• 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.

Who will win politically?

F

Farang

Lifer
I see both sides making major blunders here.

Let's look at the overall political situation which is really interesting. I think the Democrats are failing by not responding to Bush's veto threats of 'stop delaying funding for the troops' with 'we are supplying funding, you will be the one who vetoes that funding.' Bush has the bully pulpit but Democratic leaders are completing inept at responding to it, aside from that one Pelosi press conference early on where she appeared calm after Bush had made a couple of yelling, angered speeches earlier.

Then Pelosi goes to Syria. Photographed wearing a head scarf, and completely fscks up with her diplomacy attempt with the Olmert peace message fiasco. Whether you agreed with her trip or not this was not the time to make such a controversial trip when you have such a fragile piece of legislation on the line (the withdrawal funding).

Democrats were bailed out with Bush's hilarious attempt at calling for a meeting. I couldn't believe what I was reading. He wants a meeting but there will be no negotiations. Essentially a meeting on how they will do what he says. This was truely a pathetic moment in his presidency, as it made transparent his ineptitude at bringing people together and diplomacy in general.

But again the Democrats messed up. They didn't call him out, instead having Reid give some weak statement on "not going in with pre-conditions." Stronger language should have been used to call out this arrogant request for a meeting.

Okay I've rambled on enough I just find this whole conflict very interesting.. aside from policy opinions what do you all think of the political battle here and how it is being handled?
 
I don't think Bush will win - the press, and American people are ready to drag him and his administration through the mud. Time will tell, but I have a feeling the press and the American people are going to use his presidency as a scapegoat for our country's mistakes over the past 7 years.
 
When Bush won America lost. The disaster has happened. There is no winning now. We are left to sufferer the effects of catastrophe.
 
I think that its inevitable that GWB will lose if he tries a pissing contest with congress---right now he half way get away with framing the argument that anything less than his way hurts our troops.---but as the dems reach into a bottomless bag of GWB incompetence and scandal---soon that same arument will sound self-serving and then like a broken record---and so will be the end of a one trick poney.

In our system of government the President has some of the aces---but the congress has more aces because it holds the power of the purse. Normally the relative distribution of power is blurred and the congress and the executive work together. But if GWB tries to go it alone---he is going to discover what all my dogs discover---it not very smart to pull too hard when you it just results in you choking on the choke collar.

Unfortunately GWB's advisers are not very smart----and it will take them a very long time to learn that picking fights with congress is a losing game when they have you with your pants down. Pretty soon the Gonzales scandal will look very mild compared to what congress will soon be laying on GWB.
Gonna be a long hot summer in Washington DC if GWB does not get real.

Presidents with 30% approval ratings are not very wise when they try stonewalling. Even the congress is now up to 40%.
 
Unfortunately for our country, there are many Americans who would rather see George W Bush proven wrong by losing this war then have our country succeed in Iraq.
 
Indeed both sides are playing a dangerous game. If the dems are seen as not supporting the troops or putting them in harms way by not providing the funding they need, they will get crucified. Conversely, the public has grown weary of the president and his war rhetoric, and with his dismal approval rating he can't afford to simply push congress around.

The president can only push congress around when he's extremely popular or when congress is controlled by his party and allows him to push congress around). Neither of those is the case right now, so Bush has to get smart and work with the congress instead of trying to force their hand.
 
Originally posted by: Corbett
Unfortunately for our country, there are many Americans who would rather see George W Bush proven wrong by losing this war then have our country succeed in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Including all the ones who are for the war but aren't signing up to fight because they tell themselves they're "too smart"? Your country needs you, sign up and lead the charge instead of whining about true Americans who are upset over all the needless loss of life in Iraq. If you had half a brtain you'd see that the war was lost beofre we even invaded Iraq, so it's not about proving Bush wrong. He already has done a good job of that. Remember "Mission Accomplished" and "last throes"?

If you want to walk the walk and talk the talk then have the decency to drink the same kool-aid our fighting boys have to.
 
