"Trade Accord Causes a Split of Democrats" by STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 — On Thursday, only a year after the Democrats regained control of Congress following a campaign rife with criticism of White House trade policies, nearly half the Democrats in the House broke with recent party orthodoxy and supported a trade deal with Peru that the administration hopes could lead to approval of significantly bigger and more important trade pacts in the future.
The Peru deal was approved by an overwhelming vote of 285 in favor to 132 against. But its most striking aspect was that 109 Democrats voted yes.
To the surprise of many Democrats, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, led her fellow party members to vote yes at the end of a rancorous debate, during which many Democrats accused her of betraying the party’s base.
The victory was sweet for the Bush administration.
The Democrats are riding high politically and getting sizable campaign contributions from the sectors that are benefiting the most from the global economy. These include financial services firms, computer chip makers and other high-tech manufacturers, the entertainment industry and farmers dependent on selling to markets overseas.
There is no difference in the parties! BOTH are GLOBALISTS!!!!!!
A split among the Democratic presidential candidates, who receive support from unions but also from export-oriented industries, mirrors the disagreement in Congress. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois endorses the Peru deal.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said on Thursday that she would vote for the Peru deal. She is also surrounded by former officials from the Clinton administration who are ardently pro-trade, including former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin.
Of course she would! Of course she is, the little Bilderberger Globalist!
The old Clinton hands, who argue that differences in education levels and advances in technology, not trade, are the main reason for wage stagnation or job losses, say they are confident that Senator Clinton’s instincts are in the pro-trade mold.
What a bunch of lying, globalist weasels!
Blaming the failures on the workers and citizens!
Stuart E. Eizenstat, an under secretary of state for economic affairs under Mr. Clinton:
“I think if a Democratic president comes in, Democrats will take a broader view of trade than Democrats can in Congress right now. I would expect that a Democratic president will be able to win more trust from Democrats in trade, though maybe not from most of them.”
So we are going to get Ms. Hitlery and her massive strap-on in '08, readers!!!
You see?
President Bush and his top aides hailed the approval of the Peru deal on Thursday and called on the same bipartisan cooperation to get behind pending deals on Panama, Colombia and South Korea.
It is far from clear, however, that the support for Peru will carry over to those deals or others,
Now here is an interesting phrase that was OMITTED from the web version:
including a possible global trade pact that is still being negotiated."
WTF?! I haven't heard ANYTHING about that!!!!
And why would the NYT CENSOR something like that?
Something the public is not supposed to know, huh?
And on the war:
"Democrats Tie Iraq Spending Bill to a Pullout Goal" by CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 — Congressional Democrats renewed their challenge to President Bush’s Iraq war policy on Thursday, offering $50 billion in interim spending for combat operations coupled to a goal of pulling out most troops within a year.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi of California:
“I believe that this legislation gives voice to the concerns of the American people and, at the same time, strives to meet the needs of our troops.”
She's gotta be a fucking idiot! A fucking lazy-eyed idiot!
The proposal is likely to run into a filibuster. But Democrats said such a fight would leave Republicans responsible for slowing the money.
So? They will just blame you, and then you DemocraPs give it to them!
Besides, how many more soldiers have to die while you shits play politics!?
Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is a party leader on military issues, and others have argued that it is more responsible to try to provide some of the money now.
If the $50 billion measure stalls, the Pentagon might have to shift money from nonwar accounts to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into early next year.
Oh, so the Pentagon will just shift money around and the wars are covered, huh?
Got so much cash falling out their ass they don't know what to do with it, huh?
Too bad Amurka doesn't have that problem!
So the WARS will go on -- whether Congress antes up or not!
At a private meeting with House Democrats where she presented the plan, Ms. Pelosi told lawmakers that if the $50 billion was rejected, Democrats would not move forward with any other Iraq money this year.
Someone who was there, speaking anonymously because party meetings are supposed to be confidential, quoted Ms. Pelosi as saying:
“If you don’t want that, Mr. President, you ain’t getting nothing.”
