We surrender, we surrender

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is pretty much the only hope the Republicans have for 2008 is if Bush does that and gets the Democrats to own some of the Iraq mess.

Many of the Democrats already "own" the mess. They voted to authorize War right alongside the Republicans.

Votes can be spun, but not changed.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

True - and they will be wondering why with the Dems "put in charge" in 2006, the Iraqi situation was not resolved.

Which is why, IMHO, the Dems will lose the majority in 2008.

If you really think that the country will vote for Republicans, who want to stay in Iraq because the Democrats haven't taken the troops out of Iraq fast enough, you are going to be very, very mistaken. 2008 will make 2006 look like a joke. Republicans will be lucky if they can filibuster Hillary.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

ProfJohn said:

One thing I expect to see after this is more anti-war types going after the Democrats for not stopping the war.

"Anti-war types" as you call them are 70% of the American public and republican & Demorcrat alike.

Minus the "dittohead-like" sloganeering in this quoted statement, this will happen and "should" happen.

It most definitely was a betrayal of the voters who wanted the Democrats to show leadership on the Iraq issue.

They blew it, and badly. And come September, the same hand-wringing, the same pettifogging, the same excuses and blandishments will be thrown out again, only this time, the Democrats will look even more weak-kneed and foolish if they even peep about wanting progress or benchmarks or a timetable or withdrawal - they've handed the GOP fistfuls of rhetorical ammo going into the campaign year:

"They're for the war one minute, and the next minute, they're against it! Flip-flop!"

I can almost see it as a campaign slogan:

"The Democrats won't even stand up to us republicans! What makes you think they'll stand up to Al Qaeda? Vote Republican - we may fight dirty, but at least we fight."

This was the Democrats' chance, it was their moment, and they caved in the worst possible way.

They appeased Bush, who was actually in a very weak position - approval ratings in the toilet, lost both houses of Congress, is resoundingly out of step with the majority of Americans.

But the shellshocked Congress refused to hold their ground. Astounding. They had everything to gain by sticking their legislative thumbs in Bush's eyes, and instead they licked his boots.

Even if things continue to get worse in Iraq, the sensible person will ask:

"It was bad in May, it's bad now; why on earth did you prolong it?? How many more people had to die because you wouldn't take a stand?"

People need to see which way their representatives voted, and to call them on it. Light fires under their feet, let them know that you're pissed off. Or else we need a third, fourth, and fifth party in this country.

Maybe all of the above.

 

[techs]

Every day brings us closer to the end of the Republican party.
If they keep the war going til 2008 it will be the greatest political disaster in American history. It will make the Republican fiasco of 1932 look like a narrow loss.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:

One thing I expect to see after this is more anti-war types going after the Democrats for not stopping the war.

"*MASSIVE RANT DELETED*"

I think you're missing a very simple point. Without veto-override majority, the Democrat's only remaining option would have been to just refuse to send ANY bill to Bush, which would be suicide of the highest order, because the Republicans would endlessly blather on about 'Not supporting/supplying the troops'.

The voters and polls have spoken LOUDLY, and no sane person can blame the Democrats in congress for being unable to instantly halt this farce of a 'war'.

That said, the 70+% who want our troops home from Iraq for good will VOTE for a candidate who will do so. Iraq is THE issue in America today.

 

[Ferocious]

Bush just said he likes the new deal, but

Democrats said they were disappointed with the deal.

No doubt. As are most Americans.

But that's the kinda deal you have to settle for when you have a President who thinks he is King.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:

One thing I expect to see after this is more anti-war types going after the Democrats for not stopping the war.

"Anti-war types" as you call them are 70% of the American public and republican & Demorcrat alike.

Minus the "dittohead-like" sloganeering in this quoted statement, this will happen and "should" happen.

It most definitely was a betrayal of the voters who wanted the Democrats to show leadership on the Iraq issue.

They blew it, and badly. And come September, the same hand-wringing, the same pettifogging, the same excuses and blandishments will be thrown out again, only this time, the Democrats will look even more weak-kneed and foolish if they even peep about wanting progress or benchmarks or a timetable or withdrawal - they've handed the GOP fistfuls of rhetorical ammo going into the campaign year:

"They're for the war one minute, and the next minute, they're against it! Flip-flop!"

