Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, May 1, 2007.
Political Analysis of the Week Award:
what a stupid head, if its gonna be like this the war will never end
more doublespeak from the administration. who was it who put up the Mission Accomplished sign in the first place? and who is it who just vetoed a bill providing the very funding which the administration is accusing the democrats of delaying?
perhaps ms perino should more carefully examine the votes, for she'll see there are more than democrats voting for the measure.
President Bush. Today's worst person in the world entire goddamn universe!
I hope the dems don't budge on this one. It should be either this bill or no bill at all. When people wonder why our troops don't have the money they need, they can look at Bush and wonder why he's vetoing spending bills.
True. I would like to see my party stop playing polls and do what's right. yes, I'm talking about you, Durbin!
Well, they can't use that whole "support the troops" thing if they're extending tours 3 months, continuing to cut vets benefits, even in the wake of Walter Reed, still have no exit strategy, and doing nothing while the Iraq gov wants to take a 2 month long vacation, but what do you want to bet they still try. The Dems knew he's veto it. Of course he'd veto it, even if it gives him practically everything he wants except a meaningless non-binding resolution that won't even go into effect until after he's already a lame duck. But he has to have it his way, and he has to blame them for the stuff he's responsible for.
I so hope they resubmit the bill in Congress with almost no changes and they get enough people together to override the veto. Writing's on the wall. We want something done. We want out. We want them to face the fact that, no matter how much it sucks, we've lost the war.
And maybe then we an get back to focusing on the real threats to our country, and the real terrorists, like Bin Laden.
News Alert George.....
THE WAR IS ALREADY A FAILURE
...you mean real threats like Bush, right? If you're gonna hunt down Bin Laden, which we should (and Bush missed), then for sure we should go after Bush, as he did far, far, far, far, more damage to this country than all the terrorists in the world and Bin Laden put together.
Those checks and balances are a bear aren't they?
Politically, this is just fine for Democrats. Let Bush veto. Let him stay in Iraq as long as possible. The end is already known - total defeat. So, the longer this defeat is associated with the Republicans, the better for Democrats. The more this war fails, the less power the next right-wing interventionist nuts will have. Politically, it's just great - what's not great is for our soldiers who have to do the dying for this pre-determined failure, long after it's 100% clear to any sane person, not to mention too bad for the Iraqis we'll continue killing and torturing with the same dismal end result - total failure.
Those who are happy with this veto are the rightwingers (as always, clueless), and... surprisingly some extremist Democrats. I'm sad for the lives that will continue to be senselessly lost (I don't even care that much about the money at this point).
pelosi calls out bush on his ********. video found on this page.
So he'll never withdraw troops to avoid admitting he failed? Twat.
"setting a date for failure in Iraq" as if what we have right now is anything else. Georgie, it's a failure right now, we don't need to set any dates for that - it's been there since the first shot of this illegal, immoral, criminal war. It's a failure - the date will allow us to extricate ourselves from this Bush failure.
Checks and balances? What are those? We hadn't had them for so long I almost forgot about them!
snap... she's awesome.
now bring on impeachment, nancy.
It would be great for the congress to continue losing the iraq war. I believe that's why they gave Bush a bill in the first place. The problem is, most of the Democrats care more about Americans than that. Bush is an absolute arrogant fool. All of us who are against the war need to lobby our congresspersons telling them we will support them if they fight to get us out of Iraq. Bush thinks he won the battle but really he's given Congress two options to check mate.
1. Tell Mr. Bush that there will be strings because the American People no longer trust him to lead the country. Send him a very similar bill. Let him decide if he's ready to veto it. At that point, Congressional Republicans will eventually cave (or risk their careers in 2008) and override the veto (I can't wait to see Bush's face when he says "THEY CAN'T DO THAT, I'M THE DECIDER!!!!).
2. Do not send him another bill and battle Bush in the war of words. When he claims the congress is not supporting the troops tell the American People that Bush is in fact the decider. He decided to veto the Iraq funding and in that decision, the war will end.
