Democratic senators issue statements on attacks

[still_one]

The following statements were issued to RAW STORY by Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in response to the London attacks.

"I extend my heartfelt condolences to the people of Great Britain, and especially to those in London who endured these depraved acts of terrorism today," Reid said. "These attacks were cruel and senseless acts, committed by cowards who see nothing wrong with targeting innocent civilians.

“I am confident that all Americans are committed to ensuring that this nation does everything it can to help bring justice to those responsible," Reid continued. "We also stand in complete solidarity with Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, and all the leaders of the G-8 Summit, who pledged their commitment and resolve to fight and defeat this kind of extremism and hatred wherever it exists in the world.”

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

solidarity with BUSH ON WHAT!!!!!

on creating a less secure world

on NOT uniting the world against terrorism after 9/11, but invading a country which had nothing to do with terrorism

Sorry, but our Democracy is in extreme danger of being lost

[still_one]

1. here is the linke from Raw Story to the above post

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_senators_issue...

[freedom_to_read]

2. what would you have them say?

If they tried to implicate or blame Bush in any way, they would look like major tools.

[still_one]

4. I would have them say that they stand with the world against terrorism

but to give any kind of credence the the insanity that bush has unleashed upon this world is unforgivable

Maybe we should drop a few more bombs on the thousands of civilians we killed in Iraq, and ignore that it even happened\\

[noamnety]

5. Why even mention Bush?

They can avoid grandstanding on his behalf without implicating him.

[melissinha]

8. Agreed

Its not the time for Reid to say negative things about Bush. He is basically saying that in the fight against Al Qaeda we are with B&B, thats all.

All we have to do is keep driving the difference between Al Qaeda and Iraq.... Now if the conversation goes back to Iraq...we need to drive home the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq and no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Period. WE need to stay firm on this.

[SharonAnn]

17. Just don't ever say "We Support Bush". Not ever! We support

certain principles, certain ideals, certain policies, certain programs, etc. But we NEVER support Bush! Not ever!

I'll never forget when Nancy Pelosi, shortly after she was elected House Majority Leader, shen she said "We stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush in the War on Terror."

I immediately wrote to her aginst ever saying that. Bush is not actually conducting a War on Terror, anyway. He's conducting a war on democracy and the middle class.

I told her we stand shoulder to shoulder with the "American People" in the War on Terror. We stand shoulder to shoulder with all free people against the War on Terror, etc.

But never, never, do we stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush. He may be there next to us when we stand up for principles, but we're standing up for what we believe in, not for him.

[JimmyJazz]

3. It was a polite statement of condolence. What did you want?

For the guy to ask for Bush's head on a platter? I think ONE day of standing in solidarity isn't going to hurt.

[GeekMonkey]

6. it will hurt big by allowing the right wing to define the issue

while we 'play nice', they stomp all over us

i personally am not going to take it anymore

FIGHT BACK!

[still_one]

9. exactly

sorry but there is very little difference between many democrats in congress and the republicans

you won't see boxer or feingold standing in solidarity with bush or blair. Against terrorism, yes, but not with the people who didn't contain it when they had the chance

[still_one]

7. that is the same thing people said after 9/11

don't bring up the hart/rudman report, don't bring up how the Clinton administration warned bush about al queadia

sorry, express outrage, and solidarity with the WORLD against terrorism, but not with these thugs who helped propagate it

[noonwitch]

11. Don't bring it up today, save the arguments for later

Today, too many people in London are suffering. Tomorrow is another story.

[still_one]

13. there won't be a latter

it will be forgotten in the babble of the MSM

[JimmyJazz]

16. I agree. I know Democrats made mistakes after 9/11 as

demonstrated by Karl Rove's recent remarks, but today is not the day. I just want to mourn and pray for my friends uncle and cousin who have yet to be accounted for and who live in that area.

[still_one]

18. My prayers and thoughts go to you and your family

and I hope all is well with your family

the insanity must stop, or it will go on for generations

[liberalitch]

10. At least Kerry' statement was appropriate..... no ass kissing to bush

[CWebster]

12. Here we go again. nt

[rumpel]

14. He could have easily left out *Bush! He created the increase of anger.

[Cocoa]

15. it's just rhetoric

don't get hung up on it.

[Caution]

19. Did you read the statement?

"We also stand in complete solidarity with Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, and all the leaders of the G-8 Summit, who pledged their commitment and resolve to fight and defeat this kind of extremism and hatred wherever it exists in the world.”

So commitment and resolve to fight extremism and terrorism shouldnt have the support of Democrats? We can vow to stand together to beat terrorism but that doesn't mean we have to agree with the methods and nowhere does this statemnent even suggest that we would blindly support whatever method they choose. This is a simple statement against terrorism in the time of an attack where Bush is in fact the leader of our country whether we as democrats like it or not. Until such time as he is not we will and should stand together against these kinds of acts.

I can't stand the guy's policies as much as the anyone else but I'm not stupid enough to think that blindly choosing to do the exact opposite just because of this is the smart way to approach the problems his "leadership" has caused.

[still_one]

23. why even mention bush by name, who actually helped propagate

the terror machine,

and yes, I did read it

[DawnneOBTS]

20. Barbara Boxer would never say this crap! n/t

[theboss]

21. Democrats are against terrorism

What is wrong with that position?

[still_one]

22. why mention bush?

[theboss]

25. Why not?

Why look petty?

[geek tragedy]

24. Very smart. And this is why: Karl Rove WANTS people to believe

that opposition to terrorism is a partisan issue. If opposition to terrorism ISN't a partisan issue, the Republicans have no issue to run on.

[jmatthan]

26. Why no word of the US and British cowards?

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland