Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer reports:
"Under assault from Republicans on issues of national security, congressional Democrats are planning to push for a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month as part of a broad effort to stay on the offensive ahead of the November midterm elections.The Unknown Candidate:
In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they have found both a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush and what they see as his blunders in Iraq. This week, Democrats interpreted a speech of his as equating critics of the war in Iraq to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, an interpretation that Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff disputed. But Democrats said the hyperbolic attack would backfire."
Great. No confidence in Rummy.
So what about Cheney? And Bush? And Bolton? And on and on and on?
If the Dems have found "a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush" to single out for a no-confidence vote, are we to presume they are content to go after a "stand-in" and allow the rest of the Bush Fiasco-Regime to continue operating without accountability?
It is past time to impeach the whole lot them. Democrats are complicit with Bush's agenda until they start speaking up and standing up for the rights of the people of the United States.
I have no respect for the rank and file Democrat who has sold out the people of this country with their namby-pamby, self-serving, political BS.
Where are the people with the courage to speak truth -- no matter what the political consequences to themselves?
Photo credit: Democrats want to hold Rumsfeld accountable for what they call blunders in Iraq. (AP)
Also see:
Technorati tags: Washington Post, Jonathan Weisman, Rumsfeld, Bush, Hitler, Republican Party, Midterm Elections, Democratic Party, The Unknown Candidate, news, commentary
1 comment:
Unknown Candidate: thanks - well said. The complicit dems should be tossed with the rest of the dirty water.
p.s. the pictures in my "homepage" show the bent and twisted, totally haphazard results of the collapses at the WTC on 911 - not. They show the neatly cut remains of hundreds (thousands?) of columns and beams - most about the same length and most with very neat, squared off ends. Some show the randomness of the heat in that the heat was enough to cut through the steel, but, where the steel splashed a few inches away, the steel was cold enough to congeal the molten bits.
The other interesting observation is the very straight line breaks of the outer beams where they weakend from the tremendous heat of the kerosine - the "breaks" occured, not at the joints or the places where there were "cutouts" (probably for electrical conduit) in the beams, but at the strongest points a foot or so above the cutouts.
Post a Comment