I am elated that the 2006 election is over. No more badly designed junk mail rife with drop-shadowed text. No more hobbits with disheveled hair telling me that Washington is controlled by special interests. No more corrupt, draft-dodging dairy farmers waxing philosophical while riding their trusted steed. Speaking of horses, it seemed that every Colorado politician was equine-heavy in their television spots this year. If not riding one, then petting one or ambling in an open meadow teeming with them. Complete the clique: throw skis and a twelve pack of Coors on the horse's back and put Red Rocks Amphitheater in the background; because Colorado horses care about Colorado values.
The election has given Democrats the majority rule in the House of Representatives, State governorships (including here in Colorado) and more than likely, the Senate. Not surprising since Republican-controlled Washington has done nothing but subvert democracy, manufacture scandal and generally cock things up since they took over in '02. I just read that Bush is now open to ideas or suggestions on Iraq from the Democrats. Here is one from an Independent voter that likes boobs: get our troops the hell out of there. It will be fun to watch the Democrats screw it up for a change. Anyone out there want to take bets on when Ann Coulter will write a book on the evil Democratic takeover?
|
| ATOM
XML FLICKR |
 |
|
|
November 09, 2006
Political Diarrhea
12:25 PM ::
TALK SMACK DON'T SHOOT IT (8)
8 Comments: Dude, she can write faster than that. I give it early sping '07 at the latest. By  , at
8:11 AM
12 pack of Coors? Where's this horse at? Is this horse included with the 12er? By , at
12:27 PM
AC has the book written by the end of March. As for the "GET OUR TROOPS THE HELL OUT OF THERE" metality, I'll speak from my longstanding viewpoint. Just as Dennis Leary thinks the answer isn't fewer drugs, the answer in Iraq isn't fewer troops. We need more troops, in a more concerted effort to clean house, in order to get the fuck out of dodge. If we don't get that place in better shape before we leave...then we'll just be back over before we know it. -The Jarhead By  MixMasterMatt, at
8:51 AM
My answer isn't less troops it's no troops. Sure, pulling out of Iraq will plunge the country into turmoil and civil war, but I don't care. I hate seeing American troops dying every day for a poorly-planned "mission" that is destined to fail. By Broz, at
9:03 AM
Brozo, I'm with you...I hate our troops dying for the "Let's not forget, this man tried to kill my daddy," mission that GWB has us in. However, we broke it; so, we've bought it. Now that we have this problem, we need to figure out how to get out of it with the fewest Americans killed. The truth of the matter is that the Iraqi military and police units are ill prepared to hold off the growing insurgency. Personally, I'm of the belief that if we greatly increase the American presence in Iraq, then we can better maintain control over previously 'won' territory. Currently, we are just squeezing a balloon, squashing the problem from one area into another, moving out of newly quelled areas, and allowing them to backfill with insurgents in our absense. We continue to perform in the same manner, expecting different results. Harvard Law School's William Stuntz recently made a similar point powerfully: "The territory over which we fight is among the most strategically important in the world. Victory will place the most dangerous regime on the planet, Iran's fascist theocracy, in serious peril. Defeat will leave that same regime inestimably strengthened. If there is any significant possibility that the presence of more American soldiers on the ground would raise the odds of success, not putting those soldiers on the ground is a crime." Again, I hate seeing my brothers fall in a War that I'm wholly opposed to. However, we have to finish what we have started. We have to secure Iraq to such a degree that Iraqis can start with a relatively clean slate. Just as we rebuilt Japan and Europe, we need to rebuild Iraq for their citizens to have a fighting chance at a stable government, economy, and society. By MixMasterMatt, at
7:42 PM
Sounds good in theory and all, but where do more American troops come from? We don't even equip the ones we have in Iraq now and I doubt most Americans and politicians would support sending in more troops. I, for one, would love to see a Muslim country friendly to the west in that region, however, the reality is popular opinion (getting the troops home) will probably win in America before the Iraqi mission is over. Which means, insurgents tear each other apart in a bloody civil war and an entire generation of Iraqis have white-hot hatred for the US for creating a mess and not cleaning it up. Sound about right? By Broz, at
8:49 AM
Jesus, can we stop all this political crap and get back to the Ci$co bashing? By , at
11:14 AM
As much as it pains me to agree with some squid / faggot Marine- we can't leave now. It's not out of the relms of possibility that I end up there - I'm still on inactive reserve! Like it or not, we are in for the long haul - even if you could care less about some brown people off somewhere - that region is unstable as it is! Leaving would validate terrorism as a legitimate way of forgien policy, and open the door for extremeist governement - think, for a second, if Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson were given the chance to act without ramifacations in this country- that is what will happen in Iraq if we leave now. The discussion of Iraq has now gone beyond the false pretenses on which it was started- we are there, and we are involved. Cisco Velasquez Engineer US Army Future Combat Systems By Ci$co, at
7:42 AM
|