Personally, I think it would be great if more Democrats stood up for me when Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Hannity/etc. call me a terrorist sympathizer or compare me to Nazi sympathizers for disagreeing with them, or when Katherine Harris implies I'd like to vote to legislate sin. This has been going on for five years and I'm pretty tired of it!

We continue that tradition today by pushing the Bush Administration to take a new direction in Iraq.....Democrats believe that there must be a significant transition in Iraq this year.

Do you support Murtha's plan for a withdrawal "over the horizon"?

If not, what is the mission that US troops are now trying to accomplish? When will we know it has been accomplished? What are the benchmarks, and the deadlines, for achieving those results? Or do you envisage an open-ended commitmentment of US troops to Iraq, similar to deployment of US troops in Europe throughout the Cold War? If so, how do you propose to fund that ongoing commitment, and how will you pay for the expansion of the military that will be necessary to sustain it? Given that polls show that a majority of Americans are in favor of withdrawing from Iraq in the next year, how would you plan to change people's minds on this topic?

Do you support permanent US bases in Iraq?

We learn today that Jim Webb is seeing his son off to fight in Iraq. Do you have any family members stationed in Iraq?

Do you believe that the threat of Iran obtaining nukes is sufficiently immediate that we should consider bombing their nuclear sites in the next 6-12 months? Given the difficulties with locating Iranian bunkers well enough for conventional weapons, do you support the use of nuclear bunker busters? Are you worried about nuclear fallout from such weapons e.g. in Tehran. If you support bombing, how do you propose to protect the supply lines from Kuwait to US troops in Iraq that go through the Shiite south of Iraq?

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you can't answer these questions for me, what will you do when Wolf starts reading off the questions that Ken mailed to him?

"...take a new direction in Iraq and to adopt better strategies in the war on terror."

 The direction to take in Iraq is the one leading out the door.  If that is hard to understand, we need to begin a withdrawal of US forces in Iraq, and complete it in a few months.  Iraq is embroiled in a civil war between the clans or religious factions there.  Our country has no part to play in another nation's civil war.  Our role should be to stand by and be ready to help the winner rebuild the country, since we started the whole mess, and did most of the damage.

The "better strategies in the war on terror" have to start with recognizing that there is no war on terror.  The "global war on terror" is a political gimmick aimed at keeping the Bush regime in power, and it has succeeded.  Now is the time to find something worthwhile to do, such as rebuilding the damage from Hurricane Katrina, beefing up ocean shipping terminal security, finding a way to regain our economic strength by distributing more of our wealth away from the extremely wealthy, ending the domination of Congress by lobbyests,  eliminating the use of redistricting of congressional districts to keep one party in power, providing national health insurance so no one is without health care, and on and on.

Leave the nonsense about wars and terrorism to the Republicans. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

What was sold by Bush et al. as a $10 billion war that would make us safer is now a $1 trillion war, when hidden costs are counted, that has made the whole world incalculably less safe, creating a national debt that will be used to push national health insurance and alternative energy technology development out of the picture for decades to come.

I don't recall Bush, Rumfeld or Cheney calling you (or any Dem politician) a terrorist sympathizer. Please stick with facts.

Hannity is a blow hard.

Katherine Harris is a kook.

I believe those are facts we can both agree on.

I don't recall Bush, Rumfeld or Cheney calling you (or any Dem politician) a terrorist sympathizer.

May I humbly suggest that you read, or re-read Cheney's speeches (especially the most recent) when he talks about those who want to leave Iraq giving comfort to "AlQaeda types."  And to Rummy's last speech where he refers to those who haven't learned from history about appeasement -- drawing a line from dot to dot, joining those who think the war is wrong with those who allowed Hitler to gain strength.  The message is loud and clear that those who disagree with the Bush cabal are friends of AlQaeda, and would roll over for Hitler.

 Now, Bush is the "good cop" lately.  He says with a disgusting smirk (because he knows he is lying, and he knows the reporter he is lying to knows he is lying, and he also knows that NO ONE will challenge him when he lies) that his speeches are not political; that he understands that some people disagree with him, and that (because he is The Decider, and has all this hard work to do) if people don't like him, that's OK.

Please stick with facts.

Them's the facts.  Like it or not!

Jan Knaus

Leave the nonsense about wars and terrorism to the Republicans.

In 2004 Kerry tried running to the right of Bush on Iraq. Another mistake.

Iraq is the defining political issue of our time. It is very relevant to domestic issues: money that could be spent e.g. on domestic infrastructure (such as levees) is instead bleeding into the Iraqi sand. Voters know it. Anybody who tries to ignore Iraq is not serious.

But what position do the Democrats take on Iran? I mean, they have thought about it, right?

I confidently predict there will be numerous transitions in Iraq this year

And don't forget corners turned!!

