That doesn't explain why he and his republican collegeagues were allergic to any kind of oversight and accountability, for the way our tax dollars were being spent in Iraq. There was virtually no meaningful oversight by the GOP congress, on iraq spending. My guess, is that enriching american contractors and protecting President Bush from criticism was more of a priority, than giving healthcare to some starving iraqi kid.
Tancredo wants U.S. to abandon New Orleans
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
That doesn't explain why he and his republican collegeagues were allergic to any kind of oversight and accountability, for the way our tax dollars were being spent in Iraq. There was virtually no meaningful oversight by the GOP congress, on iraq spending. My guess, is that enriching american contractors and protecting President Bush from criticism was more of a priority, than giving healthcare to some starving iraqi kid.
When has he argued against accountability?
I'm just judging people on their actions.
Between 2003 and 2006, did Tancredo join Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and Charlie Rangel in screaming for more meaningful investigations and oversight into Halliburton and contractor Fraud in iraq? Or, did he side with his republican collegues, in bascially sweeping it under the rug?
uscitizen
Villified User
That is our topspin ?
That isn't an either/or proposition. One does not have to join with opposition in order to request oversight.I'm just judging people on their actions.
Between 2003 and 2006, did Tancredo join Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and Charlie Rangel in screaming for more meaningful investigations and oversight into Halliburton and contractor Fraud in iraq? Or, did he side with his republican collegues, in bascially sweeping it under the rug?
This is the man that the Bush Administration has told to "Never Darken the WH doorstep"... It seems that he has done many things that annoyed them.
Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo is an embarrassment Damo. He voted NO against limiting no-bid contracts, and he voted YES to electronic survellaince without a warrant. He is in favor of torture. He is the opposite of a Libertarian...he is an Authoritiarian:
This is what Tancredo said about Iraq on the day that he announced he would run for the nomination.
From Rep. Tancredo:
The nature of the conflict in Iraq and our role in that conflict have changed. We are now referees in what has become a civil war. I cannot see how, even if the "surge" temporarily pacifies Baghdad, we can in the long run consider our participation in this conflict as helpful in the global conflict against radical Islam.
Our departure from Iraq will result in one of two scenarios. One, the people of Iraq will prove themselves capable of the challenge of democracy. Or the factions in Iraq — and the regional powers backing them — will continue to battle with one another. In either case, there are potential advantages for the U.S.
I understand he isn't libertarian. He is a friend. Often what you say or how you vote on a yes/no measure doesn't tell the true story.
When you know somebody and people consistently say, "He is <insert some terrible thing here>!" and you know that they are not, do you usually let them just continue or do you say something? I usually say something. There are things he and I disagree on, that doesn't change that he is misrepresented, often purposefully, by such.
He voted no on the contracts because the rules on the "yes" vote required a long bureaucratic timeline that would disable any attempt to quickly respond to a need. He wanted and promoted a system that would enable both a careful check on where it was spent while allowing a work-around for needed quick action.
uscitizen
Villified User
rom Rep. Tancredo:
The nature of the conflict in Iraq and our role in that conflict have changed. We are now referees in what has become a civil war. I cannot see how, even if the "surge" temporarily pacifies Baghdad, we can in the long run consider our participation in this conflict as helpful in the global conflict against radical Islam.
Our departure from Iraq will result in one of two scenarios. One, the people of Iraq will prove themselves capable of the challenge of democracy. Or the factions in Iraq — and the regional powers backing them — will continue to battle with one another. In either case, there are potential advantages for the U.S.
that is what all the bush supporters are saying now damo ?
I just read the stance on the war in iraq from that ocngressman in Colarodo springs that msde the threats on the editorial it is almost verbaitm ?
Just the standard Party war rhetoric ?
The nature of the conflict in Iraq and our role in that conflict have changed. We are now referees in what has become a civil war. I cannot see how, even if the "surge" temporarily pacifies Baghdad, we can in the long run consider our participation in this conflict as helpful in the global conflict against radical Islam.
Our departure from Iraq will result in one of two scenarios. One, the people of Iraq will prove themselves capable of the challenge of democracy. Or the factions in Iraq — and the regional powers backing them — will continue to battle with one another. In either case, there are potential advantages for the U.S.
that is what all the bush supporters are saying now damo ?
I just read the stance on the war in iraq from that ocngressman in Colarodo springs that msde the threats on the editorial it is almost verbaitm ?
Just the standard Party war rhetoric ?
The party war rhetoric is that the surge won't work and that leaving is a good idea?
And no it isn't what the Bush supporters are saying, you can't read if you think it is.
"I cannot see how, even if the "surge" temporarily pacifies Baghdad, we can in the long run consider our participation in this conflict as helpful in the global conflict against radical Islam."
What part of that above suggests he thinks the surge should have even begun?
Remember he said this before the surge had really begun. It sounds far more like what D Congressmen were saying about the surge than it does what Rs are, or have been, saying.
I think actions speak louder than words. Unless Tancredo has voted or coalitioned with Dems (and repubs) who either want a withdrawl timeline, or to cut funding for the war, then his effective position is to support Bush's stay the course strategy.
I also think actions speak louder than words. Therefore the Bush Admin's positive injunction to never darken their door speaks volumes. The man is no "Bush Supporter", and is no slavering neo-con.
His stance on the war appears to be much like yours at the moment. That you want to make him into something he is not is very clear.
He is a republican, he is a nationalist, he is not a Bushie, and he isn't a "stay the course" politician. He works towards unique solutions, large portions of his legislation are written into legislation that is passed.
He is both more, and different than you want him to appear.
Nationalist or nativist xenophobe?
Unique solutions like threatening to bomb Mecca and Medina?
Tancredo is a caricature.
This is an example of people that take a small portion of what they hear and create an opinion. He isn't going to be President and knows it, he joins the race to turn the topic of conversation to where he thinks it will do some good.
People ask him cartoonish questions about multiple nuclear attacks and he answers with cartoonish responses, the questions get the answer they deserve.
People ask him cartoonish questions about multiple nuclear attacks and he answers with cartoonish responses, the questions get the answer they deserve.
uscitizen
Villified User
Like Al Gore invented the internet ? Or swiftboat ?
Well at least you did not vote for either of them ?
This is the era of simple soudbites for simple minds ?
Yes, exactly like that.
uscitizen
Villified User
agreed that is a major factor in what has gotten us into this mess.
In general People R stupid and eager to be led and run around quoting soundbites.