Dems say adding 40k troops a top legislative priority. Do you agree?

[katinmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32963-2005Jan24.html?referrer=email
I don't agree with this and I don't believe I'm alone. Why aren't the Dems focusing on a roadmap out of Iraq? Asking for 40,000 more troops will guarantee a draft. Can someone explain how this became a top 10 legislative priority without asking Democrats?

Last paragraph:
The Democrats' top 10 list includes: allowing prescription drugs to be imported; creating national standards for federal elections; restoring overtime pay benefits to workers who lost them under a 2004 labor rules change; adding as many as 40,000 military troops by 2007; improving veterans' benefits; increasing Pell Grants and other college tuition subsidies; and increasing access to family planning services and insurance coverage of birth control products.

[Darknyte7]

1. I say, HELL NO.

If we run out of troops, then we can't continue to fight this insane war in Iraq. Force them to implement a draft if they insist on continuing this madness. That will end this foolishness quickly.

[justinsb]

2. No

If they get 40 thousand more troops they will use them. The US needs to reduce the size of it's military and start removing them from places like Europe, South and Central America etc.

[wtbymark]

3. do they mean for Iraq, or in general???

and will we see Freepers and fundies lining up to volunteer?

[katinmn]

5. the article doesn't say

but this priority item hands four more years of wars to Bush on silver plate.

What are these idiots up to?

[flamin lib]

23. Best I can tell

the addition is permanent. Fact of the matter is Dems have a reputation, deserved or not, for being weak on Defense. I can't tell you how many times I heard that Gore/Kerry would not have reacted to 9/11. That's BS and we know it but it handed the election to Bush.

Yes, we need to trim the military budget and reign in the Pentagon, particularly the civilian (administration) side of it. No reason to let contracts for the Joint Strike Fighter when the first F-22 hasn't rolled off the line. That's insanity. Yes, we need to cut Star Wars II. Put the budget where it is needed, in the human assets.

It is imperative that we Dems close the perceived strength gap but not by following the Bush model. Don't want to be Repub lite again.

[cindyw]

50. In general, Kerry's plan remember.

[flamin lib]

4. I'm afraid I agree.

If the US is to be able to handle multiple conflicts it is apparent that the troop numbers are perilously small. I served from 1969 to 1971 and was a draftee. Didn't enjoy it a bit. But short timers serve two very important functions: they come home and tell everybody what's really going on and because they are from a wide cross section of the population it is more difficult to get support for adventures like Iraq.

My mother was all in favor of "killin dem commies" until her little boy got the soldier suit he asked Santa for when he was six--14 years later.

[katinmn]

6. but -- do you support multiple conflicts?

Giving * his fodder will allow him to continue on his war on terror.

[flamin lib]

21. I don't support conflicts of any

kind if they can be avoided with diplomacy. Sometimes you don't have the option. Now that Bush has shown the world and all those who would do us harm how easily the military can be over used it is imperative that we add numbers. Then we can get back to "speak softly and carry a big stick" instead of yell at the top of your lungs and carry a broken twig.

[Robbien]

7. NO! Notice that verified voting and stopping unlimited free trade

and protecting the environment is no where on their list.

Oh sure, top on my list is insurance coverage of birth control products. The Democratic leadership sucks. Sucks royal.

[katinmn]

11. the current leadership does suck BIG TIME

They aren't taking any hard stands.

Allowing the importation of Internet drugs. WTF is that? How about healthcare reform? Fix the root of the problem.

They set very puny goals, IMO.

Progressive must take over the party.

[Mel]

16. I agree with you

and just what the hell good is insurance coverage for Birth Control going to do when we have over 40 million people with NO health insurance?

Did you notice how Frist said 2006 is when maybe the 'discrimination against homosexuals amendment' will come up. I see they are going to run the same scam for the next election ('rotten' meat) based on hate and discrimination.

<snip>But GOP Senate leaders moved cautiously on more contentious issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration.</snip>

<snip>Frist said the amendment will reach the Senate floor eventually, although it might be in 2006.</snip>

[flamin lib]

24. One of the things we

should have learned from Rove is that you attack the opponent's strength. Take it away from them if possible. Once we are in power again we can forward our own agenda. For now we must respond the issues that but Bush in office. One of these is the perceived Dem weakness on defense.

[Robbien]

40. You recommend we play ball in their field, with their ball?

Same old tired game plan. Set up our agenda only on what the GOPers want to discuss. "Let's just take the GOP agenda and tweak it a little bit and call it ours". Why don't we just rename ourselves GOPLite.

