-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Harry Reid is a neutered leader
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Lemon law
Lifer
Well PJ, I greatly disagree with many of your conclusions. Its almost a where to start problem. But I agree that democrats are divided and the reason that this country is in trouble is exactly because the Republicans are lock step united on every brainfart that comes along. A formula for disaster very similar to the era of LBJ where legislation was cranked out of congress with no regard to quality. And six years of a GWB rubber stamp congress has proven even worse. Now at least stupidity is stopped even though wisdom
fails to get by either.
I also agree that there has been a huge shift in perception on Iraq which at one time polled 90% and now is down to 30%. But to now assume that GWB can ride current division to
his certain exit on 1/20/2009, is somewhat dubious. First, I have to admit the surge is brilliant political ploy to retain sole control of the Iraq war. But its still a one shot deal and for GWB, its Petraeus or bust. And we got to the long awaited Petraeus report and very little has changed in Iraq. Petraeus hasn't busted to simplify matters as some dems had hoped but he is far from the promised brilliant either. In short, GWB has just kicked the can down the road nine months, long enough to birth a baby, and has birthed nothing but a new slogan. And has meanwhile refused to work with political options or seek the advice of congress. In short, not good for the country. At any moment events in Iraq could prove Petraes wrong and then alas poor Yorick, GWB will see his support vanish. Meanwhile the American people are still pissed off and will extract their revenge in the upcoming primaries.
The democrats are playing the far better for the country strategy and time is on their side.
Just because the Iraq occupation can't be won with the GWB plan does not mean that (1) The direct opposite plan of get the hell out is therefore better. (2) That many other plans
than just those two may well be far superior and if GWB does not explore them, congress must. In short, the dems are holding out for a bi-partisan plan this country can unite behind and the current GWB plan is anything but that plan. But at least they do not force the probably worse get the hell out plan either.
My end conclusion is the direct opposite of yours PJ, what the GOP in congress is doing is irresponsible and they very soon, they will join with the democrats. Then and only then will this country start to move forward and the timing is likely to be about a year in advance of 1/20/2009. As for GWB, he can go into a corner and sulk for all anyone is likely to care.
The defect in congressional leadership is Republican. Politics and getting things done has always been in compromise. When the Republican leadership is ready, I think the Democratic leadership will be ready to talk. But the country spoke loud and clear on 11/06 and gave the message, this country is on the wrong course. If the GOP obstructs changing course, they are going to be in a big heap of trobs soon.
ProfJohn
Lifer
Lemon your track record on Iraq is not very good:
March 12 in a thread called "Who will politically" dealing with the battle over funding you said: link
Prior to the surge everyone on here was proclaiming that it would fail. The Democrats even cast a vote disapproving of the surge.
6 months later and nearly everyone is in agreement that the surge has worked, at least militarily. The change in public opinion has been dramatic.
Based on that type of change it is impossible to predict where public opinion will be in a year from now.
You guys on the left keep telling us how Republicans are going to jump ship and start voting with the Democrats, yet it is the Democrats who are jumping ship. The latest withdrawal vote in the Senate went 47-47. The Democrats can?t even get their own party to vote for a withdrawal right now.
It will take some type of change on the ground in Iraq before we see a change in congress. This brings us to the big question for you anti-war types:
Would you rather see good news in Iraq and political defeat, or bad news in Iraq and political victory?
March 12 in a thread called "Who will politically" dealing with the battle over funding you said: link
Of course you were wrong and Bush won and got his funding.
Prior to the surge everyone on here was proclaiming that it would fail. The Democrats even cast a vote disapproving of the surge.
6 months later and nearly everyone is in agreement that the surge has worked, at least militarily. The change in public opinion has been dramatic.
Based on that type of change it is impossible to predict where public opinion will be in a year from now.
You guys on the left keep telling us how Republicans are going to jump ship and start voting with the Democrats, yet it is the Democrats who are jumping ship. The latest withdrawal vote in the Senate went 47-47. The Democrats can?t even get their own party to vote for a withdrawal right now.
It will take some type of change on the ground in Iraq before we see a change in congress. This brings us to the big question for you anti-war types:
Would you rather see good news in Iraq and political defeat, or bad news in Iraq and political victory?
dmcowen674
No Lifer
I don't get it. There is nothing you say that is ever true yet I am the one to get blasted.
Lemon law
Lifer
( And now the big political question PJ. Given that the surge is really a slogan for stay the course under GWB, what gives ANYONE the idea that this is any different than the 4.5 years of continous failure. Get a clue, there is zero hope of victory with the present plan. But odd you mentioned political defeat and political victory, us dems want a political victory and that is why most of us favor working on Iraq as a political rather than a military problem. But one thing for sure PJ, if Patraeus runs into problems a United Congress is likely to stampede into a total withdrawal plan if GWB does not start working on other political options )
In short non-Prof John, you continue to claim victory when you totally mis interpret everything.
