Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Shays calls for Iraq time frame
Posted by: McQ on Friday, August 25, 2006

Unsurprisingly, the "pull-back" continues on the Republican side:
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), once an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, said yesterday that the Bush administration should set a time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops. He added that most of the withdrawal could take place next year.
The real reason?
Shays, who faces a tough reelection campaign because of his previous support for President Bush's war policies, made his comments after completing his 14th trip to Iraq this week.
His support is perceived a political liability in a tight race.

The excuse?
He said he found a "noticeable lack of political will" among Iraqis "to move in what I would call a timely fashion" and concluded that Iraqi officials would act with greater urgency if the United States this fall set a timetable for withdrawal.

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal," Shays said from London in a conference call with reporters. "A timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of the Iraqis."
Just now noticeable, huh?

His opponent isn't buying it either:
Diane Farrell, Shays's Democratic challenger, said: "I think it is unfortunate it took him 14 trips and three years to recognize that Iraq has been in a constant state of turmoil since the day that Baghdad fell." She added that Shays's timetable may not meet the "expectations of the American public."
Suddenly, after 14 trips there's a "noticeable lack of will?" Excuse me if I have some difficulty with the suggestion that he's just discovered this "noticeable lack of political will". "Tight race" and a perception of politically being on the wrong side of an issue seems a much more plausible explanation. And saying what he thinks will move him more to the center is just good politics even if it may be disingenuous at best.

As for Shay's point that "... it is essential to signal to the Iraqi government that there is no open checkbook or indefinite time frame", I don't disagree. But I'm a little lost as to where that's been suggested to be the case. Let me again point to Gen. Casey's Congressional testimony:
Phase I (2006-2007) Stabilization

Phase II (2007 - 2008) Restoration of Iraqi Govt authority

Phase III (2008-2009) Iraqi Self-reliance
These are the phases requisite to our pull out. Seems pretty time-phased to me. And, of course, we're obviously in Phase I of stabalization per his testimony.

What does that mean in terms of troops?
General Casey is anticipating, if stabalization proceeds as planned, to have that down to 10 [brigades] in December of 2006 and to 7 or 8 brigades by June of 2007. Keep in mind the two reserve brigades remain in place and on call through out these phases. Additionally in Phase I, bases would be reduced from 69 to 57 in Dec. 2006 and down to 30 in June of 2007. These will be handed over to Iraqi forces.
In Phase II the following happens concerning US troop levels:
Phase II will see further reductions in combat brigades and bases. Brigades will drop to 5 or 6 by Dec. 2007. Bases will further decline from 30 to 11 by that same date.
A reduction of eight combat brigades would shrink the number of combat forces by about 28,000 troops. But that does not mean that the reduction in the remainder of the force would be proportional. Troops would still be needed to deliver supplies and staff headquarters. Also, the American military would continue to help the Iraqis with logistics, intelligence, training and airstrikes.
That leaves 21,000 combat troops. Figure 2 to 1 as a rough "teeth to tail" ratio and you still will have about 60,000 troops in the theater at the end of 2007 (and the middle of Phase II).
Now, to me that seems reasonable and certainly a time frame which makes it clear to me, and I assume to the Iraqis, that there's no "open checkbook" here. The plan in place puts them in charge in a reasonable time frame.

Shays plan?
Shays said that while a timetable can and should be set, having one does not necessarily mean the withdrawal would be quick. He said it would be an outrage to leave Iraq before the Iraqis have the security they need. Some forces would have to remain to provide logistical support to the government and its armed forces. "It may be a timeline Americans don't want to hear," he said.
Hello? See above. It was laid out in June of this year.

Why Shays doesn't seem familiar with this (or is ignoring it) remains unknown. In fact, why a lot of people seem to be unfamiliar with this is puzzling. Casey isn't unilaterally putting this time frame out there without administration approval, trust me (a reminder, Gen. Casey doesn't work for Rumsfeld, he works directly for President Bush).

But it's politics time in the good old US of A, and as with most things, pols have a tendency to follow the line of least resistance and most reward. It appears to me that Shays is of the opinion that means backing off support on Iraq just enough to make him seem more moderate and more in tune with what I'm sure he's being told are the swing voters he needs to win the "tight race" he faces.