I am anti-war and pro-peace. How does adding more men with guns promote peace? Dropping bombs and invading countries have increased our enemies, not decreased them.

The voters' choice so far has been to choose between people strong on defense (GOP) and people who are a bit less strong on defense (Dems). Faced with those options of course Dems lose. But frame the choice as War-Hawks (GOP) and Peace-Makers (Dems), then the voters have a real decision to make.

[flamin lib]

57. No, not the same

The commanders on the ground are all calling for more personnel. Bush is spending the military budget on gadgetry. This could be a real boondoggle for the Administration. How is it that with a budget larger than the next 6 countries combined can't handle a third world country? Let's not argue over "we shouldn't be there" 'cause I agree. Problem is we are there, it's FUBAR and it has to stick to Bush and the Repubs.

Again, the false perception is that Dems are weak on defending the country. How do we counter that? By increasing personnel, increasing veteran's support and taking it away from the Repubs. Rove said it best--don't attack your opponent's weakness, attack the strength.

In other words, take the GD ball away from them and run them off the effing field.

[sandnsea]

66. That's not true

S. 17 provides voter verified ballots, Election Day registration, uniform standard for provisional ballots, require states to meet standards regarding number of voting systems and poll workers, creates a National Federal absentee ballot that allows anybody to vote, anywhere in the country; provide notice of purged voters; establish early voting; creates registration and identification standards;

S. 14 Creates the office of Chief Enforcement Negotiator, whose sole responsibility will be to police our trading partners’ performance of their obligations.

And protecting the environment is a given. Insurance coverage is legislated at the State level.

Some people need to read more before they go spouting off bullshit.

[xchrom]

8. as a strategy, i believe the dems think

blame for a draft will fall on bush.
and that's possible.

i'm not entirely against a draft as long as certain loopholes are closed for the well off.
but before that can happen -- i want to see a discussion and an active plan put out to shrink the size of the pentagon period.

[katinmn]

13. you don't play strategy games with human life

it's off the table.

[el_gato]

9. no

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Sounds like your Dem leaders have made a deal with the military.

You know, the military. The one that says that it only votes for Republicans and probably steals soldiers' votes to make sure they get Republican presidents installed.

[katinmn]

12. Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths

It's time to take a stand against these corporate whores in both parties.


:nuke:

[EFerrari]

20. No, they're making big money on defense contracts, like DiFi n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. That is one reason why I could not sign that highly-touted agenda

They're tacitly accepting the Republicanites' agenda by treating continued occupation of Iraq as inevitable.

The other is that they're not bold enough on health care. They should ask for full national health care and negotiate down from there, not put forth timid plans to avoid offending the insurance companies, which the Republicanites will shoot down anyway.

If you're going to get shot down anyway, do so boldly.

Put forth brash initiatives that people can't help talking about: withdrawal from Iraq, national health care, cancel No Child Left Behind and replace it with funding for smaller class sizes that is contingent on reducing the number of administrators and the amount of paperwork.

[katinmn]

17. well said, Lydia. I will never sign their 10-pt plan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=296&topic_id=1311&mesg_id=1311&page=

[ulysses]

43. "If you're going to get shot down anyway, do so boldly."

Thank you, Lydia! :thumbsup: :hi:

[Robbien]

44. Yes, it needs to be a clear cut choice

Not just some Dems nibbling around the edges of the GOP agenda.

[GreenArrow]

15. no,

no, and Hell no.

[leftyandproud]

18. NEW THIRD PARTY NOW!

$%*()$#^*($&&#$@*)%*)^*W#

[EFerrari]

19. No effen way. There goes my phone bill. Jerks. n/t

[katinmn]

22. Bless you! ;-) I just contacted

Progressive Democrats of America
Democracy for America (Dean website), and
MoveOn.org

We can do better than this plan which will not change a damn thing!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The "World's Mightiest Military" needs more troops?

And, $80bil more to keep fighting?

What's wrong with this picture?

a). "The World's Mightiest Military" is incompetant.
b). Iraq is a quagmire that is sinking our economy.
c). Both of the above.

Considering that our much vaunted military can't even control a wrecked 3rd world country like Iraq and our deficit has reached record proportions...I vote for c).

[moggie12]

26. Don't get upset -- it's a POLITICAL document !!!!

Everything they put in there is designed for a POLITICAL reason. They are proposing 10 specific, concrete pieces of legislation, all of which have a POLITICAL thrust to them -- they're all designed to SCREW BUSH!!!!! It's supposed to be like Newt Gingivitis's "Contract With America". This is a VERY IMPORTANT salvo in the war against the Republicans.