Fern
Elite Member
Pardon me for interrupting into Pabster's question.
How mant times does it need to be explained that the Dems could have ended the *war* by just NOT passing any funding bill?. No funding = no *war*, it really is that simple.
Now others have raised the possible political fallout from perhaps being seen as abondoning the troops in the field. That tells me several things (1) No political backbone by Dems, too fearful of negative consequences to their respective political careers. Not gonna put their jobs on the line for something they (may or may not?) believe in, (2) the Dems admit they'll be outplayed by the Repubs and don't even wanna play. Without an effort they go right to yelling *uncle* (give up).
Personally, I think the whole "abondoning troops over there w/o funding" excuse is lame. Completely disengenuous. All the Dems had to do was have a troop withdrawl funding waiting in the drawer, and pull it out for passage the minute the Repubs started trying to spin. The Repubs could never compalin about the Dems failing to fund the troop withdrawl and then fail to pass such bill themselves.
Of course, IMO, that just serves to ilustrate that the Dems didn't really wanna withdrawl. Can't have any potential negative consequences from on their hands heading into the '08 Pres elections. Cry about military causulties, then allow it to continue for selfish political reasons.
Fern
Lemon law
Lifer
Once again Fern manages to get it wrong by saying----Of course, IMO, that just serves to ilustrate that the Dems didn't really wanna withdrawl. Can't have any potential negative consequences from on their hands heading into the '08 Pres elections. Cry about military causulties, then allow it to continue for selfish political reasons.
Your delusion Fern is assuming that only two possible plans exist for Iraq. When in fact an almost infinite variety of plans are possible. 4.5 years of continuous bumbling has proved the GWB plan will not work. Rational thought makes total withdrawal full of possible dire consequences. Furthermore, in a better world GWB would have gotten the message from the election of 11/06 and worked with a bi-partisan congress to build the political consensus to explore different plans that both parties can sign up to and can achieve something stable in Iraq without running the risk of larger mid-east war. The latter rationality requires thinking about multifaceted issues, political considerations,
and selling that plan to others domestically and internationally.
And Fern, you are stuck in some fantasy world where you see everything in only two binary black white dimensions. And then wonder why your similar thinking buddy GWB flops? When we have a busted plan, we need a better plan, when that better plan is politically impossible, we must wait until that plan becomes politically possible. That is what Reid is doing and McConnell is obstructing. As for GWB, he is increasingly irrelevant. GWB can no longer lead, he refuses to follow, and he won't get out of the way. And bottom line, he has not delivered any positive results because he has a bad plan doomed to failure. Tell me again Fern, what makes you happy about the present situation?
And to edit for thread title accuracy, if Reid is a neutered leader, so are GWB, McConnell, and Boenher. And cheer up, Gonzales, Fibby, and Rove are gone.
Your delusion Fern is assuming that only two possible plans exist for Iraq. When in fact an almost infinite variety of plans are possible. 4.5 years of continuous bumbling has proved the GWB plan will not work. Rational thought makes total withdrawal full of possible dire consequences. Furthermore, in a better world GWB would have gotten the message from the election of 11/06 and worked with a bi-partisan congress to build the political consensus to explore different plans that both parties can sign up to and can achieve something stable in Iraq without running the risk of larger mid-east war. The latter rationality requires thinking about multifaceted issues, political considerations,
and selling that plan to others domestically and internationally.
And Fern, you are stuck in some fantasy world where you see everything in only two binary black white dimensions. And then wonder why your similar thinking buddy GWB flops? When we have a busted plan, we need a better plan, when that better plan is politically impossible, we must wait until that plan becomes politically possible. That is what Reid is doing and McConnell is obstructing. As for GWB, he is increasingly irrelevant. GWB can no longer lead, he refuses to follow, and he won't get out of the way. And bottom line, he has not delivered any positive results because he has a bad plan doomed to failure. Tell me again Fern, what makes you happy about the present situation?
And to edit for thread title accuracy, if Reid is a neutered leader, so are GWB, McConnell, and Boenher. And cheer up, Gonzales, Fibby, and Rove are gone.
Lemon law
Lifer
Then you conclude your post with----Of course, IMO, that just serves to ilustrate that the Dems didn't really wanna withdrawl. Can't have any potential negative consequences from on their hands heading into the '08 Pres elections. Cry about military causulties, then allow it to continue for selfish political reasons.
Given those two comments and your added IMO, I think anyone rational will conclude I am not quoting you out of context. You are trying to spin the facts and you got caught with your own words and opinions. Trying to make the democrats the villains and inventing fanciful craven motives for the dems unwillingness to force withdrawal when I was just explaining why its the best way to prevent a bad situation from getting worse and why.
Getting out of Iraq without catastrophic damage is going to be far harder than it was to get in. And I hope my message was that only a mutually agreed bi-partisan plan can form the basis for that better plan the entire nation can commit to. I am hoping that leaders like McConnell can work with Reid. The alternative is to either wait for GWB to exit 1/20/2009
thereby wasting an entire year to start working on a bi-partisan plan this nation can commit to.
Vic
Elite Member
The war IS unpopular. America wants out. They already voted that way last November, and opinion polls continue to show that. Those same polls also show record low public opinions of both the Administration and the Congress, as our corrupted and ineffective elected officials on both sides of the aisle refuse to do what the public asks of them.
Lemon law
Lifer
As SViscusi says---The change in public opinion has been dramatic.
Not sure if I agree with you on dramatic, but your delusion is in thinking poll numbers trump events on the ground in Iraq. One big adverse event and we will see poll numbers
starting to live under the bellies of snakes, and meanwhile, the surge is just a slogan for the same old stay the course strategy that has been flopping for 4.5 years now.
But my thesis is that the surge is a failed strategy and we need to develop a better bi-partisan plan the nation can commit to. I do not advocate withdrawal either nor do most democrats. Truth be told, this entire country is neutered over Iraq. This entire thread thesis is a troll attempt to blame Reid when we already know GWB spent almost four years flopping and the surge is just a slogan for the same old stay the course. Here we are, after nine months and the surge has shown no actual political or military progress.
Things are not getting better but at least Reid is not so irresponsible to make things much worse. Can we live with that? Now how much longer must we wait for a rational plan both this nation and the international community can commit to?
Not sure if I agree with you on dramatic, but your delusion is in thinking poll numbers trump events on the ground in Iraq. One big adverse event and we will see poll numbers
starting to live under the bellies of snakes, and meanwhile, the surge is just a slogan for the same old stay the course strategy that has been flopping for 4.5 years now.
But my thesis is that the surge is a failed strategy and we need to develop a better bi-partisan plan the nation can commit to. I do not advocate withdrawal either nor do most democrats. Truth be told, this entire country is neutered over Iraq. This entire thread thesis is a troll attempt to blame Reid when we already know GWB spent almost four years flopping and the surge is just a slogan for the same old stay the course. Here we are, after nine months and the surge has shown no actual political or military progress.
Things are not getting better but at least Reid is not so irresponsible to make things much worse. Can we live with that? Now how much longer must we wait for a rational plan both this nation and the international community can commit to?
Lemon law
Lifer
Fern comes back with------It's not spinning facts at all. It's my opinion as to their motivation for failing to excercise the power I outlined, and is clearly labeled as such. (IMO = in my opinion, as you should know by now)
Still a logical fallacy. But you are right that the democrats are divided. Fact is the only practical power the democrats have is to cut all funding. And that power would be used in the House and not in the Senate. Until there is a 60 vote bi-partisan coalition nothing positive can be done. Your bias is you want the Democrats to join the Republicans and my Bias is that I want to get just 10 GOP moderate Republicans to defect. Meanwhile, I think both of us should rejoice that the even more stupid totally withdraw is not happening.
But moving that defacto "nothing practical can be done" about Iraqi and other issues we are gridlocked on, we also have to examine the practical aspects of which fantasy is more achievable.
Your fantasy requires democratic defections to the GOP in both the House and Senate. And then we basically go back to the congress we had before 11/06. The congress that the American people voted out.
My fantasy only requires the defection of 9 GOP senators and no GOP house members. And those nine would have fantastic abilities to dictate terms of legislation.
But at present nothing is budging. Its called gridlock. The real question is which party will blink first. But the democrats are almost certainly going to stick to Reid.
Now can we ask the same question about Republican leadership in the Senate? They too can bulge the gridlock by giving McConnell the boot.
Still a logical fallacy. But you are right that the democrats are divided. Fact is the only practical power the democrats have is to cut all funding. And that power would be used in the House and not in the Senate. Until there is a 60 vote bi-partisan coalition nothing positive can be done. Your bias is you want the Democrats to join the Republicans and my Bias is that I want to get just 10 GOP moderate Republicans to defect. Meanwhile, I think both of us should rejoice that the even more stupid totally withdraw is not happening.
But moving that defacto "nothing practical can be done" about Iraqi and other issues we are gridlocked on, we also have to examine the practical aspects of which fantasy is more achievable.
Your fantasy requires democratic defections to the GOP in both the House and Senate. And then we basically go back to the congress we had before 11/06. The congress that the American people voted out.
My fantasy only requires the defection of 9 GOP senators and no GOP house members. And those nine would have fantastic abilities to dictate terms of legislation.
But at present nothing is budging. Its called gridlock. The real question is which party will blink first. But the democrats are almost certainly going to stick to Reid.
Now can we ask the same question about Republican leadership in the Senate? They too can bulge the gridlock by giving McConnell the boot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
