President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 26, 2007 03:34 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 56 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It’s not about food. It’s about keeping those ants in line.”

Hopper (voiced by Kevin Spacey), from A Bug’s Life

Tweet
Share

Comments

56 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. Does this mean I can play Call of Duty and NCAA Football on PlayStation for the rest of my deployment, since we’re all supposed to go home in a few months, no matter what we do?

    Sweet!

      1. …  Funding Bill ever has been loaded with left-over pork that didn’t make it into regular legislation or was required to seal the deal.  And Bush never vetoed any of the Republican passed pork, which broke all records both in quantity and sheer audacity, like the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. 

        The Republicans spent 6 years as the uncontested all-time Kings and Queens of Pork, a cute trick since they  managed to pack it all in during the shortest work week in congressional history.  I guessed they saved a lot of time by refusing to spend a nano-second on oversight.  Bush never had a problem signing THEIR artery clogging bills. The Republicans promised smaller leaner government.  They delivered bloated, incompetent and with too many indictments to count even BEFORE the Dems took back congress.

        Oh wait, that was never supposed to happen.  Rove was supposed to be the genius who was going to change this to a one party state by keeping a Republican majority forever. I guess he “misunderestimated” the public tolerance for  over-the-top greed and cluelessness.

    2. Why would you assume they would goof off and decline to do their job simply because they believe they may be leaving Iraq soon?  I have more faith in our troops than that.

      1. I’m speaking in the first person. 

        And if nothing *I* do matters, since *I’m* going home next April regardless of what *I* do, what’s the point in *my* going out, getting whooped-dog-tired, getting shot at (theoretically), and flying “oh-god-we’re-all-gonna-die” dust-out approaches? 

        Just a question.

        1. “What’s the point” of our military efforts in Iraq?  That’s a great question!  I think this question needs to be considered regardless of when the troops come home.  (you were assuming that they would come home at some time, weren’t you?)

          1. All too well.  And I’d rather not have to end the deployments until the job’s done, not when a bunch of two-bit partisan hacks decide they ought to cut the funding because they don’t take the time to understand the “point” themselves. 

            I’ll “hack the mish” all right.  I just wonder what will happen to all the Iraqi Army types, men who wear ski masks in the Iraqi summer to keep their families safe, whom I work with and for when the Democrats decide not to care about them anymore.

            Sucks to be them, I guess.  “Fool me once…”  Thanks, Harry and Nancy.

            1. I come from career military….inside the house, my old man ranted and raved against politicians….but not outside.  He took an oath and that was to support the Constitution….civilivan control of the military….and that means those two bit partisan hacks…elected by the people of their respective districts…are in charge of part of this effort…not you….

              the hell of it is….your opinion doesn’t really matter…even if you are right…..in the army…you follow orders and you keep your mouth shut…outside your house…and if you were not ready to do that..you never should have signed the f…up…..

              ya, another thing I learned in a military household…NEVER volunteer…..

            3. Marc Ash writes: “The United States occupation of Iraq will end. The American armies like all occupying armies before them will leave Mesopotamia. This military action has no purpose other than the enrichment of private individuals exacting their will and lining their coffers with the blood of American service members, the Iraqi people and US taxpayer dollars.”

              1. That’s the silliest thing I ever did hear.  Read the Constitution again.  Congress did their Constitutionally-mandated part 4 1/2 years ago.  The ball is no longer in their court. 

                No, I’m afraid the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief.  Not Harry Reid, not even l’il ol’ you.  Congress is the Treasurer, not the General.  As such, making General’s decisions in a Treasurer’s bill is indeed bordering closer to UNConstitutional than definitively Constitutional, as dwyer also implied above.

                Joe Lieberman spoke on the floor of the Senate in rather clear terms regarding the idiocy of this bill.  But I’m sure you’ll say he’s just a Wing-nut, because he disagrees with you, and not read what he had to say.  Typical.

                2. …I think that’s somewhere in the constitution, no?

                  Just because the recent congress handed over that responsibility under the lies of your Command In Chief, doesn’t mean that it is no longer in the Constitution. 

