Bush is losing the Bushies

[red states rule]

no....one would think that on this issue, the people support the democrats..... and in general, are dissatisfied with the inability of congress to get stuff done.

and Dems blame Bush for their inactions

 

[CSM]

Not so

The Defense Dept is trying to scrape up money for operations as we speak

That would happen regardless. Anytime there is a war (and when the Dems are in power), the military has to prioritize what they NEED to fund, what they WANT to fund, and what would be NICE to fund.

 

[maineman]

That would happen regardless. Anytime there is a war (and when the Dems are in power), the military has to prioritize what they NEED to fund, what they WANT to fund, and what would be NICE to fund.

Command Sergeant Major...we both know that the troops on the ground in Iraq are getting everything that their chain of command says they need to remain effective.

 

[maineman]

and Dems blame Bush for their inactions

he DID veto the funding bill that the majority of Americans supported, didn't he?

 

[Care4all]

Not this "people"....It was obvious to me that the Dems presented this bill as a political ploy. They knew damn well Bush would veto it because of the pork it contained and I do believe the Dems wanted it that way. Now they can say "Well, Bush doesn't support the troops!"....the billl could have contained provisions for making Ted Kennedy "Queen of the Universe" and the Dems still would have presented it knowing Bush would veto....their intent (imo) was to create this exact scenario at the expense of funding the troops.

CSM?

Why would they KNOW damn well that Bush would veto it because of the pork contained in it WHEN, every Iraqi supplemental funding bill the last 4 years.... that was Approved/ and Signed by the president, from the Republican ruled congress, CONTAINED Pork Barrel spending, and the President SIGNED those bills?

I think that they did know it would be vetoed as you, but NOT because it contained Pork Spending... due to all other Iraq supplementals included Porky Pork Favorites of the Repubs!

Care

 

[CSM]

Command Sergeant Major...we both know that the troops on the ground in Iraq are getting everything that their chain of command says they need to remain effective.

Didn't I just say that?

 

[CSM]

CSM?

Why would they KNOW damn well that Bush would veto it because of the pork contained in it WHEN, every Iraqi supplemental funding bill the last 4 years.... that was Approved/ and Signed by the president, from the Republican ruled congress, CONTAINED Pork Barrel spending, and the President SIGNED those bills?

I think that they did know it would be vetoed as you, but NOT because it contained Pork Spending... due to all other Iraq supplementals included Porky Pork Favorites of the Repubs!

Care

Well, I was hoping to avoid this discussion, but I think they knew Bush would veto the bill because of the timetables it contained....

 

[Care4all]

Well, I was hoping to avoid this discussion, but I think they knew Bush would veto the bill because of the timetables it contained....

hahahaha! That was such an honest answer!

I will respect your dread and avoid it! lol

Care

 

[Dirt McGirt]

CSM?

Why would they KNOW damn well that Bush would veto it because of the pork contained in it WHEN, every Iraqi supplemental funding bill the last 4 years.... that was Approved/ and Signed by the president, from the Republican ruled congress, CONTAINED Pork Barrel spending, and the President SIGNED those bills?

I think that they did know it would be vetoed as you, but NOT because it contained Pork Spending... due to all other Iraq supplementals included Porky Pork Favorites of the Repubs!

Care

Speaking from a political strategy perspective and not my own personal opinion, this is where the Dems fucked up. They should have passed the second bill with no pork and no extra spending but included the timetables. That would have really done some damage to the Republicans.

 

[CSM]

Speaking from a political strategy perspective and not my own personal opinion, this is where the Dems fucked up. They should have passed the second bill with no pork and no extra spending but included the timetables. That would have really done some damage to the Republicans.

I am not so sure. I am not sure there (and apparently the Dems aren't either) is a majority among the voters for timetables. It really does smack of tipping off the enemy and a great case could be made for exactly that.

 

[Care4all]

Speaking from a political strategy perspective and not my own personal opinion, this is where the Dems fucked up. They should have passed the second bill with no pork and no extra spending but included the timetables. That would have really done some damage to the Republicans.

I agree whole heartedly! They messed up Royally!!!!

But, I will say that a good deal of the additional items that they did appropriate in this Bill are now being dropped out in negotiation so maybe they knew this upfront....they needed leverage to show they are willing to negotiate, and drop the excess spending?

I tend to agree with you though and the above was what I had read in some commentary...Who knows though? Politics is such a scuzzy "business" !

Care

 

[Care4all]

I am not so sure. I am not sure there (and apparently the Dems aren't either) is a majority among the voters for timetables. It really does smack of tipping off the enemy and a great case could be made for exactly that.

Tipping off the enemy as in Alqaeda the enemy or as in, insurgents of shia or sunni the enemy?

Regardless of the timing of whenever we withdraw, won't the enemy know it?

Won't there be cut funding or a declaration of withdrawl or something that would tip the enemy that we are leaving, WHENEVER it may be, even if 2 years from now, the enemy will be "tipped off" by something?

This is why I am uncertain that "tipping off the enemy" would really matter?

They probably will give it their all whenever we withdraw....even if it is 2 years from now or 5 years from now.

We should be, imho, very cautious, and calculating in our withdraw....whenever it takes place...

I am hoping that in our plans to withdraw and redeploy to surrounding areas ...will deafen the aliegence of alqaeda in their own regions and push alqaeda out...fight them instead of us or the Shia and things can settle down... right now, some say that are in the know, that our pressence makes it worse...alqaeda stronger?

