Congressman Kanjorski admits the Democrats Over-Promised on Iraq

[Pandora]

I notice the way you singled out a Democrat to illustrate how "politicians are sneaky snakes." I would submit that both parties have their share of the aforementioned. However, there is only one Republican president responsible for the deaths of thousands and the wasting of billions of dollars in a war built on a false premise.

Well I singled it out not to be mean but it was today’s news. If today’s news had been “Republicans admit they only said they were against abortion to get elected” I would have posted that. And I would have been equally offended.

How can you remain a registered Democrat yet vote for Buchanan and Bush? Don't you think it would be in your best interests to change your party registration? I mean, it's obvious you have completely given yourself over to the dark side.

Well I was a registered Democrat most of my adult life except for a year I was a registered Libertarian. But in my state only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in primaries. So I went back to Democrat. Right after 911 I changed my party to Republican for 3 years. But every election that we had in those 3 years, I got a letter in the mail about 6 weeks after the election saying my vote did not count because my signature did not match. So in frustration I changed back to Democrat and now my votes count and all is good in the Peoples Republic of Eugene.

This year I might vote for Ralph Nader or write in Mickey Mouse. I did that the year it was Clinton vs Dole

 

[Bunz]

Well I singled it out not to be mean but it was today’s news. If today’s news had been “Republicans admit they only said they were against abortion to get elected” I would have posted that. And I would have been equally offended.

Hi there ObamaNation, been awhile since I ran into you around here. But Ill do my best on this subject to make some sense of it.
Firstly, on the subject of abortion alone and the GOP using it as a tool to get elected and then do nothing about it, well they do. Then when they get to DC do little or nothing about it.
Now to bring this around to Iraq, and a single democrat saying what he did. Well I didnt expect huge change when the houses changed hands in 2006, because Bush was still in the WH and is still CiC. What I do appreciate is the frankly honest way this guy has approached it. Before one can make any moves in DC they want as part of a larger agenda they want to pursue, they must get elected first to do so.
What bugs me the most is the constant lies being and shells games the GOP are playing when it comes to Iraq. Just look at the evolution of the statements about Iraq from the GOP, from before the invasion, then the occupation, and now the post Saddam Civil War and the raise of extremists in a place they didnt really exist before.
I dont give the democrats a pass on this one, but what you present is like being more upset about a mosquito bite on your forehead than the Ka-Bar sticking out of your back.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Congressman Kanjorski Democrat from PA admits Dems “stretched the facts” about stopping the war to get elected.

“Now anybody was a good student of Government,” said Kanjorski, “would know that wasn’t true [that they “could stop the war”].” Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski’s reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.

But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable — because, again by Mr. Kanjorski’s own description, of “the temptation to want to win back the Congress.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8

Does this make anyone mad?

no because anyone with half a brain should have known they could not stop the war unless they got a Huge majority, what with Bush still in the White House. I don't know what they expected them to do with a small majority, and the Republicans not even letting them get a vote on anything. That said if they had won the votes needed, I am more then sure they would have put into action what they said.

Voters like to have politicians on both sides tell them what they want to hear, they don't like the Truth...then they ***** that they never get good leaders....I will take the smart honest one that I don't agree with over the smart one that will tell me what I want to hear any day.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Of course I am offended at the deaths. All of them. I usually avoid the topic of the Iraq war. My feelings are very mixed on the issue. I was not posting this to start a war debate. I would be flip flopping all over the board and I know it. I posted it because politicians are sneaky snakes and I wanted to know if anyone else besides me was offended by that.

My Republican president? I am a registered democrat who voted for Pat Buchanan in the first Bush election and yeah.. I voted for Bush in the second but ONLY because I really disliked Kerry (Almost as much as I dislike Obama).

what kinda Dem can Vote For Pat and Bush? You just not agree on with the party on almost every single issue but like the name? I myself like pat at times on some things, but his social issues make him a complete no go for me, but I am not a Dem.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

i don't see how it's possible to like obama less than kerry... kerry is about as charismatic as a log.

some people like the smartest, best qualified, with the best ideas guy....over "Charismatic"

I want someone to get the US on the Right track, not act in a Hollywood movie.

