I was talking to a real journalist last night, and not surprisingly the subject of the Burner-Reichert race came up. Also not surprisingly, the journalist raised the question of whether Darcy Burner had done enough over the past two years to address concerns about her perceived lack of relevant experience.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a member of the local media raise this question, and it immediately got my hackles up. Campaigns tend to focus on the job performance of the incumbent, not the challenger, and with good reason: to criticize the challenger for lacking the relevant experience of the incumbent would be an automatic argument for incumbency.
To wage a successful campaign a challenger must typically do two things: A) raise substantial doubts about the job performance and/or character of the incumbent; and B) present themselves as an acceptable alternative who voters might reasonably give a chance in the job. And generally, in that order.
But that’s not how this race has been covered thus far. The media narrative, that Burner must somehow match Dave Reichert’s legislative experience to qualify for the job, is a narrative that comes straight from the Reichert campaign, and one that she cannot possibly win, as it can be argued that nothing prepares one for Congress like on the job experience. It is a narrative that runs counter to the intent of the founders, who envisioned a citizen legislature, and counter to the mood of a public grown weary (and wary) of professional politicians. It is a narrative that defaults to the incumbent.
But elected office has never been a prerequisite for holding elected office; it was never an issue during Mike McGavick’s run for the US Senate, and it hasn’t seemed to hamper Gov. Schwarzenegger in California. Indeed, representing one’s fellow citizens in Congress is supposed to be an act of public service, not a reward for it.
If I sound a bit defensive it is because I am, for Darcy Burner is clearly being held to an unfair standard. Capitol Hill is filled with Representatives and Senators who never held lower office before first being elected (or appointed) to Congress. Ironically, the best example I can think of to support the notion that legislators should work their way to the top before acceding to Congress is Reichert himself, who had zero legislative experience before winning his current office, and whose track record there shows it.
The primary question before voters is not what Burner has managed to accomplish since losing her race in 2006, but what Reichert has managed to accomplish since winning. Which brings us to the video clip at the top of this post, in which Rep. Jay Inslee cites Burner’s Responsible Plan while debating Iraq War funding on the floor of House.
Inslee describes Burner as a “citizen,” and that’s all she is, and yet through sheer grit and determination she has managed to influence the public debate on Iraq, while Reichert, with all the powers of office at his disposal, has done nothing but parrot the platitudes of the Bush administration. Where is Reichert’s plan? Where is his leadership on this issue or other pressing issues? What has he done during his four years in office other than issue an endless stream of press releases and glossy franked mail pieces?
When critics ask what Burner has done these past two years to prepare herself for office, voters should ask what Reichert has done these past two years with it? And local journalists, however well meaning, should start asking the same question.
‘….it immediately got my hackles up.’
That’s called an erection Goldy. Pull the pubes outta your teeth already. Before we focus on Dave, let review what ditzy Darcy has done in the last two years:
—-
—-
THE END.
@2
Before we focus on Dave, let review what ditzy Darcy has done in the last two years
I think you left out the part about her spearheading a plan for getting out of Iraq responsibly with a number of retired military officials, and getting several dozen other Congressional challengers to sign on to it.
Ok, now back to Dave, in the past two years, he’s accomplished…
?
@ 1:
Look at the conservatives with their wheels coming off and becoming completely unhinged as their party self destructs.
Let’s look again at her record of accomplishment:
Met with upper echelon front line combat officers who served and commanded in Iraq.
Met with highly respected national security experts who served in both Republican and Democrat administrations.
Met with international experts in nation building and reconstruction.
Crafted a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq that has over 50 signatories and has been cited on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Dave’s accomplishments please?
Yeah, enjoy your free time while you and your ilk are irrelevant for decades to come.
You earned the time off.
Wait, wait, wait. Let me correct myself.
Dave Reichert did vote AGAINST our troops.
There’s his accomplishment: not supporting the troops while protecting the wealthy kids on Mercer Island.
Good job, Dave!!
After reading your post just now I’ve decided I needed to make another $25 contribution to her campaign.
I’m retired so I don’t have a ton of money lying around but I try to give a little each month to Darcy, Franken, Obama and the ASPCA.