I find it hard to back Pelosi and here plan to waste my tax money to bribe lawmakers to vote her way. I think the timetable is unrealistic. We still have troops in both Korea and Germany.

If the next president is a Democrat then everything will work out anyway. If they have the votes then just cut off the funding. Until then it is the Commander-In-Chief that makes decisions for the Armed Forces. This is how the country is set up. If Pelosi wants to be the next president, let her run for office.
 
Dems in Congress will win politically . . . assuming they are smart . . . not a safe assumption but they are smarter than Bush.

If they are smart, they will drop all of the pork and send Bush a bill with enough funding for efforts through the early Fall. The bill will explicitly cite the benchmarks set by Bush but no timetable. The Congress will then begin months of debate about the appropriate use of the US military and our long-term prospects SEPARATELY in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They will then submit a separate bill that funds efforts in Afghanistan through 2007 . . . tack on some pork if they like but it's gonna be hard to hide. And then say future funding for Afghanistan should go through normal budgetary processes (DOD budget).

They then start months of hearings on military readiness, force structure, modern geopolitical realities, etc etc and develop a separate Iraq funding bill that REQUIRES the strategic redeployment of troops to begin by the end of 2007. The goal being a decrease in combat troops while accelerating the training of Iraqi forces and turning most of the territory over to Iraqi forces. Bush's Surge would have been given nearly 8 months to do something. If it's helped that's just as strong an argument to turn it over to 'quality' Iraqi forces as it is to argue that US forces should stay to do the job . . . indefinitely.

If Iraqis cannot hold territory that US troops have pacified it's a ridiculous argument to say we should stay until they can b/c it's never gonna happen and we don't have the manpower (or money) to do it indefinitely.

The American public will buy the Dems (and responsible Repub) argument that Iraqis have to win Iraq. If the Surge helps it's more reason to turn it over to the Iraqis. If the Surge doesn't help it's more reason to say, "what next . . . send in 50k more troops?"

US troops are not in SK to keep the DPRK at bay. It's the 700k SK troops that keep the DPRK on its side of the 38th parallel. US troops certainly aren't in Okinawa to defend Japan. The US enjoys an unparalleled degree of force projection through its military installations around the globe. We believe our presence in SK and Japan are in OUR interests . . . that's why we have troops there.
 
I dont honestly believe the democrats want the troops out until after the 08 election. They need something to run on. If they get their wish and we pull out before the elections and the place goes to hell and a hand basket, they have blood on their hands.

That being said I felt the democrats refusing the meet with the president looked bad for them. Pelosi can meet with the leader of a state who actively funds groups in Lebanon to destabilize that allie and groups against Israel but wont meet with our own president?
That looks bad from any angle you want to look at it from. Even if it is going to be a meeting that gets nothing done, not meeting with him sends a terrible msg to the American people and the world.
 
Originally posted by: Corbett
Unfortunately for our country, there are many Americans who would rather see George W Bush proven wrong by losing this war then have our country succeed in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Sadly I fear Corbett is somewhat correct---and instead of putting all options on the table,
the debate now seems to frame around just two bad and opposite options.---but the big other illusion implied is that there is now any holy grail called success. And when succeed alludes us after four years, it starts to dawn on realists everywhere, that its long past time to start talking about cutting your losses.

But to examine the two framed options.

1. The GWB plan which hopes to turn Iraq over to a democratically elected Iraqi government able to govern itself. Sadly the result has been a slow and steady growth of the insurgency over the entire time period of the occupation. While the democratically elected Iraqi government is in fact in place, it has thus far failed to even produce any internal agreement nor can it control its own army or police-as the police and to a lesser extent its own army gets co-opted by insurgents faster than they can be trained. In terms of the average Iraqi---the insurgency is now the defacto government---and its simultaneously the author of ethnic cleansing and the element one must look for for protection because thats the things American troops are too thin to provide.--protection.
But as long as American troops stay--the insurgency does not win and a very leaky lid stays on the pressure cooker.----but at the same time the insurgency gets more entrenched and stronger.

