Who will win politically?

[imported_Equinox]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
"...We still have troops in both Korea and Germany..."


Getting blown to bits every single day?

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.

Agreed. And some of them are unaware that the "Commander-in-Chief" doesn't even want the job of guiding the war in Iraq because it has gotten too messy; that's why he is trying to find a War Czar. He's having trouble finding one, though, because no one wants to be the scapegoat when it fails.

 

[imported_Equinox]

Originally posted by: Farang
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

Well, that is the problem right there; if Bush would actually veto something, then Congress could vote on it. That's how it suppose to work, check and balances.

Unfortunately, Bush has in the whole time he has been in office vetoed 1 thing. The other 600 or so times he has used signed statements to make constitutional objections thereby tying everyone's hands and doing what he wants.

How has he gotten away with it? You tell me. Why no one is objecting to him making a mockery of the Constitution is a miracle.

It would be awesome if he would actually veto something, then Congress could actually make a decision on something the way that it is supposed to work.

 

[imported_Equinox]

Step 1. A bill goes in front of the House of Representatives, the people we elected to represent us and take things to Congress. They vote.
Step 2. If it passes, it goes to the Senate. Other people we have elected to represent us. They vote.
Step 3. It goes to the Executive branch, the President. He can veto it, in which case it won't pass and everyone is back to the drawing board.

What Bush has been doing:

Signing everything into law, but then making signed statements to enter Constitutional objections that whatever he doesn't like doesn't really apply to him and the Executive branch, therefore it isn't vetoed to be revoted on, it's passed but his Executive exemption prevents him from actually having to follow the law or budget or whatever he just signed.

See why we have problems? LOL

 

[hydroponik]

My opinion...

Leave Iraq and let allah sort those bodies out. 😛

 

[imported_Equinox]

Round up all the politicians in Washington, and send them over there after the troops are gone. Let them fight it out since they are fond of starting wars but not funding them or fighting them. Meanwhile we can seize their assets (which are likely stolen from the taxpayers anyway) to provide medical care for those wounded in the war, build some new hospitals, schools and provide for this country. If any of them survive fighting the Iraqi's and each other, they can come back and serve out their days doing what they know best, shoveling horse manure and cleaning up toilets.

 

[Corbett]

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.

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.

Wow! You got all of that from my post? Well done!

Our troops dont HAVE TO do anything. Its a volunteer service, remember? And your standard "you support the war, so go fight" is transparent.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Farang
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?

What is wrong with her wearing a head scarf again? She wore one in Saudi Arabia by the way because that is the cultural and religous custom there in SA.

 

[ProfJohn]

In the end I think it will come down to funding the troops.

Bush is in the drivers seat. As long as Democrats add stuff to the bill that have nothing to do with funding the troops he can veto it and say something like "we need to support the troops without attaching strings or limiting their ability to get the job done." etc etc

The Dems will look like the ones who don't want to fund the troops after this.
In the end moderate Democrats and Republicans will pass a clean bill and fund the troops.

(after that the Democrats can try and set a withdrawal date if they want and we can see how the American people look at it as a seperate issue.)

 

[eilute]

I recon the Democrats can hold out for 2 or 3 months and the Pentagon can hold out (with no funding) for 6. In the next two or three months the Republicans will have to decide weather or not the Iraq war really is being conducted successfully. I'm going to have to call it a draw, although in 12 months the recklessness of the current war policy will be much more apparent.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Corbett

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.

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.

Wow! You got all of that from my post? Well done!

Our troops dont HAVE TO do anything. Its a volunteer service, remember? And your standard "you support the war, so go fight" is transparent.

Our troops DON'T HAVE to do anything? You seem to forget the part about risking their life and limb??

You are deluding yourself. They are recalling National Guard units to do second tours a year early and extending regular army troops deployment times because they don't have enough "volunteers". I beleive they even have stop gap mesures preventing people who have fullfilled their contracts from getting out.

Despite all the strutting and big talk from people like you, in the last analisys it takes trained soldiers to fight wars, so go do your duty and quit your pansy-ass whining about other people. Put up or shut up, otherwise your just another chickenhawk in my book.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are engaging in a bout of brinksmanship with the President on an issue for which they have the tacit backing of a strong majority of the American people.

