Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Still just talking the talk ....
Posted by: McQ on Monday, January 15, 2007

Said John McCain (on one of the few occassions he and I agree) to the Democrats (and certain Republicans):
"Look, if these people are serious, that oppose this increase in troops and change in strategy, then they should vote to cut off funding. And that way, they can then say, 'We tried to stop it,' " Mr. McCain said. "A motion of disapproval, I view, as purely a political ploy to do further damage to the president of the United States. If they're dead serious, then we should have a motion to cut off funding."
He is exactly right. If, as Democrats claim, the election provided them a mandate to demand withdrawal from Iraq, then they should do everything within their power to bring the troops home, shouldn't they? That would include defunding the war.

Instead, it appears, they'll resort to the UN method of addressing a crisis by passing toothless resolutions aimed at the politics of the situation rather than the substance of the situation. Of course they'll also hold countless investigations and media events while essentially doing nothing. And, they'll do all that while agreeing, on the other hand, that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the US.

In reality, it appears, the Democrats are more afraid of taking ownership of any portion of Iraq than the possible political backlash of not doing what they said they'd do, i.e. "change the direction in Iraq".

Right now, given their powers, there's only one way to do that, isn't there? Instead of dithering on about reducing the interest rates on certain student loans, why aren't they actively doing what they supposedly have a mandate to do?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I thnk Limbaugh has a very good take on this, in general. Democrats want to "Own" an issue, not necessarily RESOLVE it, just "own" it. Issue X, be it the Environment, Social Security, Iraq is owned, the Democrats are concerned about it and about the current state of it, and the Republicans are going to damage the issue and we need to to stop them...There’s no desire to actually make any substantive changes just a desire to own the issue and use it to beat their opponents. They have no desire to solve Iraq, assuming any solution is at their hands... how does that benefit them? They’d be mango heads to propose any REAL solution... look at the 1980’s they passed several non-binding Sense of COngress Resolutions favouring the Nuclear Freeze, now they never actually FROZE anything, because to do so would be to actually run the risk of making policy nad making WRONG policy, so they postured.

It’s smart politics, like Nifong was a smart lawyer, most times smart politicians and smart lawyers prosper...sometimes they don’t and it backfires. I see it in Nifong’s case, we’ll see about the Democrats.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The money is already allocated for Iraq, the President has the authority to determine troop levels, and the earliest Democrats could possibly cut off funding would be after the troops were deployed, essentially cutting off funding for troops in the field, not preventing the President from sending them there.

So all the Democrats really CAN realistically do is just make the point that they think this is a bad idea.

I know you WANT the Democrats to strand the troops, because that would be a political boondoggle for Republicans, but it’s not going to happen, and McCain, and you, are just engaging in wishful (but destructive) thinking.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Oh I understand what they’re doing, Joe, I (and McCain) are just calling their hand. And I’m also wondering how well this posturing is going to sit with their more extreme base.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The money is already allocated for Iraq, the President has the authority to determine troop levels, and the earliest Democrats could possibly cut off funding would be after the troops were deployed, essentially cutting off funding for troops in the field, not preventing the President from sending them there.
That’s not what Murtha is saying. He’s saying only part of the surge is funded.
Mr. Murtha said that he doesn’t think Democrats can stop Mr. Bush from instituting the first wave of a troop surge, but that his panel will be able to pass legislation to stop further waves within a month. "I don’t know how many troops they can get in the field before we get our bill up and passed in the Congress," he said.
=========
I know you WANT the Democrats to strand the troops, because that would be a political boondoggle for Republicans, but it’s not going to happen, and McCain, and you, are just engaging in wishful (but destructive) thinking.
Not at all ... I want them to put up or shut up. Fairly simple. I’m tired of all the criticism even after they’ve been given the power to actually do something. Either do something or shut the hell up.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s an interesting position for Murtha, who has spent the last couple of years complaining that there aren’t enough troops in Iraq.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace..."

Back in May of ’04:

"Murtha yesterday said the U.S. simply does not have enough troops in Iraq to win the war. He has said he believes about 200,000 troops will be needed, an increase of about 65,000 soldiers."

 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://gabbleratchet.blogspot.com
"Murtha yesterday said the U.S. simply does not have enough troops in Iraq to win the war. He has said he believes about 200,000 troops will be needed, an increase of about 65,000 soldiers."
I’m not arguing FOR Murtha but he and his are simply going to say:
"21,500 is NOT 65,000, so this is still ’too little, too late.’" And that the 200,000 figure was for 2004 when the war was still winnable...not that it’s a CIVIL WAR, no amount of US support is going to work, so we need to redeploy to Okinawa....
Yeah I think it’s a crock, too, but I can tell you John and Crew are pretty tricksy when it comes to this.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"So all the Democrats really CAN realistically do is just make the point that they think this is a bad idea."