And now the Iraqi occupation is reaching a new and more dangerous stage because Iraq gets daily closer to a full blown civil war that could be catalyzed by any incident. And the one thing that keeps that danger somewhat minimized is the lack of heavy or modern weapons owned by any side. And GWB&co. are now ramping up the pressure by trying the so called surge plan---which in MHO really ought to be called a mini-surge---and unless GWB&co. can hold the Iraqi police and army together---such a surge plan cannot work. After initially opting to not mount a direct challenge, it now looks like the insurgency will start to challenge the surge. And if it ever gets down to urban combat in the insurgency's back yard, I would have to guess the insurgency can win the battle of attrition. At the same time GWB&co. have opted to do something really foolish by gigging Iraqi neighbors
like Iran---while Sadie Arabia looks on in helpless horror as its Sunni brethren get butchered. While the Iraqi Kurds are gaging their chances and could bolt at any time. Which would horrify the Turks who would likely go ape. In short any incident could blow things sky high and cause neighboring countries to start wholesale arming of the insurgency with the one missing element---heavy and modern weapons in large numbers.

So the real question becomes----how much time does the US have left with the GWB plan?
At any time events could move in Iraq and the US position could become instantly untenable.

In contrast---the congressional plans thus far is simply set benchmarks and requirements
that are unlikely to be met---which then triggers mandatory troop withdrawals. But I tend to think, any congressional plans are really a plea to the white House to give congress a share in planning the war---with GWB&co. flatly refusing to cede congress any inputs. And as long as the debate centers there---congress will probably end up forcing troop withdrawals.

With both roads ending in basically the same place---just waiting for Iraq to go full blown civil war with neighboring countries forced to act. And such a Iraqi civil war would likely result in a world wide depression when the flow of mid-east oil is cut off as the civil war then ignites war and instability across the entire mid-east.


This grim prospect---IMHO---can only be averted if congress, GWB, and the international community can come up with a new plan to stabilize Iraq----any of the named three parties have almost veto powers----and we all better get on the same page fast or we will truly be in a heap of trobs is my sad conclusion.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont honestly believe the democrats want the troops out until after the 08 election. They need something to run on. If they get their wish and we pull out before the elections and the place goes to hell and a hand basket, they have blood on their hands.

That being said I felt the democrats refusing the meet with the president looked bad for them. Pelosi can meet with the leader of a state who actively funds groups in Lebanon to destabilize that allie and groups against Israel but wont meet with our own president?
That looks bad from any angle you want to look at it from. Even if it is going to be a meeting that gets nothing done, not meeting with him sends a terrible msg to the American people and the world.
Click to expand...

Bush said he wanted to meet to 'discuss' the war funding bill but it would not be a negotiation. In essence, he wanted to meet to tell them in person to do what he wants. Why would anyone subject themselves to such an insult from the Idiot King?

Now if Bush had said, "let's sit down and talk to work this out," then you would be right about the appearance of Democrats.

Further, most of the public has already forgotten about Pelosi's field trip. But the strain of Iraq is front and center . . . particularly with the announcement of extended tours as the standard now for active Army and repeat tours for Reserves/Guard.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Corbett
Unfortunately for our country, there are many Americans who would rather see George W Bush proven wrong by losing this war then have our country succeed in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Including all the ones who are for the war but aren't signing up to fight because they tell themselves they're "too smart"? Your country needs you, sign up and lead the charge instead of whining about true Americans who are upset over all the needless loss of life in Iraq. If you had half a brtain you'd see that the war was lost beofre we even invaded Iraq, so it's not about proving Bush wrong. He already has done a good job of that. Remember "Mission Accomplished" and "last throes"?

If you want to walk the walk and talk the talk then have the decency to drink the same kool-aid our fighting boys have to.
Click to expand...

This says it all. Bush also has a fine history of avoiding military service. I find it hard to believe people that shout "I'm patriotic" but then avoid serving themselves. It's called saying one thing but doing another.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont honestly believe the democrats want the troops out until after the 08 election. They need something to run on. If they get their wish and we pull out before the elections and the place goes to hell and a hand basket, they have blood on their hands.