                  And since Congress sets the budgets, ye,s I am about 1/150,000,000th your boss. (I’m estimating the number of eligible voters.)

                  The concept of the president as Commander in Chief presumes that such an individual would perform lots of due diligence and act in the best interest of the country, not his ego or Hollywood reruns.

                  Didn’t your oath say something about defending the Constitution?  Anything about supplication to the President? You’d have made a good Nazi. Whatever Mein Fuhrer wants, I provide. 

                    1. As one named variety of Authoritarianism, all require the unquestioning obedience of the leader. Yokel does that.  Obeying orders is more important that fulfilling his oath to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                    2. Actually *reading* the Constitution as it applies, rather than how you’d want it to apply when considering your preferred structure of power at the current moment (Dem Pres vs. GOP Congress gives one thing in the 90s, vice versa now), makes one a Nazi.

                      It’s straight outta Mein Kampf.  Seriously.

                      Also, Parsing’s intelligent, well-thought-out response taught me that the CFO outranks a CEO, because he can do whatever he wants with the money, no matter what the CEO says regarding its use for operations.  You learn something new everyday, I guess.

            5. Now you are trying to tell us that all the troops that have ever gone to Iraq and the Republican party only do so because they just care about the poor Iraqi’s.  If you truly believe what your pushing, I have a bridge to sell you.  It goes from San Francisco to Oakland and I recently just had it painted your favorite color.  Red.

        2. Maybe it’s about an evaluation shared by everyone from General Petreus to the Pope.  The work of troops alone is not going to stabilize Iraq.  If you worked for 20 years, would you be able to remove all the AK-47s from Iraqi citizens’ hands?  If you patrolled for the next decade, do you have enough soldiers to contain the movements of insurgents and civil war fighters?

          We spent about 9 years total reconstructing Germany after WW2. we’re almost up to 4 years of “reconstructing” Iraq, but because of political realities within that country and because of political decisions made within our own, instead of putting down a decreasing insurgency we’re pretty much flailing around the edges of a complete governmental collapse and civil war.  This isn’t the fault of the troops; you and they are doing all that you can with all that your’re given, and frequently more than that.  Units are now operating beyond capacity; the White House appears to be cobbling together units out of the injured just to say we have the troop strength, and we still don’t have the proper equipment to support everyone – after 5 years!

          The bill making its way through Congress is, by the admission of the Secretary of Defense, a message that needs to be sent to the Iraqis that the United States cannot secure the peace in Iraq without the help of Iraq itself.  If in 6 months there is significant progress that deserves additional attention, the Congress can certainly modify its mandates; unlike the President’s mind, the will of Congress isn’t set in stone for all eternity, never to be changed regardless of its appropriateness.

          Additionally, the bill has extra funds to begin to recover from equipment strain and depletion.  It contains the funding we need to support the troops as they return, and money to give proper care to the wounded and mentally scarred.  Finally, it also contains relief for farmers and other natural disaster victims – relief left unpassed by the former GOP Congress.

          This is no longer about a victory for the troops; that victory was won long ago.  The Iraqi civil war is now targeting Iraqis far more than it is targeting U.S. Forces; we are a casualty of the situation – occasionally a burr in the Iraqi side and occasionally a welcome relief, but largely incidental now to the sectarian conflict that has grown.  The President is still fighting a half-assed war with half-assed commitment; he refuses to admit to any possible worst-case planning, and hence every time a complication arises, the same answers come out: stay the course.  We need to do more than stay the course; we need to spur the Iraqis into solving their problems, and staying the course isn’t going to do that.

          Give the Democratic plan a chance to work some political magic.  We’re not giving up on you – we’re trying to help to grease the gears that will get you home safe, while at the same time pushing the Iraqis to realize that they need to work together if they want a country and not a war zone.

  2. Just kidding…

    So, the Dems first debate is tonight.  I know I’m excited to see 8 folks trying to avoid saying something stupid.  Anyone else psyched?