Anymore, politics and the quest for power (or retaining it) seems to win over integrity every time. But as is often said, those that don't pay attention to such things get the government they deserve.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Thats pretty sneaky McQ. Trying to prove that Bush has a plan and timetable for Iraq by showing us Bush’s plan and timetable. But I won’t fall for this fiendish neo-con trick.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Phase I (2006-2007) Stabilization

Phase II (2007 - 2008) Restoration of Iraqi Govt authority

Phase III (2008-2009) Iraqi Self-reliance

You know, this timetable is all fine and dandy, but where’s the heightened sense of moral outrage you get from saying: BRING THEM HOME NOW!
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Want to know the real reason Shays switched positions? It’s because of me. I’m his Libertarian opponent in the race.

On Monday, August 21, I sent an email to his and Farrell’s campaigns with my six-page position paper explaining why we need a deadline, and inviting Shays/Farrell to debate the issue.

At the time Shays/Farrell both opposed a deadline. I invited them to attend the town meeting on August 29, at 8pm, in Greenwich Town Hall to debate the issue with me. They declined.

But it seems Shays is changing to try to keep up with my policy positions.

Here is a press release:
http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/7968/

See my website at http://www.MayminForCongress.com for the position
paper and more.

Best regards,
Phil Maymin
Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Congress
Connecticut’s Fourth Congressional District
 
Written By: Phil Maymin
URL: http://www.MayminForCongress.com
>>>>I am a Libertarian from the Constitution State running against Shays/Farrell.

* Slash taxes, phase out spending, and pay down the debt.
* Secure our borders. No amnesty for illegal aliens.
* Invading Iraq was a mistake. National defense, not interventions.<<<<

Well, you got 2 out of 3 right. Unfortunately, the one you got wrong, in the long run, will get a lot more Americans killed. Also, since you don’t seem to understand why we are in Iraq and don’t seem to understand the broader scope of National Security, I doubt you have the stomach to do what it takes to actually enforce border rules. Slogans and platitudes sound nice and all, but let’s see how you deal with the Mexican Army taking a more active role in promoting illegal immingration. You’ll cut n run from that, too.

So in short: I hope you lose the election. Not that I have to hope much. I mean, seriously, why even waste your time running for the LP? You got 2 choices to win an American election, R or D.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
since you don’t seem to understand why we are in Iraq and don’t seem to understand the broader scope of National Security, I doubt you have the stomach to do what it takes to actually enforce border rules.
This seems fairly specious reasoning to me.

But to Mr. Maymin, while I also disagree with you on the Iraq issues, I do wish the best for you and hope you win, or at least have a strong showing. I believe a strong libertarian showing would awaken those in Congress to the urgent demand for fiscal responsibility, and less govt regulations.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
I mean, seriously, why even waste your time running for the LP? You got 2 choices to win an American election, R or D.

That is exactly why he, and other LP’s should run. So that when both the R and the D are F-ing A’s, the voters have a way to vote against them.

-Gil

 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
"Libertarians" [sic] who tax away people’s money at gunpoint to force them to support an unbelievably expensive war they don’t believe in and then question their patriotism and intellect when they try to end the war they didn’t want in the first place believe in neither free markets nor free minds. They are just thugs like everybody else.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
thats nice william. Does that have anything to do with the discussion?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
It has to do with the above comments, Chris.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
>>>since you don’t seem to understand why we are in Iraq and don’t seem to understand the broader scope of National Security, I doubt you have the stomach to do what it takes to actually enforce border rules.

This seems fairly specious reasoning to me. >>

The LP, not small L libertarians, generally fall on the anti-police/anti-military side of things. Pro gun rights, yes. But police and military averse, generally speaking. Since curbing illegal immigration may require both police and military action, how can I trust a member of the LP to actually follow through on these anti-illegal immigration promises? Also, what the deal with "National defense, not interventions"? That sounds like: "Won’t do a damn thing until we’ve been hit. Then we’ll get busy."

I really have no stomach for this continued nonsense: "Why are we in Iraq?" If you don’t know by now, you’re never gonna get it. And that’s sad because the answer is simple— to stop the spread of terrorism. It’s that simple. That’s why we’re there.