And yet they continue to fail to harness that popular sentiment to carry the day.

Instead of talking about how the President needs to compromise on the pending funding bills for the wars we are fighting, they should be warning him not to hold our troops hostage to his failed policy.

Such a stance would recast the debate in terms the President himself has chosen (i.e. the Democrats are failing to support our troops), but point out the obvious flaw in his position, which is to say, the President continues to put our troops in harms way to preserve some false sense that his initial policy was a good one.

As with the Democrats though, it's the right idea with the wrong message.

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead of talking about how the President needs to compromise on the pending funding bills for the wars we are fighting, they should be warning him not to hold our troops hostage to his failed policy.

I think they are, but that the message isn't being carried by the so-called "Liberal Media".

The beauty of House Dems' position is that funding is an active process- Dubya can veto 'til hell freezes over, but it won't get him what he needs, which is money... he can't spend money congress hasn't authorized.

The emphasis placed on the pork by the rightwing spin machine is amusing- Dubya would sign a bill with another $100B in pork attached if it would give him the open ended option for Iraq... even he admits it's all about the withdrawal timetable. the only bill he ever vetoed was for stem cell research...

Stick to your guns, Dems, and Dubya will go down like Cheney's quail hunting companion... after a great deal of whining and raving, for sure, but it'll happen. Otherwise, he''l be pulling troops out of Iraq a lot sooner than what Dems are allowing him...

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Farang
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?

What is wrong with her wearing a head scarf again? She wore one in Saudi Arabia by the way because that is the cultural and religous custom there in SA.

I don't care if she does.. but I don't think it is the smartest move is such a delicate political climate. When independents see a big picture of her posted up on Drudge with a head scarf on it sends a subtle message.

 

[IronWing]

This should be a slam dunk for the Dems but they'll still find a way to snatch political defeat out of the jaws of victory. The Dem leadership still doesn't understand that those who voted for them are well past the point of wanting timetables, they want the troops out now, not in six months or eighteen months, but now. The Repub's are fracturing with their elected reps looking for any issue they can possibly find other than the war. Bush is on his own now. Still the Dems will end up making a compromise that makes them look weak and silly.

I find the "War Czar" trial balloon the WH floated this week to be an amazing development. Folks from all viewpoints, pro-war or agin-war, should be asking, loudly, WTF??? If the Commander in Chief, the Decider, the War President, doesn't have the ability or inclination to execute his own war he should either end it or resign. Setting up a scapegoat to take the heat for the continuing spiral into chaos is ridiculous and cowardly.

 

[her209]

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.

Yes, they are responsible for this mess!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

From Ironwing-

The Dem leadership still doesn't understand that those who voted for them are well past the point of wanting timetables, they want the troops out now, not in six months or eighteen months, but now.

Too broad a brush, Ironwing, and too narrow a focus. That's only true for some. And, unlike their Repub counterparts, Dems allow reality to intrude into the process. Lots of people still have hopes for Iraq, and the phased withdrawal scenario gives the Bushistas time to accomplish that- it's what the "surge" is supposedly all about. At least, that's what Bush claimed. If it works, we won't have to stay, and if it doesn't, we'll need to leave anyway.

So Dems give Bush everything he asked for, and something he didn't- a timetable. Otherwise, your grandchildren will be fighting the Iraqi insurgency in the name of the Neocon Empire.

The war wasn't the only issue involved in the recent power shift, even though it's convenient for repubs to think so. There's corruption, and arrogance, and dishonesty and demonstrable incompetency, as well. All of which have something to do with Iraq, for sure, but have a much broader effect as well. People who supported the war still detest the Admin and their congressional allies for other perfectly good reasons... and that reality-based sentiment grows daily.

It's been the same for liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans throughout human history- they're found out, eventually, when they fail to deliver the promised goods...

The only exceptions are the purveyors of eternal salvation, seeing as how dead people tell no tales. But they do smell funky when they've been in bed with the rest...