Yeah, and they do, over and over and over and..........

But why not, when talk is, as the saying goes, cheap?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You guys miss the point that this really IS a bad idea. An additional 20,000 combat troops are just spit in the ocean of Iraq.

No one knows what Bush will do if the cut off the funding. The dems know that if they cut off funding that they are playing chicken with a crazy man. Would he hold our forces in Iraq for ransom? Would he leave them there, unfunded and under fire? Who wants to call that bluff.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
That’s not what Murtha is saying. He’s saying only part of the surge is funded.
Yeah, the part that gets the additional troops into Iraq.

He could try (it would not pass) to strand those troops once in country, but that’s not going to happen.

If Bush were on the ballot in November, he would have been thrown out on his arse and someone else would be calling the shots in Iraq, ostensibly with the support of the American people for their decision making.

Bush could have taken the November results as a rebuke of his ability to make decisions in Iraq, but he doesn’t work that way, so regardless of the November elections, Bush is the CinC, and there is nothing Congress can do for nearly a year to force his hand.

Having opinions on Iraq that the American people agree with does not mean that Congress suddenly has operational authority over war plans. Congress cannot stop the surge, period. All they can do is prevent additional escalations starting in the last year of Bush’s Presidency.
Yeah, and they do, over and over and over and..........

But why not, when talk is, as the saying goes, cheap?
Democrats are being taken to task for not having a plan, and this is nonsense. Democrats have dozens of plans, some better than others. Bush is singular, COngress is not, so to suggest that it is wrong for one guy to have one plan and 535 guys to have dozens of plans, is to misunderstand the nature of Congress. None of the plans in Congress can be forced on the President even if there was 100 agreement, all Congress can do is suggest and threaten funding, but in the end, the President makes the call he wants to make.

Maybe we should have had an impeachment???

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
They said they had a plan, that they could do it better if they were in charge.

So, they’re in charge now, where’s that plan at?
No one knows what Bush will do if the cut off the funding. The dems know that if they cut off funding that they are playing chicken with a crazy man. Would he hold our forces in Iraq for ransom? Would he leave them there, unfunded and under fire? Who wants to call that bluff.
And which part of what was really going to happen once they got into office, or that Bush was ’a crazy man’, has changed since they told us about this plan they had that would be better?

Strikes me they knew what their alternatives would be all along, and yet promised they could fix it. When does the fixin commence?
Just askin, ya know?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Is this a serious expose of posturing by positicians?
Golly, gee, find me a politician or political group that isn’t engaged in gamesmanship and posturing. That’s what politics is, for pete’s sakes.
Now, if you simply wish to advocate for one set of wordsmanship over another, that’s something else.

I just want to point out that it’s difficult to go drastically against the President, psychologically. As much as I think Bush has been a disaster for this country, he is the President of MY country, and I would not relish seeing him humiliated on the world arena. So, it’s a dilemma: how do you oppose the President while maintaining the honor due his office? Believe it or not, such niceties do play into the debate over the surge, in my experience.




 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Cap:
Maybe we should have had an impeachment???
Go for it ... I’d enjoy watching the spectacle. And I think we could also be assured of Democratic minority status for at least a decade should they try.

Laime:
So, it’s a dilemma: how do you oppose the President while maintaining the honor due his office? Believe it or not, such niceties do play into the debate over the surge, in my experience.
Wow, suddenly the "honor due his office" is of importance? That’s the first time I’ve see that pop up on the radar screen. Heh ... funny how that concern for the honor of his office has been missing in quite a few rhetorical broadsides leveled at him and the office over the past few years by those you now think are worried about that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So, they’re in charge now, where’s that plan at?
They are NOT in charge, the Congress is NOT the CinC, and can NOT impact funding for nearly a year.

On impeachment...
Go for it ... I’d enjoy watching the spectacle. And I think we could also be assured of Democratic minority status for at least a decade should they try.
If the Democrats WANT to be in charge NOW, this is the only way, not that I recommend it. But your point is valid, and it is the same with shutting off funding for the troops, both would insure Democratic minority status for the Democrats.

I recognize that this is what the Republicans want, they WANT Democrats to strand the troops, not because it would be good for the country, good for the troops, but because it would be good for them politically.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The dems know that if they cut off funding that they are playing chicken with a crazy man.