That being said I felt the democrats refusing the meet with the president looked bad for them. Pelosi can meet with the leader of a state who actively funds groups in Lebanon to destabilize that allie and groups against Israel but wont meet with our own president?
That looks bad from any angle you want to look at it from. Even if it is going to be a meeting that gets nothing done, not meeting with him sends a terrible msg to the American people and the world.
Click to expand...

Bush said he wanted to meet to 'discuss' the war funding bill but it would not be a negotiation. In essence, he wanted to meet to tell them in person to do what he wants. Why would anyone subject themselves to such an insult from the Idiot King?

Now if Bush had said, "let's sit down and talk to work this out," then you would be right about the appearance of Democrats.

Further, most of the public has already forgotten about Pelosi's field trip. But the strain of Iraq is front and center . . . particularly with the announcement of extended tours as the standard now for active Army and repeat tours for Reserves/Guard.
Click to expand...

It still looks terrible, sorry it does. You think Pelosi really thought the King in Syria was going to listen to her? Under your logic, she shouldnt have done that either.



 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it hard to back Pelosi and here plan to waste my tax money to bribe lawmakers to vote her way. I think the timetable is unrealistic. We still have troops in both Korea and Germany.

If the next president is a Democrat then everything will work out anyway. If they have the votes then just cut off the funding. Until then it is the Commander-In-Chief that makes decisions for the Armed Forces. This is how the country is set up. If Pelosi wants to be the next president, let her run for office.
Click to expand...

I have a novel idea; instead of bribing, sanitizing and manipulating votes - why won't both sides start telling the plain unadulterated truth? Oh no, that won't work.
 
Bush will win. His power is unstoppable. Congress has the teeth of an anorexic crack hooker, and then Senate is too concerned about their multi-mullion dollars jobs, to do anything. Nothing will change untill 2009 when a new president takes over.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it hard to back Pelosi and here plan to waste my tax money to bribe lawmakers to vote her way. I think the timetable is unrealistic. We still have troops in both Korea and Germany.
Click to expand...
Lame argument, those two locations are not such a disasterous drain on our human and financial resources. And in both cases there were legitimate reasons behind US getting involved.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Corbett
Unfortunately for our country, there are many Americans who would rather see George W Bush proven wrong by losing this war then have our country succeed in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Sadly I fear Corbett is somewhat correct---and instead of putting all options on the table,
the debate now seems to frame around just two bad and opposite options.---but the big other illusion implied is that there is now any holy grail called success. And when succeed alludes us after four years, it starts to dawn on realists everywhere, that its long past time to start talking about cutting your losses.

But to examine the two framed options.

1. The GWB plan which hopes to turn Iraq over to a democratically elected Iraqi government able to govern itself. Sadly the result has been a slow and steady growth of the insurgency over the entire time period of the occupation. While the democratically elected Iraqi government is in fact in place, it has thus far failed to even produce any internal agreement nor can it control its own army or police-as the police and to a lesser extent its own army gets co-opted by insurgents faster than they can be trained. In terms of the average Iraqi---the insurgency is now the defacto government---and its simultaneously the author of ethnic cleansing and the element one must look for for protection because thats the things American troops are too thin to provide.--protection.
But as long as American troops stay--the insurgency does not win and a very leaky lid stays on the pressure cooker.----but at the same time the insurgency gets more entrenched and stronger.

And now the Iraqi occupation is reaching a new and more dangerous stage because Iraq gets daily closer to a full blown civil war that could be catalyzed by any incident. And the one thing that keeps that danger somewhat minimized is the lack of heavy or modern weapons owned by any side. And GWB&co. are now ramping up the pressure by trying the so called surge plan---which in MHO really ought to be called a mini-surge---and unless GWB&co. can hold the Iraqi police and army together---such a surge plan cannot work. After initially opting to not mount a direct challenge, it now looks like the insurgency will start to challenge the surge. And if it ever gets down to urban combat in the insurgency's back yard, I would have to guess the insurgency can win the battle of attrition. At the same time GWB&co. have opted to do something really foolish by gigging Iraqi neighbors
like Iran---while Sadie Arabia looks on in helpless horror as its Sunni brethren get butchered. While the Iraqi Kurds are gaging their chances and could bolt at any time. Which would horrify the Turks who would likely go ape. In short any incident could blow things sky high and cause neighboring countries to start wholesale arming of the insurgency with the one missing element---heavy and modern weapons in large numbers.