You’ve said it very well. . . it’s time for a CHANGE.
mickh
So Jay Inslee, in a campaign ploy, reads some of the Irresponsible Plan into the Congressional Record, which is the oldest legislative shell game in the book, so that The Darcy can trumpet the effort on the campaign trail.
And all the people said…Yawn!
The big time experts Inslee cites don’t compare to those on the level of Gen. Petraeus.
This is Jay Inslee, people, who thinks it’s government’s responsibility to make cable TV available to all who want it irrespective of their ability to pay for their own entertainment. Talk about your pork barrel!
Too bad the camera didn’t pan the House chamber to show how many members weren’t in attendance to hear his “speech.” Only rookies, the ignorant, and partisan hacks take these stunts seriously.
Makes no never mind under which shell you find the pea of The Darcy…wherever you find it, it will be rotten.
The Piper
I guess we could just let Dave Reichart and his follow Republicans stay in charge, where they can continue to “support our troops” by suggesting, as Norma Perez, team leader and phsychologist for the V.A. in Temple, Texas did, that counselors refrain from diagnosing Post-Traumatic Stress disorder and instead diagonose a less serious “adjustment disorder”, because “…we really don’t… have time to do extensive testing…” and “veterans are seeking compensation” based upon their diagnosis.
(Source: multiple sources, including http://www.slate.com/id/2191688/entry/0/, which includes a redacted copy of the e-mail).)
Obviously, that type of attitude comes from the top, when a Veterans Administration facility re-directs it’s effort from providing services mandated by law to our veterans, and instead devotes its resources to finding ways to avoid providing those services.
Piper @ 6 would, of course, have demanded that Burner provide a detailed plan for how to deal with Iraq, otherwise he would have told her to shut up and follow the President’s agenda. Now that she has publicized the plan, and he doesn’t have anything constructive to discuss regarding it’s details, he just calls it a public-relations stunt.
Oh, and Petraeus has a serious credibility problem. He came up with a counter-insurgency handbook, and then completely threw it out the window when the Bush administration offered him a high-profile job, except that it only came with a fraction of the numbers of troops he had previously insisted were absolutely necessary to do the job right. His boss at Central Command was forced to take him as his subordinate because he was willing to play the political game. This was AFTER his boss had went toe-to-toe with the White House, using the numbers provided by Petraeous, to argue that the White House political strategy couldn’t be accomplished with the number of boots available on the ground.
Then, by talking directly with the White House regularly (going over his boss’s head), Petreaus ultimately maneuvered his boss into being forced to resign, and shortly thereafter he was promoted into his boss’s job. He earned that promotion by telling the White House whatever they wanted to hear.
In the rest of the world, that is called “back-stabbing”.
The Republicans’ way of “supporting the troops” appears to be to provide them with lifetime employment, as long as said employment ends up drastically shortening their lives.
Piper @ 6
One wonders whether your dismay about this “campaign ploy” stems from the fact that Republicans didn’t think of it first or the fact that Reichert has done nothing that would lend itself to a similar tactic. In either case, it doesn’t reflect well on either Republicans or Reichert.
General Petraeus’s “expertise” appears to consist primarily of saying “Yes, Mr. President”.
Piper @6
What has Dave accomplished? I mean other than voting as directed by the party leadership. Has he accomplished anything? What is his list of achievements?
@2 Lee:
Her little plan isn’t worth the cocktail napkin it was written on. If that’s the only “thing” she’s done in the last two years, then Dave has nothing to worry about. Maybe you could think a bit more logically if you toned down the bong hits a little. Whether one likes Dave or not is irrelevant, ditzy Darcy simply is neither qualified nor competent.
Yes, Piper, please be specific, what are Representative Reichert’s accomplishments in congress?
Pretty straight forward question. Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate that your candidate and your ideas are better.
This way you can promote yourself by demonstrating in the arena of ideas that your ideas are superior instead of bashing others down to elevate your status.
This ought to be good.
Mar1 @ 13
Same question at 14 applies to you.
What has Dave Reichert accomplished during his tenure in congress?
Mark1 @13
Same question: what has Dave accomplished? I mean other than voting as directed by the party leadership. Has he accomplished anything? What is his list of achievements?
Bonus question: why should this qualify him for another term in office?
@ 13
Her little plan isn’t worth the cocktail napkin it was written on.