Either way Bush has screwed his way into a corner. He might be able to shut down the government or send the National Guard in to assassinate the entire congress. I'm not sure either will work for him since the stock market will freefall and the Dollar will drop like a bomb. Interest rates will skyrocket... you get the idea. Coups are bad mmm-kay?
Not so, at least for now. There was an interesting article about this recently in the Washington Post. Because Republicans come from districts which are overwhelmingly conservative (often thanks to jerrymandering, like in Texas), they are if anything under pressure to hold the line on Iraq. A Republican does not pay a price for supporting the war - it's the opposite... he/she'd pay a price for opposing it. Let's face it, Republicans are by and large nuts - they still overwhelmingly support this total failure of a war, because, being disconnected from reality, they don't understand what's happening out there. Republicans actually believe the war is going great out there... just read about it in this article. No wonder, the viewers of Fox News are so ill-informed. They'll continue believing all is peachy right up until the car goes over the cliff. Reminds me of this joke: a guy claims he can fly, and won't be persuaded otherwise - he jumps out of a skyscraper, and on the way down he passes windows of other floors below, and he screams to the people there "so far so good!". Needless to say, he was a Republican. Here's the article:
"With public opinion tilting firmly toward ending U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) might have expected praise for his votes that would start to bring the troops home. Instead, at town hall meetings on the Eastern Shore, the former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran has been called a coward and a traitor.
After Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's troop increases, reaction in his district was so furious that local GOP officials all but invited a primary challenge to the reliable conservative. Inglis responded with multiple mailings to his constituents, fence-mending efforts and a video message on his House Web site pleading his case. On subsequent Iraq votes, he has not strayed from the Republican fold.
The experiences of the few Republicans to vote against the war help explain the remarkable unity that the party has maintained in Washington behind an unpopular president. Just four Republicans -- two in the House, two in the Senate -- voted last week for a $124 billion war funding bill that would require troop withdrawals to begin by Oct. 1, legislation that Bush has vowed to veto.
That cohesion reflects the views of the GOP's core voters, who see the war in Iraq in fundamentally different terms than Democrats and political independents do, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Voters from those groups tend to see unremitting gloom, but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success."
I would agree with you except there were boat loads of razor close races for congress this past year. Democrats are projecting 16 seats to flip in 2008. There are also at least two Republican senators feeling the heat in the Senate (Olympia Snow and another from Oregon) who are shockingly voting against the president. Troops are dying every day. Hell, I tried to call to yell at my republican senator (Martinez - F) about a month ago and his mailbox is full. Believe me, they're getting nervous.
Even the ones who have drawn themselves the perfect district will be feeling the pinch and the reason? Money. The gravy train from lobbyists and donors is drying up fast. No money, no power.
I will disagree with you about all republicans being lunatics. Most of them are just not thinking straight and don't have the correct information. Others mainly think of themselves and what is good for them and disregards everyone else, even the rest of the world. The ones in power are the worst. They know exactly what's going on but they don't care. And that's the scary thing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Another part of the calculus that all the politicians probably realize is that, massive propaganda campaign aside, the number of Americans opposed to the war will only increase with time as more and more people realize that it's getting worse and is never ending. We're never going to convince everyone, even if the sway is just another couple percentage points of people who understand just how badly things are going may make things unwinnable for Republicans if they're strategy is to continue to tow the line.
Let's just say for the sake of argument, that you are G.W. Bush, and you have a problem with people who like to blow up stuff in the name of a twisted form of good religion... and they target innocent people whom you have sworn to protect, and also pretty much want to scare the entire world into either joining them or dying. (Israel won't get a choice.) So, would you (If you were the only world leader with the balls to stand up to them) want them to feel that their ways of persuasion were unnacceptable, and the battle impossible to win, or would you want them to believe (if you were a wussy democratic congress) that if they persisted in their tactics and perservered, that they would eventually be successful due to a lack of heart and stomach for war in their enemies (us.)