Whatever you think of Iraq, this kind of mealy-mouthed DLC triangulation crap won't work politically anymore, and it never had any value substantively. Don't say we need a new direction, say clearly what goddam direction you want to go in. Don't say Democrats need to show leadership, show some damn leadership. (this could apply to just about every centrist timid-toe-in-the-water spotlight junkie in both Dem Caucuses, from Biden to Obama to HR Clinton).

That said, I'll give Rep. Hoyer credit for bringing up the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. That's serious stuff, and a good place to start talking about security, even if, unfortunately, it won't fit on a bumber sticker or in between screeches on the Tweety Show. I only wish he'd mentioned those NJ chemical plants along with ports and borders. That's some scary stuff.

...and Bush never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. And George Allen isn't a racist. And Joe Lieberman is a good Democrat. And Joe Wilson was the one who outed his wife. And Rudy Giuliani's adultery was totally different that Bill Clinton's. And John McCain is a straight-shooting, stand up guy. And no could have anticipated all the things that people told Condi Rice and Michael Chertoff were going to happen.

Any other "facts" you'd like to trot out? Even though I kind of think you don't really know what a "fact" is. It's not something Bill O'Reilly says on the "Factor".

Democrats believe....

Well, I've been a Democrat since my parents took me to see JFK when I was 9 and since I followed McCarthy's kids, cast my first vote for George McGovern and supported every Minnesota Democrat through Paul Wellstone.

BUT -- I will NOT vote for Hoyer's agenda and for the first time this year I will NOT vote for the Democrat running for the Senate in Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, because she has taken these same phony tough, mire ourselves in Iraq, throw money at the military and health care be damned positions.

Fortunately, we have an Independent candidate who sounds a lot more sensible than the Greens, he's to my right on economic policy (but so is the DLC so what difference does that make) and he is for getting out of Iraq NOW. He will get my vote.

So win without me, Hoyer. You've gone so far to the right, I can find even center-right parties to your left.

Americans see through this mush. If they vote against Republicans, they are voting against Republicans not for this unbelieveable stand for nothing, no ideas but ones we can steal from somebody else excuse for an agenda. Could you tell me what you are going to do about Iraq, please? Just give me a clue? What is in the secret case? Am I buying the $1 trillion war suitcase or am I buying the $10 health care budget suitcase or just what is your secret plan for the American people?

What we've got is an election between chickenhawks and chickenhearts.

The real third way has got to be a third party.

Forget Iraq!  A Democratic win this year will have little to do with setting a new foreign policy.

What it will do is provide 18 months of investigations of Bush incompetence and Republican corruption and convince the American people that electing a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008 is the only answer for a country headed in the wrong direction.

Let's see. Democrats get their microphones shut off during committee hearings by the GOP chairman. Every time the Dems call a press conference, Bush calls one and says nothing new but takes away press coverage. Little if any Dem sponsored legislation makes it to the floor. Votes are held open many, many hours to bully or bribe moderate GOP (see e.g. DeLay). Compromise in the Senate is essentially thrown away during committee.

Yes, its very easy to "fight" in this environment--the House was called a "plantation" for a reason. Pay attention and you may see more going on than you give credit for.

And while you're paying attention -- per gqmartinez's advice -- take a look at Off-Center.

I heard recently that the Iraq War is costing more than the entire world spends on AIDS. We'd do better electing Bill Gates. He is actually competent and he even gives a damn about the poor. We don't have a major party that can claim either.

Bronto

I specifically mentioned that the U.S. government AFTER the Bush administration must be sure to formulate its own agenda based on the interests of Americans, not the international community (which will likely demand some sort of pennance on the part of the U.S. for the sins of the past 8 years).

We cannot let that happen. Do we need to rethink our strategies to ensure that self-serving administrations never again impose their will so manifestly? Absolutely. Should we cave to international pressure by completely their checklist of Things To Do? Absolutely not.

Our own actions, if rooted in just just causes and peace loving desires, will do plenty to expunge our past evils.

I agree with you.  I don't think we can or should ignore it. 

Polls (from what I have seen posted here) claim the American people are starting to trust the democrats more then the repugs for handling terrorism/security issues.  I think the dems should stress going after "real" terrorists and stop trying to use "terrorism" and wars of agression waged against other sovereign nations to further our country's global-economic power.  Not every regime in the ME we don't get along with are terrorists.

Well, we have no comments here from Rep. Hoyer. Let's at least hope one of his staffers prints them and and he reads them.

It would be good to hear what the little people are saying in reponse, no?  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I see Casey takes the Hoyer position on MTP this morning. He would have voted for the war knowing what he knew then (apparently he didn't know much then) and he can't be pinned down on whether he'd vote for the war now knowing what he knows now (not that you can tell what he knows now). He's not for staying the course, but he is for staying put. He's for more military spending and more saber rattling at Iran.

Health? Education? Environment? Didn't hear word one.

If you want fear and war and more fear and more war and more fear and more war after that (pro-life wars, of course) we've got two parties for you here in America.

If you want a clean, healthy, peaceful, educated environment in which to raise your children, try Canada, Europe, or Australia.