I’ve had this debate with wingnuts before. No wingnut has yet been able to articulate a cogent argument that makes the plan so worthless (or “irresponsible” to use Piper’s term).
It’s also worth noting that you’ve, twice, failed to cite any of Reichert’s accomplishments that would merit yet another return to Congress. So? What are they? The crickets are chirping. Loudly.
I guess Piper and Mark1 are trying to Google for Dave’s long list of accomplishments.
@8: Actually, in the rest of the world what Petreus has done is called A**-kissing.
what Piper forgets is all the military leaders that quit Iraq in disgust with the bush administration and with Rumsfeld – and that bush had to appoint a lower level general with little experience to really screw things up in Iraq – on top of the incredibly stupid moves that Bremer made – like totally disbanding the Iraqi army (and de-Bathification) and getting the insurgency in Iraq off to a flying start. Bremer and Rumsfeld were over-confident, hubris filled and did NOT listen to the generals – so now that bush has a general he likes – suddenly listening to generals is important – according to Piper?
@13
It really gets under your skin that someone who smokes pot is a lot smarter than you, doesn’t it?
As for speaking logically, if her plan “isn’t worth the cocktail napkin it was written on,” what are the particular parts that make it so worthless? I’m sure something that can be classified as such has a number of obvious glaring weaknesses that you’d easily be able to point out.
@18…Ekim…
Don’t need to Google since I don’t need to defend Cong. Reichert in order to consider The Darcy hopelessly unqualified for national office.
That Cong. Reichert has supported the war effort and followed the recommnedations of the military leaders in country and on the ground is enough for me.
I will say, though, that he is a tad liberal for my taste on many issues.
But The Darcy? And the Irresponsible Plan, which hasn’t been endorsed by any Democratic elected official of stature – House wannabes don’t count – and is supported only by a very small handful of disgruntled military officers the most senior of whom is a two-star?
The plan itself is simply a cobbled-together re-hash of failed liberal legislative initiatives and “blame America first” condemnations against the United States and many policies of the Administration favored by Americans.
Nothing in the plan that I can see describes how to smash al-Quida or the Taliban and break the back of Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, it’s 34-page (I have a copy and have read it – have all of you?) white flag.
The Darcy is a tool of the netroots/DailyKus/MoveOn/HuffPo yellow teeth surrender monkeys without an original thought in her head – again, just a re-hash of hard left drivel.
If the silly thing was so hot to go, why hasn’t it attracted oodles of Congressional sponsors? Been introduced into the House? Been the subject of televised (no doubt on MSNBC, the loony-left cable network of choice) hearings, been talked about on the Democratic presidential campaign trail, and been the subject of voluminous editorial comment?
Huh?
The answer is, in a word, because those in the know…know that it’s bupkis!
And so is The Darcy.
The Piper
Piper @ 21:
That was a lot of keystrokes to avoid answer the straight foward question: What has Reichert accomplished.
Also NO specifics as to exactly what is wrong with Darcy’s plan. You have a copy you ought to be able to specifically explain what is flawed.
And, yet, nothing of substance from you. Nothing, but the same old tired, rehashed, lying talking points.
Is that ALL you conservatives have?
That ain’t gonna cut it in the fall!!
“That Cong. Reichert has supported the war effort and followed the recommnedations of the military leaders in country and on the ground is enough for me.”
Really???????
Care to retrack that statement, kiddo?
@22…GBS…
You tell me what’s so hot about Irresponsible Plan.
Quickly – I have an appointment with the cardiologist – the entire section on Preventing Future Iraqs is total hogwash!
Again…that Cong. Reichert has supported the war effort, including the successful surge, is enough for me to support him, his liberal positions on other issues aside.
If it’s good enough for Joe Lieberman, it’s good enough for me!
The Piper
“Nothing in the plan that I can see describes how to smash al-Quida or the Taliban and break the back of Islamic fundamentalism.”
I see reading comprehension is one of your weak points. Let me explain it to you.
The Taliban and al Qeada are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Darcy’s plan is called . . . wait for it. . . wait . . . The Responsible Plan to End the War in IRAQ.
Nobody, I mean NO ONE is advocating we leave Afghanistan. What we’ve criticized are the Bush administration and the Republicans for taking your eyes off the ball in the REAL War on Terror and letting Osama bin Laden live in freedom.
