Some used to be anti-war...
WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?
DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts.
Some still are!
KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.
Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.
A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.
So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.
(from yesterday's debate)
We have a choice, Doctor, and you're on the wrong side. Either American troops and budgets continue to bleed to maintain an occupation, or they don't.
Who are Dean and the other big spenders among the candidates playing to, anyhow? Recent polls have shown the majority of Americans oppose spending the $87 billion. Of course that's not a good reason for a decision, as the majority of Americans have frequently shown themselves to be idiots. But why choose supporting this bloody boondoggle as your opportunity to take a stand against majority opinion? We can't know for sure, but it certainly seems as though the occupation is not improving things for Iraqis, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that things will get better soon, if ever. Leaving now leaves Iraq with an uncertain future; so does staying. Leaving saves probably thousands of US lives and billions of dollars. Do Dean and the others really imagine being inaugurated with this huge debt and occupation to manage? Pull out now, embarrass the crap out of aWol, and take over in 2005 without the cement shoes.
WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?
DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts.
Some still are!
KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.
Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.
A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.
So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.
(from yesterday's debate)
We have a choice, Doctor, and you're on the wrong side. Either American troops and budgets continue to bleed to maintain an occupation, or they don't.
Who are Dean and the other big spenders among the candidates playing to, anyhow? Recent polls have shown the majority of Americans oppose spending the $87 billion. Of course that's not a good reason for a decision, as the majority of Americans have frequently shown themselves to be idiots. But why choose supporting this bloody boondoggle as your opportunity to take a stand against majority opinion? We can't know for sure, but it certainly seems as though the occupation is not improving things for Iraqis, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that things will get better soon, if ever. Leaving now leaves Iraq with an uncertain future; so does staying. Leaving saves probably thousands of US lives and billions of dollars. Do Dean and the others really imagine being inaugurated with this huge debt and occupation to manage? Pull out now, embarrass the crap out of aWol, and take over in 2005 without the cement shoes.
<< Home