So the real question becomes----how much time does the US have left with the GWB plan?
At any time events could move in Iraq and the US position could become instantly untenable.

In contrast---the congressional plans thus far is simply set benchmarks and requirements
that are unlikely to be met---which then triggers mandatory troop withdrawals. But I tend to think, any congressional plans are really a plea to the white House to give congress a share in planning the war---with GWB&co. flatly refusing to cede congress any inputs. And as long as the debate centers there---congress will probably end up forcing troop withdrawals.

With both roads ending in basically the same place---just waiting for Iraq to go full blown civil war with neighboring countries forced to act. And such a Iraqi civil war would likely result in a world wide depression when the flow of mid-east oil is cut off as the civil war then ignites war and instability across the entire mid-east.


This grim prospect---IMHO---can only be averted if congress, GWB, and the international community can come up with a new plan to stabilize Iraq----any of the named three parties have almost veto powers----and we all better get on the same page fast or we will truly be in a heap of trobs is my sad conclusion.
Click to expand...

It's been over on 4 years since we began droppong bombs on Iraq. On May 1, 2003 Bush declared "the end of major combat operations" and American soldiers are still being maimed and killed on a daily basis.

A lot of people like to say 'we broke it we own it". Well then let's own it and annex it or get the hell out becuase it's clear to me that "all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Humptey Dumptey together again".

It's easy make this all about politics between the R's and the D's, but if we can't even agree on a solution then getting any worthwhile cooperation from the world community is not going to happen. They have their own agendas.



If someone has a better idea let's hear it.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it hard to back Pelosi and her plan to waste my tax money to bribe lawmakers to vote her way. I think the timetable is unrealistic. We still have troops in both Korea and Germany.

If the next president is a Democrat then everything will work out anyway. If they have the votes then just cut off the funding. Until then it is the Commander-In-Chief that makes decisions for the Armed Forces. This is how the country is set up. If Pelosi wants to be the next president, let her run for office.
Click to expand...

w0w, a reasonable person in P&N , i don't usually venture in here, but this is a good post! :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it hard to back Pelosi and her plan to waste my tax money to bribe lawmakers to vote her way. I think the timetable is unrealistic. We still have troops in both Korea and Germany.

If the next president is a Democrat then everything will work out anyway. If they have the votes then just cut off the funding. Until then it is the Commander-In-Chief that makes decisions for the Armed Forces. This is how the country is set up. If Pelosi wants to be the next president, let her run for office.
Click to expand...

w0w, a reasonable person in P&N , i don't usually venture in here, but this is a good post! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...


It's a ridiculous argument to cite Pelosi's 'vote candy' on the war funding bill when DOD itself wastes an order of magnitude more money each year! Further, the 'goals' of the Bush War in Iraq are unrealistic. Applying a timetable for leaving is being a realist. We are indeed going to leave. The question is whether it will be on our terms. Only partisan hacks or those woefully ignorant of history and geopolitics would consider Korea or Germany comparable to Iraq.
 
The reason that the American people can't decide is because we haven't even heard the truth yet about why we are over there, what we are supposed to be accomplishing and whether it is a logical objective. If we could get those answers, then I would imagine that we could decide. We aren't stupid, just highly misled.
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
"...We still have troops in both Korea and Germany..."


Getting blown to bits every single day?
Click to expand...

The 'talking points' element probably couldn't find Germany or Korea on an unmarked atlas. They know even less about characteristics of Iraq that make it almost entirely dissimilar to postwar Germany or Korea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top