Take the 40,000 troops, for example. On one level, Dems can use this to call attention to the fact that Bush is abusing the National Guardsmen. On another level, it takes away the "Dems are soft on terrorism/tyrants" argument. It also highlights that Bush "went into Iraq" with too few troops, which bolsters the "Bush is g-damn incompetent a**hole" argument. This propsal will force Bush and GOP into a corner. They will have to explain why we don't need more troops or else they will have to vote for it and admit they screwed up This will force

This is a highly partisan, political dagger they just issued. For example, the education bill includes a proposal to fund new school buses in rural areas -- this is designed to woo back the rural voters who deserted us last election. See what I posted earlier and some of the back and forth replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1525891

Not everthing we want to see is in here -- it's not supposed to be a comprehensive list. Please don't dismiss the agenda out of hand. Read the specific pieces of legislation and you'll find little nuggets of ammo buried all over the place. If GOP opposes these things, Dems can run on it in '06. AND WIN!!

Please sign the petition!!! I honestly think it's critically important: If the dopes in the country believe Bush -- yet the intelligent people don't support the Dems because they find fault with the political steps they need to take to get back into power -- this country is DOOMED TO FURTHER INSANITY.

(Sorry about getting so emotional.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Or, they could just tell the truth.

Your little script about politics and political games is very nice. However, wouldn't you think it a novelty that might just work, if the Dems would just tell the truth for a change instead of doing the fancydancing around the issues and patronizing the American people?

Of course, that would smack of democracy and be very dangerous.

[katinmn]

28. Exactly. We can change and become grounded in honesty

instead of trying to out-spin each other.

I think that's what progressives are all about.

[moggie12]

31. "telling the truth" doesn't cut it these days

The issues are too complicated. Take Iraq: Americans' heads are filled with FOX propaganda about Iraq being an essential part of the "war against terrorism". Many are now predisposed to see Democratic objections to the war as "unpatriotic" and "partisan" and "typical knee-jerk anti-war wimpy Democratic whining".

The people that voted for Kerry already see the truth. It's the ones who voted for Bush we have to convince -- they've been brainwashed. The only way to do it is to bash Bush and the GOP like they've bashed us in the past. Yes, it's like a game and that's pretty sick, but this is the sad reality now. Bush, Rove and the RW nuts have been manipulating the public and we MUST FIGHT BACK. I mean, my God, the fate of the world is literally at stake!!

(maybe that sounds overly dramatic, but it's true)

[katinmn]

33. Ok. You can bash. I'll work for reform. Tag-team.

[moggie12]

34. Agreed. Will you sign mine if I sign one of yours??? n/t

[FromTheLeft]

38. You just don't get it...

It is people like you that make middle america think of democrats as elitest snobs. I ideological we almost all agree here, some have different priorities, but the way we look at the issues is the same.

The problem is that those of us who are here are not the lowest common denominatior. We are people who analyze that which people say and do. What we as democrats have to understand is that the country is no longer that way. People want Big Macs and half hour sitcoms, not home made meals they have to cook and clean or a novel that they won't finish for a few weeks.

By demanding everything that we want all at once we sound like whiny childern...I don't want a piece of candy, I WANT THE WHOLE BAG...and what is worse is that that when we can't have it all, we through a hissy fit and don't want any.

Little bits at a time, fight on the issues that we can win now, and change perception, notice that word perception, of our stance on those we can't.

If you read closely the 40,000 troops comes along with a reservists bill of rights, which is desperately needed, and better benefits once the solders come home. They aren't talking about a draft, its a goal. Make the way our troops are treated better and more will enlist.

While I hate this war and the reasons that we are in it, I have the upmost respect and admeration for all those that are there. And when they get home they deserve to be treated better than they will be, which is what that portion of the bill is about.

[katinmn]

39. People like me...

are not satisfied with a few crumbs to shut them up.

This little wish list that the corporate-owned Democrats came up with doesn't address fundamental problems. It chips away at a couple issues, and gives Bush carte blanche to deliver the promise he made in his innaugural speech: to bring his brand of justice and democracy to all corners of the globe.

Let me ask you: Are you going to be one of the 40,000 signing up? Unless you are, you ought to think twice about supporting it.

With 45 million people in this country without healthcare, do you really think the Dem leadership is addressing that by allowing us to buy drugs off the Internet?

