Trevor Loudon's New Zeal blog has moved to

redirecting you there now

Friday, January 19, 2007

Congressional Socialists to Block US War Effort

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, at approximately 70 members is the most powerful bloc in the US Congress.

Aligned to the Communist Party USA and the equally as radical, Democratic Socialists of America, the CPC is hell-bent on thwarting the US war effort in Iraq.

This is their latest scheme.

From the Communist Party USA's Peoples Weekly World

President Bush’s announcement that he is sending over 21,000 more troops to Iraq has fueled increasing bipartisan opposition in Congress, among the U.S. public, in the labor movement and among the military itself. Organizers of the Jan. 27-29 Washington antiwar march and lobbying report growing interest in the protest actions.

The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, and Rep. Maxine Waters (also CPC), chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus — all California Democrats — held a press conference Jan. 17 in the House Radio/TV Gallery to introduce the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.

The measure would repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of force, fund withdrawal of U.S. forces and military contractors from Iraq within six months of the bill’s passage, prohibit funding to deploy or keep U.S. troops in Iraq, accelerate U.S. aid to train Iraqi police and community-based security, bar permanent U.S. bases there, provide economic and political aid to the Iraqi government, authorize U.S. support to replace U.S. troops and contractors with an international stabilization force if requested by the Iraqi government, and fully fund VA health care for all veterans.


Blogger mah29001 said...

Typical of these sort of types.

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The increase in troops would only take the levels up to a number that the USA has already had previously in Iraq, and they were losing the war at that stage as well. It is Rumsfeld who is to blame for the mess that is Iraq - if he had listened to the advice he was given that they needed to put more boots on the ground in the beginning then they probably wouldn't be in such a mess now, and Trevor wouldn't be able to blame the socialists in Congress for the United States losing this war. As usual, the socialists get blamed for not cleaning up the mess in the kitchen when they were against the meal being cooked in the first place.

5:01 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

So let me get this straight anonymous, you don't care that most of the insurgency were trained prior to the invasion by Saddam, his friends in Syria and along with the Islamist Mullahs in Iran? They're somehow not at fault, but Rumsfeld is?

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not the fault of the insurgents that the invasion has been stuffed up. What do you expect them to do? Cooperate? I know that people like Wolfowitz claimed that the coalition would be greeted as liberators, but that didn't happen, as you may have noticed. Rumsfeld (and of course Bush) is responsible for how the United States conducted the invasion. He was told they would need more troops. He shot down that advice. That advice turned out to be correct. Stop trying to blame Saddam Hussein for that.

The Republican Party has blown for a long time any claim that it may of had to being the party of fiscal responsibility. The American people are biding their time, waiting for 2008, so they can elect a Democrat. And if you have convinced yourself otherwise, you are kidding yourself. They want an end to this madness as much as the rest of the world does.

10:10 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

I wonder where were you when Bill Clinton, a Democrat was bombing Yugoslavia? How about supporting Aristide to power in Haiti anonymous? Where the heck were you?

And of course you can alawys "forget" how Saddam trained the insurgency prior to the invasion of the war. Gee, there sure wasn't any strategy at all to Saddam's schemes or any of his allies when they place the Iraqi military on high alert right after 9/11.

It's Bush's "fault" that Iraq is a mess. Not the folks who trained the insurgency. Not!

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where was I? I was in Auckland where I live. Where should I have been? If I had to take a position on Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia I probably would have supported it. It was clear that something had to be done as the international community was crying out for some sort of action. Clinton, being the good President that he was, took notice of the international community (unlike some other Presidents - not naming any names) and took action. That is what good Presidents do.

Saddam may have trained the insurgency prior to the war as you claim. That has absolutely nothing to do with Rumsfeld rejecting advice from experienced military commanders that he would need to put MORE troops in at the start of the war. You seem to be trying to assert that Saddam is responsible for Rumsfeld rejecting this advice - which turned out to be correct. I am not sure how you can do that. Perhaps in your world all things are possible?

9:41 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

"If I had to take a position on Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia I probably would have supported it."

So let me get this straight anonymous. It's okay for you to be so selectively pro-war and selectively anti-war when there's a President of the other side that's in power? I myself would support the ouster of a dictator like Milosevic. But I guess ousting a dictator like Saddam who was equally brutal if not more so than Milosevic would be "bad" for you.

6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No point liberating the people of a country if you can't make that country better for them to live in than before, now is there. Iraq was a authoritarian shit-hole prior to the invasion, now, it is a anarchist shit-hole. Hardly an improvement. And I think you have me wrong if you think I am a Democrat of something. I read Trevor's blog because I am a supporter of his party. We are not the same as the Democrats in the United States, so they are hardly "of my side" as you say. I would support a good President, regardless of their party. Since you gave the example of Clinton, I merely stated that he was a good president, in comparison to the current one, who is not.

9:10 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

So according to you anonymous, it's alright to be selectively pro-war when there's a President you like that's in power and selectively be anti-war when there's a President that you don't like?

Isn't there something wrong with that?

9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the love of god, let me spell it out for you. It is not about who I like or do not like. I actually quite liked W at the start. He seemed like a lovable and down to earth guy, despite being born with a silver foot in his mouth.

There are some things I do not like about Clinton. Like his personal life.

Does this mean that I have to support war at every opportunity? Un, no, I wouldn't have thought so. I support intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur, but no one seems to have done anything about that. The Yanks could have, but seem somewhat tied up in Iraqinam.

In summary, it is not that I support wars or not depending on whether I like the President who launched them. This little tet a tet started by me saying that it would be all over now if Rumsfeld had of listened to the advice he recieved in the first place. You have not shown how my assertion is incorrect or unlikely.

9:36 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

Look anonymous, you're exposed to be a propagandist. You don't care if you are selectively pro-war or selectively anti-war do you? You don't care that Saddam was equally as brutal as a tyrant like Milosevic was. To someone like you, it's no war except if a Democrat is in power.

4:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a war. What the freak are you talking about? " it's no war except if a Democrat is in power." What does that mean?

11:41 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

it's no war except if a Democrat is in power."

This means that you are selectively pro-war when there's a Democrat that's in power and you are selectively anti-war when there's a Republican in power. Got it?

11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, no, because you are wrong. They are all wars. Just because I don't support it doesn't make it not a war. I think you may need some professional help there buddy.

9:30 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

So in theory it's okay to be selectively supportive of one war and not the other because of the President supporting that war isn't someone you like? Even if it also means on the risk of national security of Iraq turning into a Somalia-like scenario?

4:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We've already covered this mate. I seriously can't believe that you are still asking this.

8:33 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

"We've already covered this mate. I seriously can't believe that you are still asking this."

So you can't see there are no double-standards with your statement of supporting the war against Slobadon Milosevic but not the war against Saddam Hussein? Typical Democratic ideologue.

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home