Yeah, right! What a PIECE of SHIT Pelosi is!!!!!
FUCK YOU, Ms. Speaker!!!!!!!!!
Don't bring the bills to the floor, you double-talking, lying BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congress on Thursday sent Mr. Bush one spending bill that he has agreed to sign — a separate $470 billion measure that covers all Pentagon operations except for the wars.
$470 BILLION doesn't sound like "nothing" to me, beeee-aach!!!
Democratic lawmakers and senior officials said the legislation on the Iraq “bridge fund” was also intended to show Democratic voters frustrated with the inability of Congress to end the war that Democrats had not given up trying to force a change in policy.
They really do think we eat shit out here! What arrogant asshole DemocraPs!
Unable to overcome Republican resistance in the Senate, Democrats essentially dropped the Iraq fight after the testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, in September.
Yup, the MSM really helped extend this war by glowing over Puke-tray-us!
It sets Dec. 15, 2008, as a goal for removing all troops except for those needed for the protection of diplomats and remaining military forces, for counterterrorism operations and for limited support of Iraqi forces.
Translation: It's NOT a WITHDRAWAL!!!
These fucking DemocraPs must think we really do eat shit!
Good Christ, they are worse than Bush!
By demanding the start of a withdrawal without fixing a number of troops and then setting December 2008 as a goal only, Democrats hoped to strike a balance that could attract both ardent critics of the war and those who are uneasy about conflict but not willing to set a withdrawal deadline. Democrats also circulated recent poll numbers that indicated that public approval of the war continued to decline, hoping to win over anxious Republicans now that the next election is less than a year away.
Yup, but the shit DemocraPs going to extend the war anyaway!
Then they try to say they are doing it for the antiwar public?!
What shitscum DemocraPs are!!!!
The approach did not seem to be swaying Republican leaders."
Fucking stoo-pid, shitscum DemocraPs!
And here is more:
House Dem defends leadership decision to quash impeachment
"In a heated exchange Thursday with liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the deputy Democratic whip, said the party, which dramatically swept into power last year, was more focused on other priorities.
Voters asked Congress "to focus on withdrawing our troops from iraq, on expanding healthcare access. ... They did not ask us to spend any time on the impeachment of the vice president," Wasserman Schultz insisted.
Well, the troops are still -- more than ever -- and the healthcare?
You can't even get an SCHIP bill through! So WTF, Debby?
Impeachment would prevent Congress from addressing issues like the war in Iraq, healthcare, renewable energy and the environment.
"That is all the media would focus on. ... And to what end?" she asked, arguing that Bush was the real problem and removing Cheney wouldn't make a significant difference with only a year until the next election.
To what end?
How about restoring the rule of law and the Constitution, for starters?
How about forestalling an attack on Iran?
"We need to tough out the next 12 months and focus hard on the results-oriented Democratic Congress that we know we are," she said.
You aren't going to have any results, and you damn sure ain't going to be taking over any government!
We going to martial law, AIPAC whore!
Wasserman the kind of DemocraP that makes me wanna puke!
Schultz argued that results were precisely what was lacking -- especially Democrats' inability to force a change in course in the president's war in Iraq.
"This president has gotten everything that he's wanted from the Democratic Congress since the day you folks took power," the host charged.
And he's right!
Schultz said Democrats need to stand firm and refuse to pass any more funding for the war in Iraq; he said Cheney's impeachment might be the country's best hope to avoid war in Iran.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Conyer's committee would not begin impeachment hearings, although several members of the committee are co-sponsors of Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who's district neighbors Wasserman Schultz's, called for the committee to "schedule impeachment hearings immediately".
"I believe Robert Wexler is off base," Wasserman Schultz said."
Ummm, no, it is YOU who are off-base and out-of-touch with the American people, you AIPAC slave!!!
We want the wars OVER, and NO MORE WARS for Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!