Yeah he’s DaCrazeeeee, CindyB...get a grip.
I recognize that this is what the Republicans want, they WANT Democrats to strand the troops, not because it would be good for the country, good for the troops, but because it would be good for them politically.
Oh YEAH, that’s it, it’s all about POLITICS, I mean those nasty Vulcan Neo-Con Fascists couldn’t be having any questions about National Security and the CORRECTNESS of the Iraq policy, now could they? Stop projecting Democratic motives onto all around you, Captin...not everyone is interested in winning power so they can...well what ARE the Democrats going to do again? What was that mandate, other than "We aren’t Hastert?"

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If the Democrats WANT to be in charge NOW, this is the only way, not that I recommend it. But your point is valid, and it is the same with shutting off funding for the troops, both would insure Democratic minority status for the Democrats.
Exactly ... which is why, politically, the UN is their model right now.
I recognize that this is what the Republicans want, they WANT Democrats to strand the troops, not because it would be good for the country, good for the troops, but because it would be good for them politically.
Well I think the Republicans understand, as do you and I, that it wouldn’t be good for the country or them politically. But I doubt seriously they want them to do it. That doesn’t mean, however, that they aren’t going to rag and taunt them about what they said in the past ... those are, afterall, the wages of shooting your mouth off and then not delivering. And that is precisely what McCain is doing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The money is already allocated for Iraq
So what?

A spending bill is simply another law. Congress can repeal its own laws, you know.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Here’s the thing....the Dems were elected because they made noises (vague noises to be sure but noises nontheless) that they were gonna do "something" about Iraq, or do something "better" or some such.

They expect action.

Not empty words.

Ask Cindy Sheehan
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So, it’s a dilemma: how do you oppose the President while maintaining the honor due his office? Believe it or not, such niceties do play into the debate over the surge, in my experience.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "The honor due his office"?????????

You crack me up! Why is this suddenly some massive consideration? The left has demonized him in the worst of ways for 7+ years now and never EVER has there been a scintilla of concern for the "honor due his office"

How dare you even have the nerve to write a toilet bowl full of cr*p like this?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
As much as I think Bush has been a disaster for this country, he is the President of MY country, and I would not relish seeing him humiliated on the world arena.
Um, yeah. That was such a big concern when there was a full court press on to convince people he deserted his National Guard service.
We have a movie and continued stories being told about him perpetrating the attack on 9/11, tales he was too busy reading a story about goats to kids, and was totally clueless about how to react when the planes hit the WTC, accusations he lied about the WMD and attacked Iraq to get revenge for his dad, etc, etc, etc.

The list of evils credited to him by the left are legion, and suddenly you’re worried the office of President is going to suffer humiliation on the world stage.

It is to chuckle.

They are NOT in charge, the Congress is NOT the CinC, and can NOT impact funding for nearly a year.
I know that, you know that, THEY know that, and they knew that would be the way it was if they came to power, and yet, they promised they had a plan, and they would fix Iraq. I know, I read it on their web site and linked and cited it in a previous post here.

So, what? it’s not a lie if someone tells me a lie, and they know it’s a lie, and I know it’s a lie?
That’s politics? Is that the answer?

Fine, please consider that standard in the future when referring to the whole WMD mess in Iraq, the entire invasion and the entire nation building effort.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
But I doubt seriously they want them to do it.
And that is precisely what McCain is doing.
So let me see if I have this straight. McCain, and YOU, do NOT want the Democrats to cut funding for the troops in Iraq, and when they say this...
"Look, if these people are serious, that oppose this increase in troops and change in strategy, then they should vote to cut off funding.
What they really mean is the opposite of that????

You, and McCain, are offering a false dilemma, essentially advancing the notion that if Democrats do NOT cut off funding, then they are NOT serious about getting out of Iraq.

The fact is that the Congress CAN be serious about getting out of Iraq, but other considerations, include a Constitutional Crisis and stranding troops, could preclude withdrawing funding as a sensible course of action.

Iraq may or may not improve in the near term, and the President’s surge will likley have neglible impact in what happens, but he is looking to get lucky, and see an improvement coincide with his new policy and then take credit for it. If the situation gets worse, it really is not going to matter for the President, he is going to take the heat for the failure regardless of whether he gets his surge or not.
Stop projecting Democratic motives onto all around you,
The Republicans have shown that they are interested in power for power’s sake. Otherwise, they would not have abandoned their principles and Congressional oversight responsibilites in a failed effort to keep power, so you can keep that BS line for someone that buys it.

Every opinion and every vote by every member of both parties is called political posturing by the opposition if it is the right decision, and called partisan politics if it is the wrong decision. Who knows which decisions are which, but for you to suggest that Republicans do not engage in this and democrats do is the height of either deception or naivete.

