Dems In Disarray Over Iraq

[red states rule]

Right. Two Republicans crossed over. If they didn't, who else would have?

There was one RINO named Chuck Hagel who has this illusion of being President and I forget the other

 

[Annie]

There was one RINO named Chuck Hagel who has this illusion of being President and I forget the other

Both were RINO's, but there were those who would have, had they not. To act like they were the only two, would be deluding oneself.

 

[red states rule]

Both were RINO's, but there were those who would have, had they not. To act like they were the only two, would be deluding oneself.

McCain was out with his futile attempt to win the nomination, but at least he would have voted against it

 

[Mariner]

Bush is the commander-in-chief. He tells the troops what to do.

The U.S. Constitution, however, clearly gives both the "power of the purse" and the power to declare war to the Congress.

In other words, presidents are supposed to work with Congress to win approval for the things they want to tell the troops to do. That's the difference between a monarcy, which is what King George seems to think we live in, and a democracy.

Bush withheld information from Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq. He miscalculated the results of the invasion disastrously. He has classified reams of information, stonewalled investigations, and refused to come clean about how it was screwed up so badly and who was responsible. He doesn't take any responsibility himself. (Why didn't he ask Rumsfeld back in 2003, "So, Rummy, if things don't go as rosily as planned, what's Plan B?")

And now he wants Congress just to keep giving him more money? Why exactly should they? Withholding money doesn't mean not supporting the troops. It means not supporting Bush, who would be forced to stop giving them orders that Congress doesn't support.

He refuses to get off his high horse and negotiate. That's what it comes down to. And this guy said he was a "uniter, not a divider"??

Anyway, he's taken terrible care of the troops himself. Look at the Walter Reed scandal (why did he take so long to go take a look for himself?) Look at his bizarre refusal to attend funerals of war dead or permit pictures of coffins. Look at the lack of armor. Look at his treatment of the general who suggested 3 times as many troops would be needed (has he apologized to this guy and hired him back? Why not?) Look at his denying Petraeus the 80,000 troops he asked for.

And, let's consider that this is not the first surge. It's the fourth. The other three failed. Why's this one different?

Read Petraeus's comments. He doesn't sound enthusiastic about his current predicament. He sounds like a good soldier trying to do his best with an impossible commander-in-chief.

Bush and Cheney's attempt to make Democrats look like they're trying to hurt the troops is cynical and attempts to undermine the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution.

In any case, the Democrats are offering more money for the troops than Bush requested. And there's less pork in their bill than any Republican war spending bill to date. All they ask for is negotiable standards that show we're making progress, rather than just hanging around getting shot at to make Georgie not look so bad. And despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, Bush has quietly begun doing exactly what Democrats have been pushing for for ages--meeting with the various factional leaders and seeking political compromise rather than military victory.

Mariner

 

[Annie]

Bush is the commander-in-chief. He tells the troops what to do.

The U.S. Constitution, however, clearly gives both the "power of the purse" and the power to declare war to the Congress.

In other words, presidents are supposed to work with Congress to win approval for the things they want to tell the troops to do. That's the difference between a monarcy, which is what King George seems to think we live in, and a democracy.

Bush withheld information from Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq. He miscalculated the results of the invasion disastrously. He has classified reams of information, stonewalled investigations, and refused to come clean about how it was screwed up so badly and who was responsible. He doesn't take any responsibility himself. (Why didn't he ask Rumsfeld back in 2003, "So, Rummy, if things don't go as rosily as planned, what's Plan B?")

And now he wants Congress just to keep giving him more money? Why exactly should they? Withholding money doesn't mean not supporting the troops. It means not supporting Bush, who would be forced to stop giving them orders that Congress doesn't support.

He refuses to get off his high horse and negotiate. That's what it comes down to. And this guy said he was a "uniter, not a divider"??

Anyway, he's taken terrible care of the troops himself. Look at the Walter Reed scandal (why did he take so long to go take a look for himself?) Look at his bizarre refusal to attend funerals of war dead or permit pictures of coffins. Look at the lack of armor. Look at his treatment of the general who suggested 3 times as many troops would be needed (has he apologized to this guy and hired him back? Why not?) Look at his denying Petraeus the 80,000 troops he asked for.