The US is doing the right thing for this world and for this country, and not necessarily in that order. But again, if you don’t understand ’Iraq’ or simply wanna believe that the U.S. motivation for being there is for "Haliburton," etc., then I don’t want you in any position of power for this country.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Yeah, sure, William, whatever. So, uh, how would leaving the Taliban and S.H. in power promoted free markets, peace, love and puppies and rainbows for all? Just askin’......
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
It doesn’t really matter what the Chris Shays of the world say or do, Bush isn’t going to pull the troops out ’before the job is done’... and, with no offense to our troops, since the job can’t be done*, this means they ain’t coming home anytime while Bush is still President.

* they’re there as peacekeepers and peacekeeping only works when the two sides want peace but need the facade of a neutral party keeping them from one another. And since the battle in Iraq is over who gets power post-Hussein and with both sides thinking a few dead here and there is less consequential than ceding power to the other side, we’re going to once again see proven the old adage that ’one can lead Mohammed to the mountain, but you can’t make them stop killing each other’.
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
I dont think so william.
and then question their patriotism and intellect when they try to end the war they didn’t want in the first place
No one has questioned anyone’s patriotism, nor intellect. However, people have tried to point out why they think it is a bad idea to leave Iraq now and not finish the job (whether we should have invaded or not). McQ’s actual post also pointed out that there is in fact a timeline with goals and metrics. If this type of reasoning means that we can’t be libertarians in your limited view, you probably need to find smaller tent to play in, because we like to keep ours big.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Steve -
It doesn’t really matter what the Chris Shays of the world say or do, Bush isn’t going to pull the troops out ’before the job is done’... and, with no offense to our troops, since the job can’t be done*, this means they ain’t coming home anytime while Bush is still President.
Au Contraire!

It really does matter what the Chris Shays of Congress say or do.

Last time I looked, George Bush was not Fuhrer. Congress has statue-making and funding authority on war, not the Commander-in-Chief.

He has to go to Congress for funding, and for the laws and policies he desires. If funds are cut off, or the Democrats if they win, plus add the GOP moderates and lay out changing terms of engagement...it doesn’t matter what "The Decider" wants.

PS - Phil Maymin must be smoking some of that stuff Libertarians want to legalize if he thinks the emenations from his brain or the intimidation of debating him are the reason why Shays or Farrel are taking the positions they are on Iraq. In terms of clout and mattering, it’s akin to PETA claiming they are the True Moral Force blocking offshore oil drilling.

 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
ChrisB -
No one has questioned anyone’s patriotism, nor intellect.
I do.

When I hear a Leftie say this or that is a pile of lies, made by bigoted, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-progressive fascists.

I call them a traitor.

No, I call them stupid traitors.

Then wait for the inevitable sputtering outrage and indignation. "How....How dare you slur me so!"

"You have no right to slime me or impugne my patriotism, you paid fascist lackey of the lying ChimpyMcHitlerBurton, you fithy criminal money sellout to the Jews!"

Traitors can really be quite amusing. Especially when you then say that they can work out and create their perfect world in the Internment Camps. Which you tell them quietly being built in remote corners of Alaska and Wyoming on land that Cheney bought 10 years ago.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
McQ:

I know this is ground we have recently trod, but it simply not adequate for Gen. Casey to testify to Congress about timetables and goals and expect the American people to say, OK we get it now. It is the job of the president to use the Bully Pulpit. We are in a war, for god’s sake, and the President’s job is to keep the country rallied to the cause and inform the citizenry about goals and obstacles and, yes, timetables. That is what the people want to know. And, as the quotes from this week’s press conference demonstrate, the President is not speaking the same language as Gen. Casey. And that is no one’s fault but the President.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
C. Ford: if you think Bush is going to pull the troops out, you’re as delusional as he is. He (wrongly and unfortunately) believes so strongly in what he is doing that I bet he’d risk impeachment before he brought the troops home before he left office. Keep in mind that a guy who thinks he’s on a mission to change the world for the better is not going to let some pointy-heads in Congress keep him from fulfilling his destiny. So all the anti-war types in Congress can do all they want, passing this or that resolution or seeking to deny funding to the military for Iraq and Bush will unleash the DOJ attorneys to battle it out in court and by the time the dust settles, it is January 2009 and we will thankfully have someone else in the White House who can pull the troops out from where they’re doing no good (or, more properly, not enough good to warrant the expense of dollars and men) and refocus our military efforts on the real threats to American security: Iran.
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/
Steve Sturm -
C. Ford: if you think Bush is going to pull the troops out, you’re as delusional as he is.