  3. I have a lot of faith in our troops-no matter what the Dems say-we still have the best trained and professional force out there.  God bless them.

    1. Because Democrats everywhere are saying they don’t have faith in our troops. Wrong. They are saying they don’t have faith in our PRESIDENT. Same thing? Nope. People like you would rather let our soldiers DIE than admit that this President’s policy is a failure. It isn’t the soldiers that are a failure. It isn’t the military that is a failure. It is this President that is a failure. When he tells congressional Democrats that they are voting for failure, in a way he is right. They are voting to say that HE failed our military, our nation, and our Constitution.

    2. for suggesting than any Democrat has questioned the caliber of our troops.  You know it’s not true, but you say it anyway because it serves your cynical Republican ends.

      Keeping our soldiers in an endless war with no specific goals is the problem.  If you truly respect and support our troops, why do you want them to stay there forever?

      I’m sure you’ll follow up now with one of your sock puppet accounts now.

        1. so I’ll take it on myself.  You are quick with the labels. I am an old dog and learned to think for myself some time ago.  You may ask me a question about abortion and my line would be “a liberal line”.  You may ask me about Irag and you may find my answer kind of middle of the road.  You may ask me about gun control and you would probably label my answer as a conservative point of view.  Just because you have to have a label for yourself-please do not label me. I have free will until people who have to have labels for everything try and take it away. Its been the liberals lately who have been saying that our troops are not trained.  As an old devil dog I still contend that our troops are still the best trained.

          1. …for the money we spend.  More than the rest of the world combined. 

            However, from the decison makers level and up, the career officers, they have failed miserably.  In private business, they would have been fired (unless you are CEO.  Then you move on and destroy another company at a higher wage.)

            It started with even getting into Iraq.  They generals should have said, “With all due respect, Mr. President, you are fucking nuts.”  But no, they see glory and rank increases, so off we go to were no one has ever successfully occupied for long.

            1. I do not know if you have ever been in the military or not.
              Most career military are not war mongers as many would think.  Most are Fathers and family types and honest God fearing people like the rest of us.  Yes the military is their career and as someone mentioned earlier they took and oath to defend the constitution.  They serve at the behest of the president.  They obey orders.  If you want to blame someone-look to Rumsfeld.  I think that if the Generals had been listened to this country would not be in the predicament it is at this point in time.  listen to me, lol and I was just a little lowly Corporal.  I do not want to get into the right or wrong of the war-I have mixed feelings about it and depends what day it is as to my answers.  But, the military is not at fault here.

              1. ……..do I disparage the short term enlisted men and women like yourself?  Not at all.

                Rumsfield is guilty only to the extent of taking his orders from Bush.  If GW had stopped at Afghanistan, Rummy would not have issued orders to go into Iraq. 

                Further, you should be very pissed off at how the enlisted soldiers have been made the fall guys for every negative event that OBVIOUSLY had origins higher up.

                SOME general critiqued the pending war.  They were summarily retired.  Time has shown them right, of course. The remaing brass saw an opportunity to stroke their war woodies and get advancement…on the blood of the enlisted folks.

                I’m on your side.  Don’t be a fool and support the very men and women who have used the enlisted soldiers.

                1. It is obvious that your knowledge of the modern day military could almost fit in a thimble.  Yes the reasons for Iraq are dubious.  But once there rumsfield was the architect. The generals wanted more boots on the ground at the time and rummy wanted the smart bombs to do the work.  Wars still hinge on the boots on the ground.
                  You allude to Abu Grabe I think-and I agree some brass should have rolled-but, I think that had more to do with CIA and “contractors”. Still miss England and her coherts were not without fault.
                  I agree that when some General in frustration voiced his opinion they got the boot.  Thats war kid.  Patton almost hung himself out to dry in wwii for his critisism.  When you join the armed services you give up the right to critisize your commander in chief.  It is called treason otherwise.  It has to be that way for it to all work.
                    I do not buy your big bad generals and the little lowly enlisted man scenario. That dog don’t hunt. The guy that pounds the ground is always the one to die in a war-sadly that is how it works-its called war.
                  Hey but I am an old dog and a veteran of things you could not imagine in your worst nightmare in a war run by true warmongers and fools.  The military today is not the same as the one 40 years ago.