The other thing that could happen is that alqaeda could follow us in to the surrounding regions or back in to afghanistan....?

I really don't have the knowledge to know whether to agree or disagree with some of the proposed strategies and speculative outcomes, AS SOMEONE has pointed out to me from THIS VERY site....

So I guess, I will shut up now....before I get NAILED for it and attacked for it again...

Care

 

[CSM]

Tipping off the enemy as in Alqaeda the enemy or as in, insurgents of shia or sunni the enemy?

Regardless of the timing of whenever we withdraw, won't the enemy know it?

Won't there be cut funding or a declaration of withdrawl or something that would tip the enemy that we are leaving, WHENEVER it may be, even if 2 years from now, the enemy will be "tipped off" by something?

This is why I am uncertain that "tipping off the enemy" would really matter?

They probably will give it their all whenever we withdraw....even if it is 2 years from now or 5 years from now.

We should be, imho, very cautious, and calculating in our withdraw....whenever it takes place...

I am hoping that in our plans to withdraw and redeploy to surrounding areas ...will deafen the aliegence of alqaeda in their own regions and push alqaeda out...fight them instead of us or the Shia and things can settle down... right now, some say that are in the know, that our pressence makes it worse...alqaeda stronger?

The other thing that could happen is that alqaeda could follow us in to the surrounding regions or back in to afghanistan....?

I really don't have the knowledge to know whether to agree or disagree with some of the proposed strategies and speculative outcomes, AS SOMEONE has pointed out to me from THIS VERY site....

So I guess, I will shut up now....before I get NAILED for it and attacked for it again...

Care

To me, it is analogous to playing a strategy game (I know, armed conflict is not a game but bear with me). Every player knows the game must end eventually, but no player reveals his strategy until the end (not if they are seriously trying to win).


"I really don't have the knowledge to know whether to agree or disagree with some of the proposed strategies and speculative outcomes, AS SOMEONE has pointed out to me from THIS VERY site.... "

I submit that everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion; however, some opinions are more informed than others.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I am not so sure. I am not sure there (and apparently the Dems aren't either) is a majority among the voters for timetables. It really does smack of tipping off the enemy and a great case could be made for exactly that.

From a political strategy standpoint, with the pork spending still in there, Bush can veto it based on those reasons and the Dems are vulnerable because of their past criticisms of pork spending by the Repub majority in previous bills. If the Dems would have passed the bill and sent only the emergency funding with the timetables to Bush and had Bush vetoed it, then the Dems could say that Bush is going against the will of the people and saying that Bush doesn't care about the troops (something the Repubs did to the Dems.) The poll numbers show that the majority of Americans support the timetable provisions.

My personal opinion of the matter is traditional, that Congress has the authority to fund the war and the President has the power to prosecute it. If Congress wants to set benchmarks or timetables, then they should only pass enough funds for a specific amount of time. I also think that when people like Reid and Pelosi say that the war is lost then they should stand by their statements and de-fund the war completely. I personally don't think they should de-fund the war but if I thought the war was lost I would strongly support doing so.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I submit that everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion; however, some opinions are more informed than others.

Ah, so you do agree that everyone agrees with me. Very well, I agree. My plans for world domination continue.....

 

[CSM]

From a political strategy standpoint, with the pork spending still in there, Bush can veto it based on those reasons and the Dems are vulnerable because of their past criticisms of pork spending by the Repub majority in previous bills. If the Dems would have passed the bill and sent only the emergency funding with the timetables to Bush and had Bush vetoed it, then the Dems could say that Bush is going against the will of the people and saying that Bush doesn't care about the troops (something the Repubs did to the Dems.) The poll numbers show that the majority of Americans support the timetable provisions.

My personal opinion of the matter is traditional, that Congress has the authority to fund the war and the President has the power to prosecute it. If Congress wants to set benchmarks or timetables, then they should only pass enough funds for a specific amount of time. I also think that when people like Reid and Pelosi say that the war is lost then they should stand by their statements and de-fund the war completely. I personally don't think they should de-fund the war but if I thought the war was lost I would strongly support doing so.

I agree with your latter paragraph...they should either fund and shut up not not fund and shut up.

As for the first paragraph...I have stated my opinion of polls many times. I don't really care about political strategy so have no strong opinon on what the Dems were thinking. In fact, I don't think much of politicians (generally speaking)...

 

[CSM]

Ah, so you do agree that everyone agrees with me. Very well, I agree. My plans for world domination continue.....

Didn't say THAT! You are however entitled to our opinion....

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Didn't say THAT! You are however entitled to our opinion....

Why would I choose to be wrong?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

As for the first paragraph...I have stated my opinion of polls many times. I don't really care about political strategy so have no strong opinon on what the Dems were thinking. In fact, I don't think much of politicians (generally speaking)...

Yeah I know you have no use for polls. Your reasons are sound and I understand your cynicism. But unfortunately, the politics of Washington are like a game and public opinion and polls are part of political strategy. I wish it weren't like that but it is what it is.

 

[Gunny]

Speaking from a political strategy perspective and not my own personal opinion, this is where the Dems fucked up. They should have passed the second bill with no pork and no extra spending but included the timetables. That would have really done some damage to the Republicans.

I CAN see your point, but I disagree. The timetables themselves are "pork." They are irrelevant to the funding.