I believe you need a Constitutional refreasher, followed by historical exaamples like Vietnam on the effects of a Congressional cutoff in war support.
He (wrongly and unfortunately) believes so strongly in what he is doing that I bet he’d risk impeachment before he brought the troops home before he left office.
He is risking a Bill of Impeachment anyways. The Democrats have in their ranks people aching to impeach the guy for a number of offenses. Some only in dumb John Conyers low-IQ mind, others .....pausible. It would be the same mistake as trying to boot a good President - Clinton - out for Monica, IMO. Hard to impeach a President for poor performance, not to mention for the "crimes" of the Patriot Act and the Iraq war that 2/3rds of the people yakking about impeaching Bush also voted for.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
I know this is ground we have recently trod, but it simply not adequate for Gen. Casey to testify to Congress about timetables and goals and expect the American people to say, OK we get it now.
However it is more than adequate for Congressmen and Senators, David ... after all it that group to which this report was made. And, btw, it’s also their job to know this stuff.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I know this is ground we have recently trod, but it simply not adequate for Gen. Casey to testify to Congress about timetables and goals and expect the American people to say, OK we get it now.
However it is more than adequate for Congressmen and Senators, David ... after all it that group to which this report was made. And, btw, it’s also their job to know this stuff.
Except, McQ, that Shays must contend with the views of American voters because, well, he needs their votes. Further, Shays — like the majority of Americans — may well wonder how what he is hearing from Gen. Casey comports with these remarks last week by the President:
The United States of America must understand it’s in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it’s in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.
The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we’re not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That’s the strategic — and not only to help the government — the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you’re leaving before the mission is complete. And we’re not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
I don’t see any timetable there, neither do the majority of the American people, nor does Rep. Shays. If President Bush agrees with what Gen. Casey says about withdrawing from Iraq, then why doesn’t he say so? More importantly, regardless of the reasons he isn’t saying it, the bottom line is that he isn’t, and the American people (including Rep. Shays) are entitled, I think, to take him at his word.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I don’t see any timetable there, neither do the majority of the American people, nor does Rep. Shays.
Then that is your and Shays’ problem, David. I’ve pointed to it numerous times in black and white.
Phase I (2006-2007) Stabilization

Phase II (2007 - 2008) Restoration of Iraqi Govt authority

Phase III (2008-2009) Iraqi Self-reliance
There it is, in short form, for the umpteenth time. It’s been available and known by those paying attention since June. What part of it don’t you and Shays understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Anymore, politics and the quest for power (or retaining it) seems to win over integrity every time. But as is often said, those that don’t pay attention to such things get the government they deserve.
Oh brother!


A politician sees that the vast majority of his constituency is for a certain proposal, for this reason, in addition to seeing the situation in Iraq getting worse every day, he changes his position. Or not as I don’t recall him ever advocating staying in Iraq for 10 years.

Sounds to me like his constituents are getting the representation they want. Whether or not they "deserve" it is not really relevant.

Want to know the real reason Shays switched positions? It’s because of me.
Yes, the thought of losing that 1.4% of the vote is probably scaring the hell out of him.

No offense, but I think you’ve grossly inflated your relevance in the race.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Phase I (2003-2004) (2004-2005) (2005-2006)(2006-2007) Stabilization

Phase II (2004-2005) (2005-2006) (2006-2007)(2007 - 2008) Restoration of Iraqi Govt authority

Phase III (2005-2006) (2006-2007) (2007-2008)(2008-2009) Iraqi Self-reliance


Estimated Cost. Pays for itself $100 Billion $ 300 Billion $500 Billion $1 Trillion


Making Iran the most influential country in the Mid East (including Iraq)?

