Seems like the lid is coming down...

[Bullypulpit]

...On talk from the White House about the situation in Iraq. This under the guise of not "assessing" the presumed success of "the Surge" until September. Of course, the White House doesn't want to talk about Iraq since the reality on the ground always seems to show their rosy assessment of the situation for the utter bullshit it is.

<blockquote>WASHINGTON, April 27 &#8212; The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush&#8217;s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?_r=2&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>NYT</a>, 4/28/07</blockquote>

It would also seem, from this article, that rather than holding the Iraqi government to any benchmarks regarding the deployment of Iraqi troops and security forces, the Administration seems content to let our troops bear the brunt of what should be the responsibility of the Iraqis.

The upshot of this would appear to be the deployments of more of our troops extended...yet again...and more of our troops sent into the meat-grinder without adequate rest and recuperation or training. More of our blood and treasure spent to salve the twisted ego of the man we call "Mr. President".

 

[red states rule]

The nly lid I see coming down is the toilet lid coming down on Dems and their surrender bill

 

[Bullypulpit]

The nly lid I see coming down is the toilet lid coming down on Dems and their surrender bill

The only surrender I see is you to your delusions.

 

[red states rule]

The only surrender I see is you to your delusions.

Your Dems cannot beat back the veto - so Dems are in a corner

Will they fund the troops without the surrender date and allow the troops to win this war, or will they push for defeat as they have been doing?

 

[Gunny]

...On talk from the White House about the situation in Iraq. This under the guise of not "assessing" the presumed success of "the Surge" until September. Of course, the White House doesn't want to talk about Iraq since the reality on the ground always seems to show their rosy assessment of the situation for the utter bullshit it is.

<blockquote>WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?_r=2&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>NYT</a>, 4/28/07</blockquote>

It would also seem, from this article, that rather than holding the Iraqi government to any benchmarks regarding the deployment of Iraqi troops and security forces, the Administration seems content to let our troops bear the brunt of what should be the responsibility of the Iraqis.

The upshot of this would appear to be the deployments of more of our troops extended...yet again...and more of our troops sent into the meat-grinder without adequate rest and recuperation or training. More of our blood and treasure spent to salve the twisted ego of the man we call "Mr. President".

I can see not assessing the situation for a period of time. Attempting to assess the situation too soon will result in skewed results.

I do believe the Government of Iraq should be put in the vise on the issue of assuming responsibility.

I don't agree with the last bit of partisan rhetoric.

 

[Gunny]

Your Dems cannot beat back the veto - so Dems are in a corner

Will they fund the troops without the surrender date and allow the troops to win this war, or will they push for defeat as they have been doing?

Too bad the world isn't as simplistic as you seem to think it is.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

can we stop with the insults. We're supposed to be in this together.

Did you both forget, al queda will kill BOTH Of you?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your Dems cannot beat back the veto - so Dems are in a corner

Will they fund the troops without the surrender date and allow the troops to win this war, or will they push for defeat as they have been doing?

Wrong again! Congress has provided the funding the President requested for the troops, It's just that Chimpy doesn't like being held accountable for his actions. It's a life-long pattern for him. And that's why Bush's fighting bringing the troops home...So someone else can clean up the mess he's made, and be blamed if they botch it. Our soldiers are continuing to die as a salve for his ego. I would've said 'conscience', but that's so deeply buried as to be almost non-existent.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

bullypulpit , what do you want the timetable to be. I say if were there longer then 24 months. I'll be pissed, cause i doubt we will see that much more progress by then, considering the iraqi government wants to take two months off this summer.

 

[Gunny]

Wrong again! Congress has provided the funding the President requested for the troops, It's just that Chimpy doesn't like being held accountable for his actions. It's a life-long pattern for him. And that's why Bush's fighting bringing the troops home...So someone else can clean up the mess he's made, and be blamed if they botch it. Our soldiers are continuing to die as a salve for his ego. I would've said 'conscience', but that's so deeply buried as to be almost non-existent.

