting.
Posted by winyahn at 06/17/2009 @ 9:56pm
Two things.
First off, the "exit strategy" back-and-forth is dumb. He wasn't saying Nixon and Johnson used precisely those words, he was saying that they referenced the same concept. All the discussion over when the precise term came into being is interesting but irrelevant.
Second, simply saying "grr kill kill" to arguments against withdrawal doesn't constitute a response, and "war never does any good" is a demonstrably false assertion. Or more precisely...war is always an evil, but it is sometimes the lesser of the evils from which one can choose. To challenge those favoring a presence in Afhganistan, you have to actually answer their arguments, and though the Predators in Pakistan don't seem to be doing much if any good, to say that there should be no presence in the entire region seems like a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/17/2009 @ 11:25pm
"American taxpayers, should this supplemental pass the Senate, would have to borrow money from foreign countries like China to loan to the IMF for this boondoggle. The IMF global bailout funding jettisoned nearly all Republican support for the bill.
"Unfortunately, Democratic leaders decided the bailouts here in America weren't enough," House minority leader John Boehner said of the bill. "They've insisted on including a $108 billion global bailout in a bill that is supposed to fund the troops. That's $30 billion more than we're spending for our troops -- in a bill that's intended to be about troop funding. What does a $108 billion global bailout have to do with protecting our troops and giving them the tools they need for victory? Families are struggling as it is today's economy, and they shouldn't be asked to bail out foreign countries as well."
Five Republicans were wooed away by the White House and voted in favor of this IMF scheme: Cao (La.), King (N.Y.), Kirk (Ill.), McHugh (N.Y) and Miller (Mich.).
20 hard-core leftists voted against the supplemental the first time around but voted to pass the conference report actually funding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bitterly disappointing their base, these votes represent the left's hall of shame on the war funding: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (Mass.), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner. John Lewis, who originally voted against the supplemental, did not vote."
Try reading the bill itself and you will find that we pledge up to FIVE times this to the IMF!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 12:03am
to say that there should be no presence in the entire region seems like a recipe for disaster. Posted by Thrawn at 06/17/2009 @ 11:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
after eight years? that is the disaster.
whenever a poster writes "kill them all" (I paraphrase) i think grrr, kill, kill is the perfect response.
you Thrawn, you and I are very different. you twist yourself into pretzels, with longwinded intellectualized arguments. entertaining yes. often in a losing argument? yes.
I am more direct, and yes, more emotional.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 08:35am
by all means read his bio of Robert Moses in NYC Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 1:37pm
I only have to stroll over to Prospect Ave Bklyn to view the destruction RMoses wrought as his last act of urban renewal.
Or go to Jones Beach or Riis Pk to enjoy what he did when New Deal values were in the ascendancy.
Caro caught it all.
His 4th & final LBJ volume will have to cover 22 Nov 63 & the US war against the Vietnamese ... extremely difficult topics for even the best of historians.
Posted by sloper at 06/18/2009 @ 09:59am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=sloper
what's truly frightening are the projects he did not complete. the lower Manhattan expressway, and a bridge to Brooklyn from south ferry. argh.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 12:02pm
Off another blog...an INCREDIBLE hypocrisy (that RIO didn't seem to get)--
"Five years ago, George W. Bush and the GOP excoriated John Kerry for abandoning the troops.
His sin: Kerry voted against an $87 billion war funding bill to protest unrelated tax cuts included in it, then explained it badly by saying, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Shoe, meet the other foot.
Tuesday night, 170 House Republicans pulled a collective Kerry -- voting against a $106 billion war funding bill most of them had previously supported, because this version contained money for the International Monetary Fund.
The move, spearheaded by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), has sparked howls of hypocrisy from Democrats and murmurs of dissent from Republicans who fear it will give Democrats a once-in-a-decade shot at attacking the GOP on national security.
"It was a vote to support the troops; to be voting against it was to be voting against the troops -- so it was a mistake," said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), one of five moderate Republicans to join the majority of Democrats in approving the measure 226-202.
"The American Legion supported the bill, for God sakes," added King, who was lobbied personally by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "If I'm marching in the Fourth of July parade and the local American Legion guy asks me why I didn't vote for the troops, what am I going to say -- I didn't want money to go to the IMF? He doesn't even know what the IMF is!"
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 1:12pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 08:35am</i>
It's not just a question of directness v. not. You used "grr kill kill" as a response to many posters who haven't defended "kill them all," but have just supported some military action.
At what point would you accept military action as reasonable?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/18/2009 @ 7:35pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/18/2009 @ 7:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's the tone.
military action? I have seen none in my lifetime that I could support. how about you?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 8:02pm
Tuesday night, 170 House Republicans pulled a collective Kerry -- voting against a $106 billion war funding bill most of them had previously supported, because this version contained money for the International Monetary Fund.
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 1:12pm
You mean like the Repubs SUPPORTED some type of Stimulus bill before voting against it after it got larded up with 7 times more PORK than stimulus?
Did them 170 Repubs vote against a CLEAN War Supplemental bill? And what if the funding of the IMF is more than for the troops?
At what point is the "Era of Responsibility" and "Transparency" is going to start under Magic?
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 9:41pm
FROM WHERE I SIT....
There is nothing to be gained by arguing an opinion unless in so doing you can change the opinion of your adversary. Even then, your argument is worthless unless it transfers the power to change the status quo from your adversary to yourself or increases your power if you already have it.
Having said this, I find the tempest of the on-line blogosphere to be a futile effort at best, consisting of individuals with some degree of penmenship the opportunity to talk to themselves.
In prison this is called "talkin' xxit," and it is regarded as no more than grand-standing, or as they say: "selling a wolf ticket."
The serious prison inmate when confronted by such verbal abuse (no matter how serious the nature) has but one response:
He says, "Do something."
From Where I Sit, I say it is time for you to shut-up and "do something."
Posted by SHUNK at 06/18/2009 @ 9:56pm
"do something."
Posted by SHUNK at 06/18/2009 @ 9:56pm
Shucks!
Isn't the Left's wet dream "Pen is mightier than the sword"? Look at what progress The Messiah has made with his speeches via the Telepromptered words.
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 10:10pm
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks for again for provideing a post that irrefutably PROVES you can't compare an apple to an apple, instead you start off with a Lemon trying to make it an apple!!!!???
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 10:49pm
Isn't the Left's wet dream "Pen is mightier than the sword"? Look at what progress The Messiah has made with his speeches via the Telepromptered words.
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Remember Obamanation walks softly but carries a BIG telepromter!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 10:52pm
Interesting, comparing presumably free citizens to prison inmates.
Posted by sloper at 06/19/2009 @ 02:06am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 10:49pm
What's the matter, RIO?
Don't you believe Republicans could vote for the money, before they voted against it?
Or did the House GOP just vote to ...
"not support the troops"!?!?!?!?...heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 08:26am
this teleprompter thing is such shit. Bush2, had a prompter "hidden" in his jacket during a debate, and still could barely complete a cogent sentence.
the fact is that after eight years of a guy who mangled the english language as much as he mangled the country, we have a thinking, articulate man as president.
so, enough with the phony teleprompter crap.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 08:28am