Priceless

You’ve gotta admit, it was an ambitious plan. But I think we could have saved a little money and accomplished the same thing if we’d have come up with a plan 3 years ago.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
McQ:

Let’s cut to the chase: Point me (and Shays, and the rest of the American people for that matter) to where President Bush — you know, the Commander-in-Chief guy — talks about a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. If you can’t do that, am I’m fairly certain that you can’t, the you should stop blaming everyone in the world for being too dense to see what it isn’t there. You’ll excuse me if I take the words of the President over those of Gen. Casey, or you for that matter, as to what the President has in mind. I’ll remind you (again) what he said just last week:
We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.
That doesn’t sound like a timetable for withdrawal to me. In fact, coupled with his statements as to our goals in the region —
The United States of America must understand it’s in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it’s in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we’re not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That’s the strategic — and not only to help the government — the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you’re leaving before the mission is complete. And we’re not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
— it sounds exactly like the kind of open-ended, undefined, messianic zeal that has delivered us into this mess.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
First you point me to the place where Truman, you know the President, laid out the Marshall Plan.

Oh, wait, he didn’t. His Secretary of State did.

Did the Marshalll Plan not exist because President Harry Truman wasn’t the one to announce it?

Pretending that the plan doesn’t exist simply because the person you wanted to lay it out didn’t do so won’t cut it.

There it is. That’s the plan. Again, I ask, what part of it don’t you understand?
We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.
A statement which is perfectly congruent with a plan which ends in ’09, if you ask me. Why, did you think he was going to run for a third term?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If I wasn’t clear before, the purpose of the deadline is to ensure victory if it is possible, maximimize American safety, and instill Iraqi stability. A deadline accomplishes those tasks. I suggest again you read my position paper for more details. It is only six pages long. If I could have made it shorter I would have. It’s available on my website at http://www.MayminForCongress.com.

To the comments about securing the border: that is the precise role of the military. Libertarians are the strongest party when it comes to defending people. There is no compromising national security or justice. Both are the foundation of freedom. If there is a threat, it will be dealt with, period. The border must be secure 100%. Every inch. If the Mexican army opposes us, they’ll regret it soon enough.

To the comments about national defense, not interventions: our military exists to protect Americans, not Iraqis or Bosnians or Somalians. We are not the world’s police. Iraq was not a threat to America before our invasion; today, it is a hot spot for terrorism, and we should clamp down on it as quickly and as harshly as we can to keep it down as long as possible. The best way to accomplish that is with a deadline.

To the comments about whether it is true that I influenced Shays: he had been to Iraq 14 times. It has been 1,245 days since the start of the invasion. Never in all those days did he once mention a timeline. Yet it was just a few short days from the time I emailed my position paper to his campaign that he followed in my footsteps. His statements were very similar to the ones I made in my position paper, even going so far as to ask if we had issued a "blank check" to Iraq. That doesn’t sound like a coincidence to me.

Finally, it is important to note that the regime we are supporting in Iraq is in fact a Communist one. And this is a statement that to my knowledge no one on Earth has made before me, so when you start hearing Shays or Farrell say it, please recognize the source. The Iraqi Constitution grants each citizen a right to employment, to a high wage, free medical care, free education through all its stages, and, the most telling of all, complete public ownership of all the oil and gas in the country. That’s why there will be fighting there for the next 50-100 years. For what portion of that time should we stay there? Have we written a blank check to fight any insurgency and put down any civil war?

I believe the other points are addressed in the position paper. If I have missed anything, please let me know and I’d be glad to respond. For a faster response feel free to post on the free, open, public forum on my website.

Best to all,
Phil Maymin
http://www.MayminForCongress.com
 
Written By: Phil Maymin
URL: http://www.MayminForCongress.com
our military exists to protect Americans, not Iraqis or Bosnians or Somalians.
Man, it’s a sad sign of where our political minds have gone that this is now seen as a defeatist/pacifist/hippieleftycommie thing to say. It used to be common sense...

BTW: Phil, if you’re running against Shays then why’d you email your position paper to him?
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://www.psychopolitik.com
BTW: Phil, if you’re running against Shays then why’d you email your position paper to him?
I emailed it to him and Farrell in challenging them to a debate on the specific question "Should we set a fixed withdrawal date for Iraq?"

Best,
Phil Maymin
http://www.MayminForCongress.com
 
Written By: Phil Maymin
URL: http://www.MayminForCongress.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider