<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iraq War: Why Defunding is Politically Viable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/</link>
	<description>Progressive &#38; Humorous Gauge of U.S. Politics, Elections, Society &#38; Media</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: Mouzinho</title>
		<link>http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/#comment-3296</link>
		<dc:creator>Mouzinho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/#comment-3296</guid>
		<description>Hi! figther from iraq don't never given perdom to imperalism people.
Countinue your fight agains the colonialism until end of bleeding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi! figther from iraq don&#8217;t never given perdom to imperalism people.<br />
Countinue your fight agains the colonialism until end of bleeding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rh</title>
		<link>http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/#comment-518</link>
		<dc:creator>rh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://garlinggauge.com/2007/09/15/iraq-war-why-defunding-is-politically-viable/#comment-518</guid>
		<description>I doubt if "cutting funding for the war" would stop GWB and his buddies.  They'd find some funding *somewhere* in the pentagon, at least long enough to pawn the whole shameful situation off on the next administration.  Bush has shown his contempt for any semblance of law (at least any law that he might feel somehow obligated to follow) in the hundreds of signing statements he's attached to virtually every bill he's signed.  

Our "democracy" seems to have kind of turned the corner into a mild fascism in this respect, in that the (overwhelmingly evidenced) wishes of the population are largely ignored, our dear leaders refuse to give up any of the power they've seized (pay particular attention to the role of the VP) and futile aggressive foreign wars are being waged to "defend our way of life."  

I'm only shocked that Bush hasn't announced an intention to remain in power for a few more years, you know, because the country needs him and all, and we're in no condition to let silly things like elections (oh wait. . . we can have elections. . . just not where the popular will is reflected in the result or in any of the actions of the "representatives" who were "elected")  hamper his crusade to secure as much of the world's oil reserves as possible.  It would be certainly be in character if he did.  

Politicians need to begin to dispel the myths that the administration has invented since 2001, and re-frame the "war on terror" (if we win, we'll never be terrified again!  Then starts the very serious "war on sadness" and everyone knows it's Iran that is manufacturing weapons of mass depression. . . the "war on insecurities" will only be a minor skirmish in North Korea. . .) as an international effort to apprehend organized criminals.  

Does anyone seriously believe that if Congress "cuts funding for the war" then GWB will say uncle and bring the armies home?  He's going to do what he feels like and then get his own army of lawyers and spin-doctors (however inept they might seem) to make it work out.  He might just land on another aircraft carrier with a banner that says "The troops are home!"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I doubt if &#8220;cutting funding for the war&#8221; would stop GWB and his buddies.  They&#8217;d find some funding *somewhere* in the pentagon, at least long enough to pawn the whole shameful situation off on the next administration.  Bush has shown his contempt for any semblance of law (at least any law that he might feel somehow obligated to follow) in the hundreds of signing statements he&#8217;s attached to virtually every bill he&#8217;s signed.  </p>
<p>Our &#8220;democracy&#8221; seems to have kind of turned the corner into a mild fascism in this respect, in that the (overwhelmingly evidenced) wishes of the population are largely ignored, our dear leaders refuse to give up any of the power they&#8217;ve seized (pay particular attention to the role of the VP) and futile aggressive foreign wars are being waged to &#8220;defend our way of life.&#8221;  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m only shocked that Bush hasn&#8217;t announced an intention to remain in power for a few more years, you know, because the country needs him and all, and we&#8217;re in no condition to let silly things like elections (oh wait. . . we can have elections. . . just not where the popular will is reflected in the result or in any of the actions of the &#8220;representatives&#8221; who were &#8220;elected&#8221;)  hamper his crusade to secure as much of the world&#8217;s oil reserves as possible.  It would be certainly be in character if he did.  </p>
<p>Politicians need to begin to dispel the myths that the administration has invented since 2001, and re-frame the &#8220;war on terror&#8221; (if we win, we&#8217;ll never be terrified again!  Then starts the very serious &#8220;war on sadness&#8221; and everyone knows it&#8217;s Iran that is manufacturing weapons of mass depression. . . the &#8220;war on insecurities&#8221; will only be a minor skirmish in North Korea. . .) as an international effort to apprehend organized criminals.  </p>
<p>Does anyone seriously believe that if Congress &#8220;cuts funding for the war&#8221; then GWB will say uncle and bring the armies home?  He&#8217;s going to do what he feels like and then get his own army of lawyers and spin-doctors (however inept they might seem) to make it work out.  He might just land on another aircraft carrier with a banner that says &#8220;The troops are home!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