I can almost see it as a campaign slogan:

"The Democrats won't even stand up to us republicans! What makes you think they'll stand up to Al Qaeda? Vote Republican - we may fight dirty, but at least we fight."

This was the Democrats' chance, it was their moment, and they caved in the worst possible way.

They appeased Bush, who was actually in a very weak position - approval ratings in the toilet, lost both houses of Congress, is resoundingly out of step with the majority of Americans.

But the shellshocked Congress refused to hold their ground. Astounding. They had everything to gain by sticking their legislative thumbs in Bush's eyes, and instead they licked his boots.

Even if things continue to get worse in Iraq, the sensible person will ask:

"It was bad in May, it's bad now; why on earth did you prolong it?? How many more people had to die because you wouldn't take a stand?"

People need to see which way their representatives voted, and to call them on it. Light fires under their feet, let them know that you're pissed off. Or else we need a third, fourth, and fifth party in this country.

Maybe all of the above.

I think you're unreasonably hard on the Dems.

What COULD they have done (or still do)?
-They could've passed a bill with withdrawl/timetable/benchmarks and made GWB veto it, or make the Repubs bottle it up in the senate (the Dems lack 60 votes)

But they would've needed to get started sooner, so they could've had time to afterwards get around to passing an actual bill that would pass so there would'nt of been any kind of "funding crisis" for lack of time. That would've just hijacked the whole discussion in a way unfavorable to them.

-They can still try to pass a straight-up bill with the timetable/withdrawl/benchmarks. Again, making GWB veto, or the make Repubs in the senate prevent a vote.

-They can hold a vote de-authorizing the use of force. Prolly won't pass, probrably won't even get a vote (60 votes & cloture). A veto of such a bill under these circumstances would be wierd IMO (but would happen). Seeing a President veto a bill that is essentaily Congress withdrawing his authority, that they provided, sounds crazy to me. He would be overruling them withdrawing their permission? They'd look rather impotent I think.

-While technically they could have withheld funding by just not passing anything, I agree with their (apparent) decision that's too politically risky.

-They CAN'T pass a bill you'd like. They lack the votes to bring cloture, they can't override a veto.

-They HAVE used the publicity effectively to really bash GWB on this. His poll ratings dropped to very low levels. But so have their's, might be some causation there?

To the extent they haven't done a better job with the options they DO have, I'd blame Pelosi & Reid. Not impressive IMO, nor their best choices for leadership roles.

Fern

 

[BMW540I6speed]

It's all about appearances..

So let's say the Dems all send "bill after bill" to the president with a timeline included. Is he going to cave? Not president Bush. And that will be fodder for the gaping maw of the republican spin monster for a generation.

The Vietnam war, an even bigger horror show than Iraq (to date) and the Democrats have indeed been succesfully portrayed as "soft on defense" ever since. The other tagline they can't seem to lose is "tax and spend" even though the republicans' "cut taxes and spend" policy is even more damaging.

The Dems have once again showed the same cowardice that got us into this war in the first place, they are anticipating campaign commercials instead of what is right and what the American people want.

The Democrats need to make clear that Bush is losing the war - that he's not even trying to win and hasn't been trying since 2003. They need to point out that all he's doing now is kicking the can down the road in the hopes that the Democrats or another Republican president will be left stuck with the nasty can.

What we have in Iraq is not a war, but a policing problem. Our problem is that we are just not interested in putting in enough police to do the job, which is to keep security and order in Iraq so that a decent government might have a chance to develop. In fact, it would cost us an absolutely incredible amount in lives and money to put in anything close to enough troops to keep any kind of order in Iraq. This is what people just don't understand or won't face up to.

I used to think that voting 3rd party was a waste, but the dems have proven that the real waste is throwing away votes on a party that's too insecure and fearful to try to accomplish the things that need to be done. At this point, the best thing that could happen for the country would be for the repubs to splinter over immigration and the dems to splinter over iraq, opening a path for other parties to be reasonable alternatives on the national level.

The American people won't stand up against the war. To most people, the war just barely registers on their radar screens. Many people don't know anybody serving in Iraq. Most people aren't suffering in any way whatsoever from the war in Iraq. Taxes haven't gone up and the draft is not even a remote possiblity.

Cutting off the funding just perpetuates the myth that we're fighting some kind of war in Iraq with either victory or defeat as possible end results. But there simply isn't even a theoretical possibility of victory in Iraq.