As far as your final point. You can't legislate respect. Soldiers are cannon fodder to the Bush Regime. He just threw himself the biggest garrish party this country has ever seen, while men and women are stuck in Iraq like sitting ducks or as prisoners in so-called Green Zones. And we are in it for years unless people start speaking up and demanding more of our leaders.

[FromTheLeft]

47. It gives Bush nothing

By placing forward a platform you are say what you will be fighting for, the changes you want made. This in no way say that you won't fight against that which goes against your spirit and conscience.

This is a directional. There is an old saying...a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is the road map to the first stop on the journey. Not even close to the final destination. In our push for the final destination of Universal Health care we cannot suffer the folley of going for to much to soon. Do you know what happens when a prize fighter goes for a knockout with his first swing? He usual misses and gets knocked out.

And as for my point about the soldiers, don't make the mistake that that those who vote for bush make, there is more behind the headline. The 40,000 soldiers will sign up because the reward for being a soldier will be better. Better retirement, better health care, better mental health care. The aren't talking about force 40,000 to sign up. They are talking about fixing what GWB took away that the soldiers still diserve. Which in turn will cause more soldiers to sign up. I am not for a larger military, but what I am for is a bigger piece of pie for those that are and do inlist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Oh, you mean we should accept crumbs and never ask for anything...

like the Republicans do...NOT?

If there's anything I've learned from decades of listening to ordinary people talk about politics (among my blue collar relatives, during my industrial temp jobs, during ten years of taking public transit) it's that they admire gutsiness and that their eyes glaze over when you talk about this little program and that little program.

The Beltway types who are running the party really need to get out more.

[FromTheLeft]

48. Guts...

Guts is something to admire, buts will also make you rush into battles you can't win. Guts gets you headlines about your crushing defeat, proper policy gets you small victories, that will eventually win you the war. I think the problem here is the question of who we are talking about. The Populus need to scream and shout and protest. Our legislators need to level headed, open, and willing to compromise when it comes to legislation, not when it comes to ideals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. But to stay in office, they need to impress their constituents

The average non-political junkie will not be particularly impressed by those little legislative victories, but will be impressed when the Dems boldly go out on the front lines of important issues.

Note how level-headed, open, and willing to compromise the Repubicans are...NOT. That's why they control everything and we don't.

And don't say "election fraud," because that is one of the things that the Dems have not been bold enough about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The "truth will out".

Whether the Dems tell them or not. All of this political gameplaying is anti-democratic and shortsighted. It's the same half-assed strategy that keeps losing elections and giving the Republicans ammo. "But..you called for more troops for the war." An echo of "But, Senator Kerry, you voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq."

The truth is that we are stuck in Iraq, with no way out. The sooner the American people hear it the better. Giving them more troops and money is only feeding them. At some point, in the not so distant future, the American people are going to see what the rest of the world already knows. The Democrats, by buying into it, are wading into the same quagmire.

It's time for the truth.

[katinmn]

29. This is the same old political strategizing that cost us the 2004

election. I don't buy it.

[FromTheLeft]

52. I disagree

What lost 2004 was our inability to mold our meaning into messages. While Bush simplified things to the point where his own words could be a headline on newspaper we wanted people to read the articles. Not going to happen in todays world.

[katinmn]

53. IMO this is more of the same

[FromTheLeft]

54. MAYBE MORE OF THE SAME IS WHAT WE NEED!!!!

Maybe by repeating it over and over some of you on the far far left will begin to understand that ideals are important for one thing shaping policy and party direction. What don't ideals do? IDEALS DO NOT WIN ELECTIONS, IDEALS DO NOT GET BILLS PASSED, IDEALS DO ALMOST NOTHING EXCEPT GIVE THOSE WHO HOLD ON TO THEM SO TIGHTLY A REASON TO DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING ELSE. The other group of my way or the highway people are in power right now. We all need to band together and find realistic ways to start to weaken their footing. If you want to shout from the roof tops about how wrong the political right is I am all for it, but do it somewhere that people who don't already agree with your value system can hear it. Telling democrats who are slowing trying to get back what Bush and his cronies have taken from us that they are spineless is counter productive. These people are trying to help and you are spitting on them, like someone offering you a decent job with upward mobility and you laugh at them because you expect to be chairman of the board, RIGHT NOW!!!
We need to regroup as a party. This a solid platform to stand on. The concepts here are ones that can be accomplished now and are a starting point toward where you and I both want the country to be.

It is the responsiblity of the populus to scream and shout so that our leaders can hear us and speak. By screaming here no one will hear you because they are all screaming themselves.

[katinmn]

56. ideals

are responsible for the US Constitution. It was considered a very idealistic document, and until recenly, was considered a model for people around the world.

Sorry, deal-making is what caused us to become a charicature of what America used to stand for.

If you want to be a centrist, that's your right. I'm happy being an idealistic lefty.

P.S. Locking your caps is like yelling. No need to yell.

[flamin lib]

60. Some very good responses

to "Don't get upset". Moggie is right. It's a political tactic to take back the defense issue. Look at both agendas. They have not one item in common. If that isn't offering a choice what is? The fact that one on the Dem side is aimed at a Repub strength is, for me, a good idea.

As for a sweeping change in medical care, Hillary fought for it and got beaten to death with it. Ten years later a lot--not all--of what the plan had in it is law. Better incremental change than no change at all.

We should not turn up our noses at the GOOD while waiting for the BEST and we should never stop reaching for the PERFECT.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. "Take back the defense issue"?

Let's take back the defense issue by telling the truth, namely that:

1. Iraq is a quagmire, and we are now a huge part of the problem, not the solution
2. The whole Iraq War was based on lies and was morally unjustifiable.
3. The American people are being heavily propagandized to believe that we're doing good over there.
4. The Bush administration has a whole laundry list of countries it wants to screw up next.
5. The U.S. spends more money on its military than the next ten countries combined, and it still can't supply its troops properly because all the money goes to contractors who overcharge the govt. to build weapons against enemies that don't exist instead of the enemies that actually do exist.

It's as if the Republicans were bragging about how they were protecting the American people from tigers, and the Democrats, instead of saying, "Tigers pose no danger to the average American," try to one-up the Republicans by saying, "We're going to do better at protecting you from tigers." That's basically what Kerry's campaign was about.

[FromTheLeft]

69. Many of us have been say you 1-4 for a long time now and gotten no where

Maybe now is the time to realize that the truth is never as 'sexy' as a well told lie. We need to undermine the republican party by bring the issues that we not only are right on, but can still shape the publics view of, to the forefront.

Of course the democrats are going to be hard on terrorism, but the american public believes that the dems are soft. The dems are for the middle and lower classes paying less taxes and for the rich paying more, but america believes that because we want a balanced budjet that is going to mean more money out of the pocket of those who don't make enough as it is.

By yelling no no no on issues like these we are playing right in to the republicans hands. We are still fighting battles that they have already won. To win the war we need to make other battles, battles yet unwon, more important. Until we do that we make no progress.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Sorry, I don't see the Democratic Party as a whole

hammering any of these issues. By lying back helplessly and saying, "The American people have been propagandized," we're ceding the issue to the Republicans.

Yes, the Republicanites control the MSM, but I've seen too many Dems go on said media outlets and mumble wimpy platitudes about supporting the president.

Then there are always the local media (which Senators and Congresscritters have almost automatic access to) and the tried-and-true tactic of the whispering campaign.

How are the American people going to get un-propagandized if the Dems act as if the Republicanites' assertions are true?

[moggie12]

68. Yo, flamin lib -- great post

(Of course, since I agree with you 100%, this may influence my opinion.)

That's what I always argue: Better incremental change than no change at all. And your last line should be an official Party slogan. I think I'm going to quote you as I'm replying to people who are arguing AGAINST signing Harry Reid's and the Senate Dems 10-point plan. (Or you come over and tell them yourself!!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1525891

By the way, you've signed the petition, right??? If not, link is on the post.

And welcome to DU!! :hi:

[bvar22]

30. Not just NO, but HELL NO.

The US is already spending OVER $1.5Billion Dollars per day(every day) on the WAR MACHINE, but can't find enough money for HealthCare for its own citizens, or Education?????

Anyone who supports giving MORE money to the War Machine is my political enemy.

ABSOLUTE WORD!

[apple_ridge]

32. It's this lack of opposition that makes me hope that the DLC

tells Dean to take a hike and he starts a third party. One with some *&^% conviction.

[orthogonal]

35. They're not for Iraq

This makes complete sense.

The 40,000 aren't for service in Iraq; it's to provide us with a cushion in case war breaks out somewhere else (North Korea, Taiwan, etc.), so that all of our combat strength isn't tied down in Iraq.

Realistically, as long as Bush is President and the Republicans control the Congress, we won't be getting out of Iraq.