And, let's consider that this is not the first surge. It's the fourth. The other three failed. Why's this one different?

Read Petraeus's comments. He doesn't sound enthusiastic about his current predicament. He sounds like a good soldier trying to do his best with an impossible commander-in-chief.

Bush and Cheney's attempt to make Democrats look like they're trying to hurt the troops is cynical and attempts to undermine the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution.

In any case, the Democrats are offering more money for the troops than Bush requested. And there's less pork in their bill than any Republican war spending bill to date. All they ask for is negotiable standards that show we're making progress, rather than just hanging around getting shot at to make Georgie not look so bad. And despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, Bush has quietly begun doing exactly what Democrats have been pushing for for ages--meeting with the various factional leaders and seeking political compromise rather than military victory.

Mariner

So tell me Mariner, I do not totally disagree with you, How do we make Congress take responsibility? It's their's to declare war, yet since Korea they pass it off. How do we force them to?

 

[Gunny]

When Dems are in power they always overplay their hand and get greedy.

They have no idea what the people wanted

They want the US to win, the government of Iraq to stand on it's own,

and they want the terrorists defeated

Dems are doing the opposite in every case

DO you think the Republicans in power have any idea what the people want?

 

[red states rule]

DO you think the Republicans in power have any idea what the people want?

I am damn sure the voters do not want to surrender in Iraq.

On that, the Republicans and the voters agree

 

[Mariner]

I couldn't agree with you more: Congress has avoided its responsibilities in several areas, including declaring wars, containing pork, policing itself ethically (both Republicans and Democrats), and taking wise, long-term views of extremely important issues such as agricultural subsidies (which hurt poor democracies far more than they help us).

The first step in helping Congress do better would be true campaign finance reform. It's ridiculous that, basically, you have to be a millionaire to run for Congress. Automatically, this means congresspeople can't really represent their consitutents--they live in a different world.

RSR, stop this silly "surrender" stuff. Shi'ites and Sunnis have been killing each other, as someone recently put, for 1000 years before the Mayflower landed in America. The vast majority of killing in Iraq right now is sectarian. it's like the endless wars between Christian denominations that ravaged Europe for centuries. Al Qaeda was not linked to Iraq before we got there. Don't believe me? Believe Tenet's statement in his new book:

"C.I.A. found absolutely no linkage between Saddam and 9/11"

Got it? Al Qaeda moved in after we invaded because we created a fertile place to kill American "imperialists" and win points in the Islamic world. After 4 years of trying, our occupation is in awful shape, with a former Shi'ite death squad leader as president. You expect the Sunnis to trust him? Yet he was democratically elected, so we can't do a thing with him. The political solutions--Shi'ites allowing some former Baath party members to have power again, recognizing the Kurds' legitimate grievances, and distributing the oil wealth fairly--are simply not likely to happen with Maliki in charge. He's too weak.

Mariner.

 

[Superlative]

I agree with your last two posts. put well.

 

[red states rule]

It seems the Dems are showing what they are really made of - jello

They know their surrender bill is dead before arrival - so now they see they will not be able to cut and run and give up the fight


Democrats strike up talks with GOP on a new Iraq bill
POSTED: 5:33 a.m. EDT, April 28, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto -- unlike the one Congress will send him next week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Bush repeated his promise Friday to veto the war spending bill and any such measure with a pullout date, even as Democrats renewed their calls for the president to sign the $124.2 billion bill.

"If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one," Bush declared. (Watch the political theater in the funding showdown )

At the same time, both sides were laying the groundwork for a high-stakes, post-veto negotiation. The president invited Democrats and Republicans to the White House next Wednesday to talk about it, and leaders in both parties said they would attend.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/28/us.iraq.ap/index.html

 

[red states rule]

One thing I have noticed about liberals and the liberal media

When Bill Clinton was President it was a common talking point how the Republican Congress would have to learn to work with Pres Clinton

NOW - the talking point is how Pres Bush will have to learn how to work with the Democrat Congress

It seems only Republicans have to work with Dems - never the other way around