i’m sorry, WHAT?
so, as i was attempting to catch up on what’s going on, i came across this article at thehill.com. here’s just a bit:
The Military Times had reported that Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee want to keep the term out of the 2008 defense budget because the panel’s “Democratic leadership does not like the phrase.”
what i don’t understand is how democrats claim to have such a jam-packed agenda that they can’t find the time to talk about impeachment, but somehow manage to find the time to argue about something as inane as whether the phrase ‘global war on terrorism’ is good or bad.
maybe it’s my cynicism talking here, but somehow, as ridiculous as this sounds, it doesn’t surprise me one bit. yes ladies and gentleman, these are the people who we elected to make the tough choices and run the country. it’s no wonder they get so little real respect from the electorate.
of course, these are the types of things about which they choose to debate (argue?). if only issues like health care or the environment could get such attention.
![[PDA - Heathcare NOT Warfare - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/HealthNotWar_final.jpg)
I am actually glad that they are choosing not to give a blank check to the “global war on terror” as they have in the past. But you make a good point… if you have time to argue about semantics, you definitely have time to discuss impeachment and to start working toward universal healthcare among other things. Our local legislature seems to take a similar stance… things like the housing crisis are SO demanding that it is insulting that we ask them to pass something like civil unions or public financing of elections. Perhaps if they weren’t so concerned with pleasing those who finance their campaigns, they could get more done.
Comment by rachel — April 5, 2007 @ 10:23 am