                  1. and contradict yourself.  The generals who told Bush/Rummy that we needed LOTS more “boots on the ground” were the ones Rummie dismissed – before we invaded. I think the suggested figure was around 500,000.  Yes, Rummy thought we could do it on the cheap at 150,000.

                    I don’t have to know anything about the military to understand the politics and your sworn duty.  In fact, those not so close to a situation are often better able to see things. 

                    For instance, you do not give up your right to question anyone in the line of command if orders are illegal. Right? It is not treasonous to question unlawful orders.  That’s what Nuremburg was about. BTW, I read the indictments of Nuremburg once.  We hung Nazis for exactly what George and his generals have done to the people of Iraq: Invading a nation that hadn’t attacked, bombing of water and power infrastructures, etc. etc.

                    I’m sorry for the pain Viet Nam (I presume) caused you.  The closest I got to that was my best friend’s PTSD and volunteering for awhile in a Veteran’s Hospital working with other PTSD victims.  I had strong hopes that our generation would end the nightmare as we (all) died off.  George has made sure it will continue for another sixty years.

                    1. Nazi was hung for bombing infrastructures?
                      Do you know what a lawful order IS?
                      Do not assume that all Viet Nam veterans are in pain and suffer from PTSD-you would be wrong.
                      Your reference to Nuremburg makes a good case for hanging Sadam.

                    3. My point was that the generals who had a realistic grasp of what invading Iraq would mean were made gone.  That the generals who spoke out, thereby fulfilling their duties to America were kicked out, thus leaving the War Woodies to take over – and fuck up.

                    4. I was only a newborn during the Nuremburg trials.  Why is a name important here? 

                      Why don’t YOU tell ME what a lawful order is, or isn’t.

                      OK, I’m sorry I had a moment of misplaced compassion. 

                      Sheesh.

                    5. Herr sombody-no one was hung for bombing an infrastructure-infrastructures are legitamate tactical targets in any war.

                      What is a lawful order to one may be unlawful to another a grey area.  Court martials have occured both ways.

                      Live up to your bio fella-LOL

                    7. A highly-commended active-duty Army officer has published “a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there.”

                      “America’s generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq,” charges Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. “The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals.”

                      [Yingling’s essay in Armed Forces Journal] signals the public emergence of a split inside the military between younger, mid-career officers and the top brass.

                      Many majors and lieutenant colonels have privately expressed anger and frustration with the performance of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and other top commanders in the war, calling them slow to grasp the realities of the war and overly optimistic in their assessments.

                      Some younger officers have stated privately that more generals should have been taken to task for their handling of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, news of which broke in 2004. The young officers also note that the Army’s elaborate “lessons learned” process does not criticize generals and that no generals in Iraq have been replaced for poor battlefield performance, a contrast to other U.S. wars.
                      h/t Thinkprogress

                    8. wouldn’t understand anything beyond “Tough shit, it’s war.”  It’s obvious now that I was hoping for dialogue and I all I got were cliches and dodging.  It sounds like Yingling came to the same conclusions from his close point of view that I did from being well read and applying some thinking skills.  To use one of the dukester’s metaphors, I would wager that Yingling know a hell of a lot MORE about the military than either the dukester or me, NOT fiting into a thimble. 

          2. I don’t know what you’re referring too when you say “liberals lately who have been saying that our troops are not trained.” If you mean inadequately staffed and supplied, that’s not commentary on their training.

            But what if another army (say, North Korea) is better trained? Don’t you want that to be discussed, so that we can improve the situation with our own troops? I’d rather not let feel-good patriotism get in the way of critical assessment of the state of the armed forces, or we’ll be in deep doo-doo (to borrow a phrase from our president’s father) if we ever face such a force.

            2. Troops undergo a certain amount of specific mission and equipment training before deployment.  Because the equipment is all in Iraq, and because the troop rotation is so tight, not all troops are getting the proper training before their deployment.  National Guard troops are especially hard-hit by this shortfall.