 

[Pandora]

Hi there ObamaNation, been awhile since I ran into you around here. But Ill do my best on this subject to make some sense of it.
Firstly, on the subject of abortion alone and the GOP using it as a tool to get elected and then do nothing about it, well they do. Then when they get to DC do little or nothing about it.

I only meant that I would put that in a thread if it was today’s news too. I was being questioned if I were posting only because it was a democrat saying it. I was trying to give an example of how I would post a Republican issue just the same. But I think you are right about them claiming they will do something about the issue then never dealing with it when they get in office. Some try to but are shot down, but not the majority. I would be happy just to have a 3 month limit on when you can get one. And sterilization with your second one. If it was an abortion of convenience. Really though I would just be happy with a 3 month limit.

Now to bring this around to Iraq, and a single democrat saying what he did. Well I didnt expect huge change when the houses changed hands in 2006, because Bush was still in the WH and is still CiC. What I do appreciate is the frankly honest way this guy has approached it. Before one can make any moves in DC they want as part of a larger agenda they want to pursue, they must get elected first to do so.

I thought there would be a big change; there are a lot of democrats in power in office right now. It seems more would have been able to be done in this last 2 years. The story is new, it will be interesting if other democrats come out and challenge what this congressman says.

What bugs me the most is the constant lies being and shells games the GOP are playing when it comes to Iraq. Just look at the evolution of the statements about Iraq from the GOP, from before the invasion, then the occupation, and now the post Saddam Civil War and the raise of extremists in a place they didnt really exist before.

I am skipping this part. Really I try to avoid Iraq war debates. My feelings are so mixed on this topic. If you notice I don’t really post about it. This post was not meant to be an Iraq war debate, just trying to get the basic feel of where people stand on politicians in general. Democrat or Republican Independent or Libertarian.

I dont give the democrats a pass on this one, but what you present is like being more upset about a mosquito bite on your forehead than the Ka-Bar sticking out of your back.

Well again it was not meant to be about Iraq, it’s just this is the first time I have seen a politician ANY politician democrat or republican admit something like this. I actually commend the man for being so honest. I like that in a person.

I would have much rather had a politician admit something that was neutral. Something not polarizing like abortion or war. I would have loved to post that instead, but that was not what the news was.

Good to talk to you again

 

[Pandora]

what kinda Dem can Vote For Pat and Bush? You just not agree on with the party on almost every single issue but like the name? I myself like pat at times on some things, but his social issues make him a complete no go for me, but I am not a Dem.

I explained myself in that post. I did try registering as a republican but I kept getting that stupid letter saying my signature didn’t match so I went back to democrat and now my vote counts.

My vote never really counts in National politics, this state will go democrat no matter who was on the ballot, but local issues are important to me, it was killing me to not have my vote count.

I like Pat’s social issues. Low taxes, No abortions, secure the borders. A lot like Ron Paul but with a bit of religion mixed in.

 

[top gun]

of course they COULD stop the war, by not voting for funding. but then their opponents would attack them as "not supporting the troops," and they would lose their re-election bids. better for them to wait until we have a democratic president who feels the same way about iraq policy, and troop withdrawal doesn't have to be forced by the legislature.

ALL TRUE... and not only that. Bush is such a Cowboy that he'd likely let the troops do without AGAIN... like he did with body armor... like he did with armor on the Humvees... and make it a slow bleed for our men and women over there.

Stubborn... stupid... it's a very fine line with this administration.

You know if we had 67 votes in the Senate to override Bush this thing would be winding down already. But we don't "yet" and the easiest way is to bring in the Democratic President.

We're on our way. Feel bad for the troops though. They shouldn't have to wait like this to come home!

 

[Bunz]

Hi Obamanation,
I am not going to bother with going down and playing the quote game. I dont think it necessary with you. I certainly understand your sentiments about debating Iraq, and abortion, because Iraq is a topic I am more knowledgable versus say abortion which isnt a pet issue.
My point is raising it, is that the far majority of politicians will say or do anything they think will help them get elected. It is often far different once they get to the capital building. This is a universal characteristic and not indicitive of ones party affiliation.