But because of Bush's folly and Rumsfeld's mismanagement, far too much of our combat strength is tied down in Iraq. To ensure our nation's safety, we have to have a reserve in case we need to defend our interests elsewhere.

And this is an issue with which we can undercut the Republicans, by showing that Democrats are doing more to ensure our national security than the Bushies.

[katinmn]

42. don't forget Iran in your list of places war could break out

If people demanded it, seriously, we would be out of Iraq before his term is up.

Don't underestimate the anti-war movement. It's just getting started.

[Used and Abused]

36. Then we'll be blamed for the draft coming?

I say we just let the Republicans tie their own noose.

[American Tragedy]

41. From where are these 40,000 troops going to emerge?

In case they haven't noticed, the Army and Marines have had a hell of a time recently trying to convince people to permanently make themselves available, for whenever the military needs them to go endure asymmetrical warfare in a Middle Eastern hellscape for a while.

[flamin lib]

70. That's the beauty of it

Dems vote to spend the money to recruit 40,000 more troops, but nobody enlists. Zero sum change but we get credit for being strong on defense!

[LittleClarkie]

46. Adding them where

Too vague. What does this mean? Do they mean Iraq? If they mean that our military has been gutted and needs to be built back up, then I agree.

And sadly, if it means getting out sooner in the long run, putting more troops in Iraq initially may be the only solution. Sounds similar to what Kerry was advocating in that case. Problem is with Bush in power, he will fuck it all up regardless of the proper course of action.

[cindyw]

49. Hello people stop freaking out. This is is not in Iraq. This is what Kerry

proposed in the campaign. Adding soldiers to the total amount of troops in the entire military. God some people here are like a bunch of Chicken Littles.

[katinmn]

51. Not worried that the sky is falling

Just don't agree with paving the way for * to institute a draft.

Adding soliders means a draft. The military is already falling short of quotas, lots of no shows among those who have been called up.

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Why reward a mistake?

Further, Kerry LOST or let it be stolen. So much for that winning strategy.

[cindyw]

59. Actually it is the opposite of the draft. It is not increasing military

by 40,000 by drafting people unwilling to serve. It is a means of increasing military by goal. Setting of incentives and monies for recruiters. This is the exact opposite of starting a draft.

[katinmn]

64. They are not meeting quotas now.

Are they going to make these six figure positions?

[cindyw]

67. I don't know how they accomplish it. I am just saying that it is not

through draft. I guess I would have to read the bill to know how they would accomplish it.

[cestpaspossible]

55. National Guard and Army Reserve are stretched too thin.

Your objection seems to be based on this unfounded assertion: <i>Asking for 40,000 more troops will guarantee a draft. </i>, however, that assertion is just not accurate.

[Fleurs du Mal]

58. Absolutely not but

Improving benefits, yes.

[Walt Starr]

62. No, that's why I didn;'t sign the phony "agenda"

Getting our troops out of Iraq is my number one item on the agenda.

[katinmn]

65. Yes, I agree. Adopt a plan, set a date, and get out.

[Sgent]

72. Just a hint....

You don't win votes by calling the voters idiots.

Who do you think your talking about when you say "The american people have been propagandized"?????

Even a rural backwoods farmer doesn't like being called an idiot.

Better take (and somewhat Kerry's):

While I agreed with Bush when he made the intital invasions of Iraq, and especially Afganistan, there is no longer a national security reason for us to be there.

We need to get out, but we can't do so without ensuring an adequate power structure in the country. To that end we support increasing troop numbers in Iraq to control the dissidents, and the quickest holding of elections, as can be resonably done. To this end, we will bring in the UN to conduct the elections, and have asked OAS (organization of arab states) to oversee them.

/political statement

Calling the war a lie and calling our troups on the ground warmongers is a sure way to turn of those who might be supportive. The fact is that calling out policies -- such as Abu Grabi is fine, but to call your average grunt names is a sure way to make sure you end up outside at peace rally's rather than inside making policy.

[Zhade]

73. HELL. FUCKING. NO!

WTF do we need more for - so we can continue the occupation in Iraq? Invade another (small, Syria maybe) country?

Where can I get off this train to Madnessvilletown?

[DaveinMD]

74. our military is stretched thin

of course more troops are needed to end the back door draft on the national guard and reserves. This is right out of the Kerry campaign.

[Mountainman]

75. No, end the war and we don't need them.

This is a war we entered with no reason other than the desire on the part the neocons to do it. I don't think we should support it one minute longer.