              I’m kind of guessing that the average soldier would agree with the assessment that “liberals” have been expressing.

              1. I fail to see how discussing that is a bad thing, which (if I read theduke correctly) is what he seems to be saying.

                Those kind of statements are weird anyway. “We’re number one! Our troops are the best!” So does that mean that there’s no room for improvement?

  4. I’m sure it has already been posted somewhere on here, but in case you missed it, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC did an excellent commentary in response to Giuliani’s recent claim that he is the best candidate to save America from terrorism:


       

  5. In addition to the reasons given in the article, I think the court felt that there was insufficient time to answer the question (which would’ve included soliciting and reviewing briefing).  Further, because the Senate bill will be now passed anyway, the courts will have future chances to consider its constitutionaly.

    —-

    High court won’t consider new ethics bill

    By April M. Washington and Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
    April 26, 2007

    The Colorado Supreme Court today declined the legislature’s request to review whether certain provisions of a bill dealing with a new ethics measure are constitutional.

    The decision means the job of figuring out who is covered under Amendment 41 will fall to an ethics commission, once it gets appointed.

    “The commission now will be left to sift through the constitutional mess,” said Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver, who carried the legislation creating the commission.

    House Speaker Andrew Romanoff said legislative lawyers speculated the high court didn’t take up the issue because traditionally the justices prefer legislation that’s already been passed. Because Senate Bill 210 is still moving through the legislature, the court may have decided the issue “isn’t as pregnant,” attorneys advised Romanoff.

    But Romanoff said this won’t prevent legislature from creating the ethics commission required by Amendment 41 and providing clarification on what complaints warrant investigation and others that can be dismissed a “frivolous.”

    http://www.rockymoun…

  6. Last night PBS aired Bill Moyers Journal, “Buying the War,” a comprehensive look at the Administration’s “run-up” to the Iraq war, from about August 2002 until March 2003, and what the news media were doing with the Administration’s pronouncements and manipulation of intelligence during that time.  An amazing show — if you didn’t see it you can watch the full 1 1/2 hours on the PBS website.

    Also, a good column by Tom Shales in the Washington Post, summarizing the Moyers show:

    A Media Role in Selling the War? No Question.

    By Tom Shales
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007

    Perhaps the truth shall eventually set you free, but first it might make you very, very depressed. Tonight’s edition of “Bill Moyers Journal” on PBS is one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year, but it’s as disheartening as it is compelling.

    It’s always depressing to learn that you’ve been had, but incalculably more so when the deception has resulted in thousands of Americans dying in the Iraq war effort. . . .

    http://www.washingto…

    1. It was very well done. I am amazed at some of the things the Bush administration said while pounding the war drums. It was nice to see the clips from 2002 to remind me that I wasn’t going crazy. So many people argue and say that they never talked about nuclear weapons and the supposed Iraq-Bin Laden link. I remembered it, but after so much endless pounding it is sometimes difficult to keep things straight. This show put things in such a bright light that it can’t be debated. Bush and his cronies engaged in a purposeful effort to drum up support for a war with Iraq based on lies and deceit. And the conservative media let them get away with it.

    2. The conservatives own the media. For the most part they control the media. There was a while there where a few liberal media individuals were speaking up. The owners didn’t like that because they feared revenue loss. For the last six years, the rare liberal in the media has been silenced for the most part. Once in a while you will see one speak up now. The only reason it is allowed is because most of these corporations have already lost viewership to FOX, so what is the point in trying to keep those viewers.

  8. Since the November elections, Rocky Mountain Chronicle, Northern Colorado’s alternative news weekly has attempted to be added to Congresswoman Musgrave’s press list… guess what. She refuses. 

    Regardless of party, Musgrave has been elected to represent all of her district, not just those who agree with her politics. 

    For shame.

    1. to say illegal immigrants are the devil’s plan to destroy the U.S.  Everybody knows the Democratic Party is the devil’s plan to destroy the U.S. 😉

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!