If the Democrats would challenge Bush seriously on this, they would find that the decay of their party would cease, and that their political futures would never be brighter. But it takes courage, and the willingness of one to give up one's own individual good for the good of the many.

I am also tired of being "pragmatic". I and 70% of the US are against this occupation (as it is being run by this administration) and the ability of our Congress to deny funding is the only leverage "We the People" have in this situation.

Protesting won't do it, pontificating won't do it, whining won't do it, only keeping the purse-strings tightly tied will allow us to continue to have a dialog with the Executive branch about running this occupation in a smart rational way.

The country is run by the American people. That's where the power is. Anybody who doesn't reckon with what the American people think simply doesn't understand how American politics works.

I regret that it has come to this, I really do, but let's remember how we got here. The President chose to veto a funding bill that expressed the will of the people and must accept responsibility for his actions. If BushCo wants "compromise", well, "compromise" requires both sides to make concessions and his side, has made no concessions.

Challenging war supporters to volunteer for duty in Iraq...

This is the kind of thing that I think needs to be done; to call out war supporters and ask them why they aren't doing the job they keep saying needs to be done. The fact is, the "job" (as this administration frames it) simply can't be done at all and this is what needs to be stated to the American people.

 

[thraashman]

Well the Democrats proved something I've known for a while. They could have sent bill after bill to Bush which he would have vetoed and vetoed until the funding ran out and the troops went without funding, because in the end for Bush it's about getting his way and what he wants, not what's best for the troops. So the Dems did what was the only real option to get funding to the troops and caved in to Bush and the Repubs. It's unfortunate that the Republicans so refuse to support our troops. But at least the Democrats are willing to support the troops. Unfortunately they are supporting them at the cost of what's best for this country. It's a sad day anytime Bush gets his way, because it's so far, in every single situation, been the wrong thing to happen.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: techs
Every day brings us closer to the end of the Republican party.
If they keep the war going til 2008 it will be the greatest political disaster in American history. It will make the Republican fiasco of 1932 look like a narrow loss.

That's what the Republicans want. Then if a Democrat is elected President, if he/she pulls out of Iraq, they will get blamed for "cutting and running". If they stay, they will look like hypocrites.

 

[Lemon law]

What it boils down to is that all parties agree to play for time and to kick the can only three months down the road. And if we are talking the House version of the bill, it simply does not math out. Given that Iraq costs 3 billion a week, three months funding is less than 40 billion. There is also some needed domestic spending or pork if you want to spin it that way, but not enough to even come close to the extra sixty billion.

But come September, I am guessing both sides will know more. Patreous is due to report on the surge, the Iraqi government will have either made progress or be judged hopeless, and the election of 08 will be starting to be visible on the distant horizon. If Iraq has not radically improved by then, the pressure will be on GWB if the democrats play their cards right. I am guessing the various scandals against GWB will be far better defined and reaching the criminal charges stage. And after September, I am guessing all funding will be tied to GWB compliance with benchmarks.

Time works for the democrats and against GWB and the GOP. The democrats can afford to give GWB&co. the three months and maybe an additional three months. If the democrats wait any longer than February, then time is equally biased against both parties. Meanwhile, the democrats are free to pass other bills that do protect our troops from being abused.--and can tie those provisions to other funding that the GOP cannot afford to oppose.

Two jokers will remain in the deck (1) GWB could just pull off a success in Iraq---but thats a extremely remote possibility. (2) What the perceived public opinion is---but my guess is that public disgust with the Iraq war will dump somewhat equally on GWB&co., congressional democrats, and congressional republicans.

While I certainly had hoped that congress would grow a backbone and severely restrict GWB's Iraqi options, it now looks like decision time will be postponed to the August and September time frame. I am guessing by then, public disgust will demand anything but stay the course with the mini-surge myth. And the parts of the GOP that hope to get re-elected in 08 will be forced to abandon a lame duck President unable to deliver the bacon.

And in those extra 90 days---an extra 300-700 US troops will die and perhaps four times that number will suffer lifelong disabilities---and GWB can preen his war time President ego.
Fasten your seatbelts folks---batten the hatches and keep your barf bags handy----we will also get political spin from both sides until we are all dizzy. Its going to be a long hot summer.