Grow up. Your argument is old and stale and way past its expiration date.
Piper:
Stop it. You are embarassing yourself.
You know that supporting the war in Iraq and the UNSUCCESSFUL surge are not legislative accomplishments.
Being a sheep is not being a leader.
Again, what specific items has Rep. Reichert accomplished?
The ball is in your court.
Remember: Be specific. Betcha can’t
@25: Exactly and how is ol’ Afghanistan and Pakistan going these days – seems as though Pakistan and the military dictator we have supported there (thank you, Bush) has now signed a TRUCE with the Taliban and it will allow al qaeda to regroup there as never before….we are now in greater danger than EVER thanks to the Bush policies…great job Bush/McSame! Iraq has really worked out well for us….
I think the American voters are not going to reward FAILURE to get bin laden, FAILURE to stop al qaeda from regrouping, FAILURE to plan for high oil prices, FAILURE to preserve the constitution (and not torture), FAILURE to stop the largest budget deficit in history and FAILURE to adequately arm, protect and care for our soldiers.
Piper @ 21
That Cong. Reichert has supported the war effort and followed the recommnedations of the military leaders in country and on the ground is enough for me.
The military leaders on the ground have said that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, which means that people like Congressman Reichert need to get off their asses and start putting together a political solution.
Nothing in the plan that I can see describes how to smash al-Quida or the Taliban and break the back of Islamic fundamentalism.
True. On the other hand, it doesn’t tell us how to wash our clothes or mow our lawns either. Neither the al-Qaida that attacked us on 9/11 nor the Taliban are actually in Iraq! Get the hell out of Iraq, and then we can actually turn our attention to dealing with al-Qaida and the Taliban. More importantly, get the hell out of Iraq, and we remove a huge recruiting incentive for both. That, alone, would do more to battle al-Qaida and the Taliban than the entire excursion into Iraq has accomplished since it began.
As for the “disgruntled military officers,” what the hell is this, the Dr. Seuss argument? The plan is bad because the military officers don’t have enough stars upon thars?
If your substantive arguments weren’t complete bullshit, then you wouldn’t have to resort to any ad-hominem or appeal to authority.
Piper @ 21
Sharuff Dave explained back in 2006 that he voted as he was told by his party.
To repeat: Bush & Co.’s proclamations that they are “following the advice of the generals on the ground” is rubbish, when they simply get rid of any generals (or admirals) who don’t tell them what they want to hear. And if Reichart continues to support that type of military policy, then he deserves to be given the boot out the same door the rest of Bush & Co. will receive.
Besides, “voting the party line” is hardly a ringing endorsement of his leadership abilities, regardless of the issue.
Honestly, I really prayed hard that the Iraqi war would work out well for the U.S.
Sure, I had my doubts. I had actually read a book or two on the history of Iraq (some time before the war), and I knew that even though they could often be defeated in a war, they had a history of being a “poison pill” which their conquerers eventually were more than pleased to get rid of. The British had managed to hobble together a collection of competing tribal groups and different religions and ethnicities which hated each other on a primal level, and only a strongman could hold them together for more than a few years. Any removal of such a strongman as Saddamm would likely result in a protracted civil war, so the best place for us to be is – anywhere else when that happens. This wasn’t a secret, it was well known by lots of people within the State Dept. and the U.S. military prior to March 2003. But those opinions were ignored by the Bush administration, who were determined to go to war with Iraq for a variety of non-military related reasons.
So when U.S. forces did what they were assigned to do and defeated the Iraqi army, despite inept bungling at the top of the Bush Administration which resulted in the last-minute change of plans when Turkey wouldn’t cooperate, I had to say a prayer of thanksgiving for our troops.
I was dismayed at the rather obvious mistakes which were being made. No attempt was made to maintain order and looting, restoration of basic services was neglected, faction leaders were assasinated withing days of the victory, complete novices were given charge of large portions of the Iraqi economy, weapons depots are left ungaurded and looted, and Bremmer makes the absolutely worst decision to disband the Iraqi army, with an idea of starting all over again from scratch!!!! Nothing like letting loose a couple of million young men who have had military training, know the locations of ungaurded weapons and munitions depots, and are unemployed with no money and nothing better to do with their time but to figure out how to build IEDs!