As for the Democrats being able to push through substantial change, well they only have a slim majority in the Senate, and of course the WH can veto anything they like without the super majority to overturn a veto. They dont even have a filibuster proof majority(60). So in many ways their hands are cuffed. When you will see more substance in policy shifts is when the GOP gets beat up in November.

Personally, I would rather keep a similar breakdown in Congress and have a Democrat in the WH. No matter which party is in control at any given time, I generally feel uneasy with one party having control over both houses and the Executive Branch. It is this free reign that is ultimately cost the GOP the 06 and 08 elections. Which will probably cost the Dems the 2012 congressional races and the 2016 Presidential election. The cycle will continue.

 

[Pandora]

Hi Obamanation, .

You defeat the purpose of my name How about No Obama for short ?

I am not going to bother with going down and playing the quote game. I dont think it necessary with you. I certainly understand your sentiments about debating Iraq, and abortion, because Iraq is a topic I am more knowledgable versus say abortion which isnt a pet issue. .

I know you do not like the abortion topic and I really do not like the Iraq war topic so we can agree not to talk about either with eachother.

My point is raising it, is that the far majority of politicians will say or do anything they think will help them get elected. It is often far different once they get to the capital building. This is a universal characteristic and not indicitive of ones party affiliation. .

I agree the far majority of politicians will say or do anything they think will help them get elected. I honestly can not name even one politician that I really trust or like or can be enthusiastic about. Mitt Romney is the closest but even that is not what I wish it could be. I think in general they have to have some corrupt desires to even enter politics. Or they genuinely cared but after a taste of power they let themselves become corrupt.

As for the Democrats being able to push through substantial change, well they only have a slim majority in the Senate, and of course the WH can veto anything they like without the super majority to overturn a veto. They dont even have a filibuster proof majority(60). So in many ways their hands are cuffed. When you will see more substance in policy shifts is when the GOP gets beat up in November. .

I have read that the Grand Old Party will lose at least 20 seats, maybe more in the fall. This should give the Dems enough power to do what they think is right. Then we can see if it works. I hope very much that if they blow it people will be honest enough to say it. And I hope if they can make real and genuine change people (like me) can say oh, that was not so bad. That really worked out nice. But I think what will happen is they will blow it in conservative eyes, and no matter what they do wrong will be considered right in liberal eyes, and nothing changes.

Personally, I would rather keep a similar breakdown in Congress and have a Democrat in the WH. No matter which party is in control at any given time, I generally feel uneasy with one party having control over both houses and the Executive Branch. It is this free reign that is ultimately cost the GOP the 06 and 08 elections. Which will probably cost the Dems the 2012 congressional races and the 2016 Presidential election. The cycle will continue.

It is safer to have it more balanced, but I am tired of hearing what they could do if they had the power. (I am talking about both Republicans and Democrats) I would rather give them all the rope they need and want and let them hang them selves. We are in so deep now I don’t see any way out.

2012 should be interesting either way. Have you ever wondered if we
could ever have another civil war in our Country? I have a feeling we will.

 

[BigRob]

ALL TRUE... and not only that. Bush is such a Cowboy that he'd likely let the troops do without AGAIN... like he did with body armor... like he did with armor on the Humvees... and make it a slow bleed for our men and women over there.

Stubborn... stupid... it's a very fine line with this administration.

You know if we had 67 votes in the Senate to override Bush this thing would be winding down already. But we don't "yet" and the easiest way is to bring in the Democratic President.

We're on our way. Feel bad for the troops though. They shouldn't have to wait like this to come home!

With a democrat controlled house and senate they decide what legislation comes before the congress. If they wanted to cut funding, they easily could have. Basically what happened if all of these democrats came into office with promises to end the war and then caved into Bush.

And your talk of waiting two years until it becomes politically viable to pull off is idiotic. Don't pretend to care that you are appalled that the troops have to wait to come home, while sticking up for a gutless democratic congress who is waiting until it is "politically convenient" to bring them home.

 

[Andy]

It's called politics. What's even more interesting is your apparent failure to be offended in even the slightest at your Republican president being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilians. All in war based on a lie. Find those WMDs yet?

It wasn't a lie. It was true. Whether we found them or not (and we did), Saddam had them. He used them. How can you claim he didn't have something when he used the things he supposedly didn't have? Also, why then, did he kick the UN inspectors out? And if he didn't (which he did and is proven), why does it matter when he kicked out the UN inspectors which were part of his surrender deal?

All in all, we did need to deal with Saddam, and we should have gone, we did go, we have a duty to finish the job in Iraq, and we better or we'll regret it later.

 

[Here We Go]

Oh Balderdash Andy!! Saddam was just a big "bluffer" and it backfired on him. Where ARE the WMDs? What kind are they? How was Saddam going to attack America with WMDs and when? I'm sure you have all those answers so tell us about it and be able to back it up.

I have always tried to be congenial in this room but you thinking we should be in Iraq and we should stay in Iraq until it's over? . . . in all due respect, your nuts! Stay in Iraq until it's over? Until WHAT is over. What and who are we fighting for?

 

[Bunz]

You defeat the purpose of my name How about No Obama for short ?

I am not sure my keyboard is capable of typing that. Obamanation strums off my fingers so easily...

I know you do not like the abortion topic and I really do not like the Iraq war topic so we can agree not to talk about either with eachother.

Fair enough.

I agree the far majority of politicians will say or do anything they think will help them get elected. I honestly can not name even one politician that I really trust or like or can be enthusiastic about. Mitt Romney is the closest but even that is not what I wish it could be. I think in general they have to have some corrupt desires to even enter politics. Or they genuinely cared but after a taste of power they let themselves become corrupt.

Except for your liking of Romney, I would agree. I have often found myself at odds even my most favorite politicians. Which has led me to declare candidicies myself. Could I suggest getting involved at a local level? You would be amazed at the response one gets if you arent a nutjob, which I dont think you are.

I have read that the Grand Old Party will lose at least 20 seats, maybe more in the fall. This should give the Dems enough power to do what they think is right. Then we can see if it works. I hope very much that if they blow it people will be honest enough to say it. And I hope if they can make real and genuine change people (like me) can say oh, that was not so bad. That really worked out nice. But I think what will happen is they will blow it in conservative eyes, and no matter what they do wrong will be considered right in liberal eyes, and nothing changes.

I have heard several numbers thrown around. I would imagine the 20 number is a combined total for both houses which still wouldnt give either house the true majority it takes to overturn a veto along party lines.

It is safer to have it more balanced, but I am tired of hearing what they could do if they had the power. (I am talking about both Republicans and Democrats) I would rather give them all the rope they need and want and let them hang them selves. We are in so deep now I don’t see any way out.

2012 should be interesting either way. Have you ever wondered if we
could ever have another civil war in our Country? I have a feeling we will.

I have long said the one thing the Democrats and Republicans will almost always agree on is crushing any upstart third party.

As a side note, civil war? I am not a religious person, but I will say "God I hope not" to that idea.

 

[Vietvet]

Congressman Kanjorski Democrat from PA admits Dems “stretched the facts” about stopping the war to get elected.

“Now anybody was a good student of Government,” said Kanjorski, “would know that wasn’t true [that they “could stop the war”].” Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski’s reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.

But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable — because, again by Mr. Kanjorski’s own description, of “the temptation to want to win back the Congress.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8

Does this make anyone mad?

"Taking advantage of poor, uneduacated rubes" describes Bushco to a tee..BTW, it takes a working majority in both Houses to get any legislation passed, short of refusing to fund the troops, which,as has already been pointed out, is not politically feasable.fifty seats in the Senate(given that LIE-ber-man is for all intents and purposes a turncoat) is NOT a majority.

Not to worry, though..Come January, we'll have a Democratic POTUS and a Democratic WORKING majority in both Houses of Congress, and we WILL be ending the war.