If you own a computer and are not part of the jihad, using your apple as a tool for war plans and terror, blasphemy! you are an enemy to these AQ martyrs and you will be next on their list of people to ruin or kill.
On the other hand, mebbe U.S. should pull out of the Middle East altogether, mebbe they will go away if we leave them alone. Mebbe their own political leaders have the keys to peace and we're just in the way...
Good luck with that.
Your spelling and simplistic logic aside, you are fundamentally wrong. Its funny you bring up killing innocent people since more people in Iraq have died since our invasion than all the years under Saddam. Or that Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism has risen over 60% worldwide since the war in Iraq.
But lets throw that all aside. Bush says we need to fight them over there or we will fight them over here. I guess you would be understanding if the Chinese wanted to fight the Taiwanese in your neighborhood so they didn't have to fight them in China. Oh you wouldn't? Hmm... that's funny.
Seriously kid, don't be dense. Why did we go to war?
Weapons of Mass Destruction... None. In fact in 2004, Bush thought it would be funny to film himself searching all over the oval office on his hands and knees looking for WMD. 3000 or so dead since, still not that funny.
Saddam's ties to terrorism.... Nonexistent. Not only did Bush admit that Saddam had no ties to Al Qeida but he was actively warring against them. Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam because he was a secular leader. Not only that, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
Case in point. Your inability to spell MAYBE leads me to believe that we are squandering our money while kids like you can't get a decent public education. But if you think you're so brave, call 1-800-Go-Army and lend an arm or leg.
That may be true in the HoR, but the Senate seats are statewide races - and I don't know of a single state where Bush's conduct of the war polls over 50%. Not even Utah, IIRC.
And if you think about it, where is the sticking point (outside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) for the Democratic agenda? It's the Senate, where you need 60 votes for cloture.
The HoR can be ruled by a one-seat majority party. The Senate cannot. Thus, that is the real prize. Senators like Smith, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Coleman, Domenici (thanks to his involvement in the Prosecutor Purge), and Sununu are vulnerable. Even McConnell is reachable, despite being a long shot Democrats have the opportunity to avenge Daschele's loss.
Long time no see, NavyIntel!
You know, I heard part of a report on NPR this morning about how far the military has slipped in terms of quality of manpower.
Not to spare anyone's feelings: they're packing the ranks with really stupid kids, criminals and old men.
Mebbe this is the only part of your post that makes sense.
I agree. I prefer the term neocon. Please don't lump all Republicans together OC, as looking at the numbers, even half of them are getting fed up. Neocons are a whole nother ball game. Like...
Well, I'll give you points for not calling Islam evil, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we wanted to avenge that, we would have focused on the 'stans and getting Bin Laden instead of pulling resources to go to Iraq before we barely even started elsewhere where there actually was a threat to us. We've actually made things worse in the area. Areas. We already look weak, destroyed what little credibility we had left, and pissed off the rest of the world as well as over 2 thirds of our own people, when we had so much support after 9/11.
Let's say for example someone attacked you, so you went and attacked someone else, trying to align the 2, claiming WMDs when there were none. You send troops, but don't give them the equipment or training they need. You cover up the mistakes and abuses of the bad ones who make the good ones look worse instead of making examples of them, possibly to cover your own orders, as we now know how the AG and VP feel about torture. You keep them over there for longer than they should be, sending them back before they've had time to rest, and turn their treatment into a bureaucratic nightmare. All while ignoring the needs of your own citizens, using fear to taking away rights and cut social programs while running the deficit up. Then when the rest of the country calls you on it, you say they're giving comfort to the enemy you helped create and have no plans on how to defeat, caring more about surrounding yourself with loyalty than competence.
You're not mad about that? Seriously? So what has Bush done that's so good? Really. Name one thing he's done right, or even been right about. One.
And where is that Bin Laden guy?