Even then, all we needed to do is get out quickly, before it turned bad. I figured we had sixty days, tops, to do that before we began to suffer irreperable reverses. After that relatively short period, resistance to the occupation would begin to form and organize, as the occupation is precieved as a permanant, or at least indefinate, fixture. Then when we react against the resistence an escalation occurs. First we set up roadblocks and searches which result in some unfortunate killings of Iraqi civilians due to miscommunications. Then as more of our men die, we get tougher, with house-to-house searches, arrests, torture of prisoners, which results in greater resistence, and ultimately fighters come from around the world to train and learn how to fight Americans. All these things are inevitable unless we say “Okay, we got rid of Saddam, we never intended to stay, goodbye and good luck”, and depart. Sure, there would have been a civil war. But there is a civil war there now. It’s just that in the former instance, we wouldn’t ahve been in the middle of it.
And support for the people who brought you this war is considered to be a sign of accomplishment?????
Who are “the generals” now, anyway? A bunch of two-stars who were majors and colonels a couple of years ago? Seems all the ladies and gentlemen with any wartime experience prior to the current fiasco have long since either been kicked out or bailed.
Defending Sheriff Hairspray. What a sucky job. At least Reichert is honest. I loved it when he said he votes against his party’s leadership when they let him…..
Psssst Dave. Yer not supposta tell the world your party count votes.
Is Reichert the stupidest Congressman? That should be the question. I doubt that he is.
I listened to a few Republiconvicts from Georgia that probably aren’t smart enough to whip it out when they piss…… Remember ol 10 Commandments dude that couldn’t name 3 Commandments on the Colbert show? And then he gets reelected. There may not be “any” genetic material in the whole state of Georgia.
At least Darcy is trying to find a solution to our Iraq Nightmare, other than throwing trillions more down the Iraq shit hole, as the whole Republiconvict Party wholeheartedly supports.
As far as the surge working. Not a chance. It has actually allowed the Iraqi government to become more divided, because our idiot president is making it possible for them to never compromise. We pay trillions, and pay in lives, and they just lie, cheat, and steal. On our dime.
Piper, you pulled the “surrender monkey” slogan into this discussion, so might I ask, if we pull stakes and leave Iraq, exactly who are we “surrendering” to? Do we even have a reasonable conception of who “the enemy” is anymore?
All this seems more every day to resemble the sorry state we got ourselves into in Vietnam, where the only operant definition of “victory” would have been the absence of any further resistance, which would have been a certainty only if we had slaughtered every man, woman and child in that country. Then we’d probably still have had to watch out for some of the goats.
#33, it reminds me of the lifelong CIA analyst I talked to a while ago. He said all the “good” analysts “QUIT” because of Bush. Who could blame them?
We probably have the same people looking for terrorists as the children we sent over to rebuild Iraq. The only qualification was they had to have voted for Bush.
I would like to see Reichert try get a job at Microsoft.
@25…GBS…
I see Iraq and Afghanistan is inextricably intertwined, much in the same way as were the wars against Germany and Japan during WW II. As such, then, The Darcy’s Irresponsible Plan is myopic for it’s inability to see the forest for the trees.
Should The Darcy get elected, Speaker Pelosi will call her a nice young girl, then direct her to tow the party line or find herself so marginalized that she’ll think she was representing Outer Mongolia.
I’m still fascinated by everyone’s insistance that the key to victory is the capture of Osama bin Laden. That one act would mean what, exactly? And how would it be accomplished, exactly? How many American lives are you willing to expend to get just him, exactly?
My point exactly…
While the brass have said there won’t be an absolute military solution in Iraq, it is still necessary to have military operations to provide cover for a political solution. That takes time, and the fact that all of you have neither the patience nor the vision to see that tells me that you were spoiled as children hence your adult selves demand instant and immediate gratification to the jot and tittle.
And I still contend that many who support The Darcy and her Irresponsible Plan could care less about the troops (they’ve told me that in town hall meetings – even accused my enlisted sons of joining for the money – the money!), want to see America humiliated, and generally engage in national self-loathing that is perverse and pretty sick.
Present company partially excepted, of course – all you dudes are stand up chaps who are simply misguided.
The Piper
PS: My cardiologist sends his regards
I cynically want us out of the occupation of Iraq because I don’t want it to bankrupt the US and we end up fractured like the old USSR.
Maybe a reverse Alaska purchase. Is there a country that would buy Alaska in exchange for settling our crippling war debt?
Maybe Dubai would do it, or Russia?
So, what’s the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, other than that we attacked the latter after someone who happened to be resident in the former did something really bad to us?
Considering that Bush has been pretty open about having had a thing about Iraq ever since his father, in his estimation, “didn’t finish the job”, and the road map that was all put in writing, several years before 9/11, by the PNAC, it’s pretty hard to argue that he wouldn’t have made war on Iraq if we’d been attacked by New Zealand.
Piper, at least I give you credit for trying to express a rationale other than some of the knuckle-draggers’ blather that “one dead mooooslim’s as good as another”. Unfortunately, the whole thing seemed a mistake from the get-go, and the events of every passing day make it appear even more so.
Piper @ 37
I see Iraq and Afghanistan is inextricably intertwined, much in the same way as were the wars against Germany and Japan during WW II.
How so? The closest thing to an Islamist group in Iraq is al-Qaida in Iraq, and the only reason they’ve received any support from local Sunni tribes in Iraq is their shared goal of getting us out of Iraq. We leave Iraq, and Islamists in Iraq don’t stand a chance of succeeding at anything. In that sense, leaving Iraq is way more like thumbing our noses at al-Qaida than it is anything resembling a white flag.
I should point out that the reason for going into Iraq in the first place was not so much that Iraq itself posed a threat. Rather, the reason was to prevent Islamist groups from getting their hands of various forms of WMD via Iraq. There is, now, absolutely zero chance that any Islamist group is going to come after us with WMD from Iraq, because we now know there aren’t any WMD in Iraq. Nor, for that matter, does Iraq have sufficient infrastructure to obtain and/or develop some any time soon.
That battle has been won. We won that battle back when President Bush stood on the deck of a U.S. aircraft-carrier in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished”.
I’m still fascinated by everyone’s insistance that the key to victory is the capture of Osama bin Laden.
Everyone’s insistence? First, I don’t recall mentioning bin Laden at all. Second, you brought up al-Qaida. Do you think lopping off the head of the beast isn’t going to have some positive effect? Do you think it a completely worthless endeavor in the battle?
As for how it might be accomplished, we came pretty damn close to doing just that when President Bush pulled us off into this diversion in Iraq. Do you have any reason to believe that we can’t do that again?
While the brass have said there won’t be an absolute military solution in Iraq, it is still necessary to have military operations to provide cover for a political solution.
It’s been five years. How much longer does it need to take? How long did it take Germany and Japan following World War II?
[T]he fact that all of you have neither the patience nor the vision to see that tells me that you were spoiled as children hence your adult selves demand instant and immediate gratification to the jot and tittle.
You’re claiming that pink unicorns exist, and blaming our lack of vision for the fact that we don’t see any pink unicorns.
If there is some other way toward a political solution in Iraq, then, by all means, put it no the table. This isn’t an issue about instant gratification. The issue is a continued presence in Iraq with no end in sight and no effective plan to get to that end. Indeed, when pressed to define what the end is supposed to look like, your response is drowned out by the sound of field insects.
And you still haven’t cited one accomplishment of Congressman Reichert that merits a repeat performance as a Representative in the House.
I would like to see Reichert try get a job at Microsoft.
No hire. For obvious reasons.
38 Dubai is too busy buying our banks.
Osama doesn’t matter? Heh, by that rationale, we could assume there wouldn’t have been any more grisly murders if we’d just let Charlie Manson go free.
@36
I would like to see Reichert try get a job at Microsoft.
They have a lot of security guards who just sit on their ass, follow orders and don’t do much of anything. It’d be an easy transition from his role in Congress.
It seems this administration has tried to tell us a lot of things “don’t matter”…deficits don’t matter, bin Laden doesn’t matter, troops without body armor or drinking water don’t matter, banks on the verge of failure don’t matter…I expect any day to be told that inflation doesn’t matter.