The funding is provided with riders. Riders waste taxpayer dollars, and in this case, push a partisan agenda. The funding should be stand-alone legislation.

I think ALL proposed legislation should stand on its own, but that's a seprate topic.

 

[Bullypulpit]

can we stop with the insults. We're supposed to be in this together.

Did you both forget, al queda will kill BOTH Of you?

And just what do you base that particular assertion on? Am I on al Qaeda's hit list? I don't think so. You're following the same line of flawed logic the Administration is in asserting "they will kill us over here if we don't kill them over there". Like terrorists don't have access to Map Quest and Google? Give me a break.

Our borders, thanks to the absence of more than rhetoric on the part of the Bush administration, remain as secure as the cookie aisle in a neighborhood full of stoners.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The funding is provided with riders. Riders waste taxpayer dollars, and in this case, push a partisan agenda. The funding should be stand-alone legislation.

I think ALL proposed legislation should stand on its own, but that's a seprate topic.

Bush has had a blank check from Congress ever since he stated this war. He resents any attempt by Congress to assert the oversight duties it has abandoned over the last six years. That is the whole basis of his veto threat...A temper tantrum because he no longer has free access to the cookie jar...Typical of a spoiled child and the emotional retard that he is.

 

[Gunny]

Bush has had a blank check from Congress ever since he stated this war. He resents any attempt by Congress to assert the oversight duties it has abandoned over the last six years. That is the whole basis of his veto threat...A temper tantrum because he no longer has free access to the cookie jar...Typical of a spoiled child and the emotional retard that he is.

There is a difference, IMO, between oversight and attempting to dictate foreign policy by coersion, and hinder the President's role as CinC.

The "plan" all along, as I understand it, was to depose Saddam, stabilize Iraq and turn the county over to the democratically elected Gov't of Iraq.

IMO, Bush needs to exert more pressure on the Gov't of Iraq to assume the police role from US troops. Until then, we need to stay. We made this mess and we have a moral responsibility to leave there having given them EVERY opportunity to step up to the plate. IMO, the pressure on the Iraqi gov't has been minimal at best.

Face it, if the gov't of Iraq falls after we leave, the left will be blaming Bush for not staying long enough to build it up sufficiently.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think ALL proposed legislation should stand on its own, but that's a seprate topic.

huh?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

NO disrespect my friend, but i think you mis-read me. Im more then a bit frustrated about iraq. I didnt say leave or stay. What i said was we shouldnt be fighting each other, when terrorists like al queda wanna kill us, whether we stay or leave iraq, they will wanna kill us. So why you all up upset at me

 

[actsnoblemartin]

as far as the border, neither party will do a dam thing about it. the republican are scared to lose latino votes, and the democrats want an open border, or in my opinion, wont do squat to close the border. Bottom line, neither party will close the border.

both parties, suck, on border. both get f, bush hypocrite on border and can kiss my bum.

 

[Diuretic]

I can see not assessing the situation for a period of time. Attempting to assess the situation too soon will result in skewed results.

Think so? I disagree. I think it's absolutely necessary to have key indicators in place for any business, government, military - any operations. If you leave it too long to get the measuring stick out then you have no chance to make minor corrections along the way and avert disaster. This is simply politics and bad politics at that. Bush doesn't want to face up to the reality so he has decreed that there will be no measurement. No, instead he wants to wait a few months for political reasons. Meanwhile the operation continues - on course or not on course, nobody knows because nobody is checking.

But this accords with Bush's response of "stay the course". He has no alternative ideas except do more of what has already proven to be a failure. Since there are no alternatives in his stubborn, closed mind then it's perfectly rational to reject key indicators because even if they did throw up useful information he will not change course because he has nothing to change to. Instead he is procrastinationg again. He has already indicated he intends to wait it out until his term expires, when he will walk away from the mess he has created and leave it to the next president to sort out. This is a classic example of his psychopathology, stuff things up, walk away, let someone else fix it and alway, always, always deny personal responsibility.