Does anybody see a pattern here? Seems that all these things that “don’t matter” are things the Bush gang screwed up.
So Piper. How many trillion dollars do you want to throw away in Iraq? How many soldiers lives, and of course innocent Iraqis. Powell was right. Bush broke it, and he owns it. Maybe his friends should bail him out on this one too. Oops I forgot. His Saudi buddies don’t have enough cash.
Iraq is great. We are screwed if we do, and screwed if we don’t. Perfect for the military industrial complex.
I think the best solution would be to seize the assets of anyone that voted for Bush in 2004, knowing he lied us into this war, and use the money to clean up the mess as best we can…..
Anyone got a better idea?
@43…AF…
Never said he didn’t matter; he’s not all that matters.
The Piper
@37 What a load of bullshit. In other words, you Republicans fucked things up royally and now assholes like yourself simply don’t have the balls to admit to your failures.
Piper,
Thanks for the reply at 37.
I’ll try this one more time.
Please list Rep. Reicherts legislative accomplishments.
In your reply please do not mention anything but the accomplishments of Congressman Reichert.
Thank you.
47 Oh, excuse me. I forgot that the operant message about Osama is that he’s “not a priority”. Apparently that means he matters, but only a teeny weeny little bit.
@50 In other words, they fucked that up too and so now it obviously doesn’t matter. Is there anything that they did not fuck up? Troll behavior suggests that the Right’s lone accomplishment has been to endlessly whine about anything and everything but their own ability to ruin everything with which they come into contact. Unfortunately, that ruination includes our country and Iraq.
Marcy Burner’s unfair standard is experience? Wow!?!
That’s something that Homonad Views would say…
@ 44
Nah. Quite a while back, a MS security guard caught some people playing volleyball on the sand court on campus. He asked them if they were MS employees, and it turned out that they weren’t. (For liability reasons, sports facilities on campus are MS FTE only.)
When asked why he thought to challenge these two people regarding their employment, the security guard, with a rather bemused look, said, “They had tans.”
Reichert’s just not that smart.
re 21: The whole war in Iraq is ill conceived BS based upon the lies of the Bush administration.
It’s just another way to take the surplus of the Clinton years and cheese it to the rich.
Here’s a responsible domestic plan: Soak the rich and spend it on infrastructure. The benefits will trickle back to the wealthy giving them solid investments instead of BS “Bubble Profits”.
53 Reichert would have figured it out, but it would have taken him 15 years or so.
“What has Dave Reichert accomplished during his tenure in congress?”
He’s managed to set himself up to double-dip two taxpayer-funded pension plans, while doing diddly-squat.
This wouldn’t be so bad if he were a small-l libertarian who was making a point. But, no, he’s just a lazy welfare queen.
“I’m still fascinated by everyone’s insistance that the key to victory is the capture of Osama bin Laden. That one act would mean what, exactly?”
It isn’t a question of victory. It’s a question of punishing a specific horrendous crime. It’s a question of justice, morality, and ethics, none of which are GOP strong suits. It would mean the murderer of 3000 American lives would finally be brought to justice, after years of being ignored by the soft-on-crime, soft-on-terrorism Republicans.
“And how would it be accomplished, exactly?”
Looking for him, capturing him, and trying him in an open US court of law for 3000 counts of murder. None of which the soft-on-crime, soft-on-terrorism Republicans are willing to do.
“How many American lives are you willing to expend to get just him, exactly?”
As few as possible, as long as the mission gets accomplished. Of course, having been caught with their pants down over the phrase “Mission Accomplished,” I know the the soft-on-crime, soft-on-terrorism Republicans tend to be leery of actually doing anything other than jawbone about terrorism.
But the widows and orphans of 9/11 deserve better.
Instead of taking bin Laden out of circulation so he can’t do any more mischief, we’ve created a whole new playground for him and his henchmen to operate in, by reducing Iraq to a chaotic shambles and leaving many of its people dead, many more desperate and almost all of them pissed.
In World War Two and its aftermath, did America’s leadership claim that Hitler didn’t matter, or that the Japanese warlords “weren’t a priority”… that the slaughter of six million Jews and God knows how many others who didn’t fit the blueprint of the Nazi’s master race was no big deal? How would all the American people who suffered and sacrificed have reacted if they had?