I do believe the Government of Iraq should be put in the vise on the issue of assuming responsibility.

I don't agree with the last bit of partisan rhetoric.

Since al Chalabi the Iraqis have had the west (the coalition) on a break. They have played it masterfully. Why would the current Iraqi regime bother to get its act together if the US and the Brits (forget us, we have a very small contribution) are taking the load? It's simple psychology. Tell the Iraqis when we're leaving and leave at the appointed time. Until they are crapping their pants in the knowledge that we will leave they will simply toddle along sponging of the US and Brits.

 

[Gunny]

Think so? I disagree. I think it's absolutely necessary to have key indicators in place for any business, government, military - any operations. If you leave it too long to get the measuring stick out then you have no chance to make minor corrections along the way and avert disaster. This is simply politics and bad politics at that. Bush doesn't want to face up to the reality so he has decreed that there will be no measurement. No, instead he wants to wait a few months for political reasons. Meanwhile the operation continues - on course or not on course, nobody knows because nobody is checking.

But this accords with Bush's response of "stay the course". He has no alternative ideas except do more of what has already proven to be a failure. Since there are no alternatives in his stubborn, closed mind then it's perfectly rational to reject key indicators because even if they did throw up useful information he will not change course because he has nothing to change to. Instead he is procrastinationg again. He has already indicated he intends to wait it out until his term expires, when he will walk away from the mess he has created and leave it to the next president to sort out. This is a classic example of his psychopathology, stuff things up, walk away, let someone else fix it and alway, always, always deny personal responsibility.

You can rest assured the commanders AND the Commander in Chief are measuring minute-to-minute. What they AREN'T doing is involving all the naysayers, Democrat party and the media in their operation. I can certainly understand why from a tactical POV without Bush in the equation, much less once you add him and his gaggle of demonizers into the mix.


Since al Chalabi the Iraqis have had the west (the coalition) on a break. They have played it masterfully. Why would the current Iraqi regime bother to get its act together if the US and the Brits (forget us, we have a very small contribution) are taking the load? It's simple psychology. Tell the Iraqis when we're leaving and leave at the appointed time. Until they are crapping their pants in the knowledge that we will leave they will simply toddle along sponging of the US and Brits.

There are plenty of reason not to announe a drop dead date. One, it gives the Islamofascists a strategic edge. They can just pull back and wait for us to go.

Then there's the fact that shit happens; whether or not people like it. If something happened to prolong the US stay past the date, it would just be twisted and used for more fodder in the relenless partisan cannon.

I'm sick of all the half-assing, myself, but from BOTH sides of the aisle. The extreme left might as well be bearing arms for the Sunni, Shia or al Qaeda.

This is a house divided, and shit don't change, it will soon fall.

 

[no1tovote4]

The only surrender I see is you to your delusions.

With such a bill, and a veto, Bush links any success of his party in the next elections to the war. But so do the Democrats. They are betting on what they believe to be a far more likely outcome.

However, if they were truly serious in believing that the war was wholly unjustified and without any merit the only moral vote would be to defund the war entirely and force a return to the US. However they haven't the balls to make the only logical and moral choice that agrees with their argument, they believe such a vote would kill their chances in '08. They prefer the military lose more lives so that they gain more seats in the Senate rather than lose them.

 

[Annie]

With such a bill, and a veto, Bush links any success of his party in the next elections to the war. But so do the Democrats. They are betting on what they believe to be a far more likely outcome.

However, if they were truly serious in believing that the war was wholly unjustified and without any merit the only moral vote would be to defund the war entirely and force a return to the US. However they haven't the balls to make the only logical and moral choice that agrees with their argument. They prefer the military lose more lives so that they gain more seats in the Senate.

Agreed. I don't think the Democratic party truly has a read on the electorate, but enough intuition to bar total non-funding. I still think their actions will come back to haunt them, though maybe not until 2012, when the electorate realizes what has been done.