I really can think of very, very few members of either party that are consistent and ignore the politics of a decision. Political decision making is rampant, especially by John McCain and the rest of the potential Presidential Candidates, who are playing the ultimate game of position politics.

How would it work out for McCain in 2008 of his opponent voted to cut funding for troops in the field?

And you think he DOESN’T want this? Perhaps he doesn’t, maybe he just wants to get the political mileage of this false dilemma, getting people with poor critical thinking skills to believe that anything other than a vote to cut finding represents a lie to the American people about Democrats intentions, while knowing that a decision TO cut funding would be to hurt troops in the field, and destroy Democrats politically.

McCain should answer for supporting this debacle from the beginning, but again, his separation is to suggest that if it was done his way, it would not have failed.

Cap




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
’concern for the honor of his office has been missing in quite a few rhetorical broadsides leveled at him and the office over the past few years by those you now think are worried about that’
—-

MCQ,
Well, you really can’t claim being open to understanding the opposition.

I’m only repeating what I hear. There has never been a shortage of concern for America’s standing in the world, and that standing has a symbolic seat in ’his office’. Note the reaction to Chavez’s speech at the UM.

In fact, one of the main arguments against impeachment is that it would balcken, again, the image of the office of the President and the country as a whole.

So, in regard to the surge, one of the concerns is how slapping the President by defunding it would affect his ability to represent us on the world stage. For some, getting out of Iraq supercedes everything, but that doesn’t mean the concern doesn’t exist.








 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
I know that, you know that, THEY know that, and they knew that would be the way it was if they came to power, and yet, they promised they had a plan, and they would fix Iraq. I know, I read it on their web site and linked and cited it in a previous post here.

So, what? it’s not a lie if someone tells me a lie, and they know it’s a lie, and I know it’s a lie?
The President had a choice to make, he could accept the will of the people and make decisions based on the expressed desire of the American people to get out of Iraq, or he could ignore them. Democrats asked voters to make their opinions known to the President, but of course the voters were powerless to FROCE his decisions, only try to influence them, but to say that it was a lie to suggest voting out Republicans was the right thing to do if you opposed the Iraq war is inaccurate. Just because it could no tbe guaranteed to end our occupation of Iraq does not mean that it was not right to send that message if that was a voters opinion.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You, and McCain, are offering a false dilemma, essentially advancing the notion that if Democrats do NOT cut off funding, then they are NOT serious about getting out of Iraq.
We’re not offering a false dilemma at all. They have a choice to make and the position they’re in is of their own making. What they, and you, don’t like, are the consequences of either choice. What has to be remembered is it wasn’t us or the Republicans who put Democrats in this position. Furthermore, I don’t blame the Republicans, given the past Democratic rhetoric, for playing politics with the Dems at this point about this point.

That’s life in the political fast lane.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
make decisions based on the expressed desire of the American people to get out of Iraq,
Well Cap, is that what they meant in Connecticut?
It was pretty clear cut that it was about the war there, and yet, the guy who was for the war is back in office, and the guy who was against it is not.

So, seriously, am I to believe Connecticut is an aberration of the political view in the country regarding Iraq?

Maybe it was about the ’middle’ being pissed at Congress too, about being pissed at Republicans acting like Democrats.
There isn’t a good answer in Iraq, there’s only difficult answers, I didn’t believe the Democrats had an answer, they only had a promise they couldn’t possibly fulfill, and they knew it when they made it.
I whacked the Republicans for domestic reasons, not for Iraq.
But if you want to believe it was all about the war, go ahead, the perfect litmus test in Connecticut already proved you’re wrong.
The Republicans have shown that they are interested in power for power’s sake
Based on them making promises they couldn’t fulfill, I’d say your donkey riding buddies are in the same mode. Woah, big surprise!


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, you really can’t claim being open to understanding the opposition.
Politics is politics, Laime. That is precisely what this all boils down too. Democrats have put themselves in a position that no matter what they do or don’t do they’re likely to suffer and look bad.

That’s not a position I or anyone else put them in, but one they managed to put themselves in all by themselves.

The fact that I don’t sympathize with them or their position doesn’t mean I’m not open to understanding them. In fact, I understand it quite well.
There has never been a shortage of concern for America’s standing in the world, and that standing has a symbolic seat in ’his office’. Note the reaction to Chavez’s speech at the UM.
America’s standing in the world, as concerns those like Hugo Chavez and his fellow travelers, is absolutely of no interest to me. The government of the United States has long been a convenient projection device for their failures and that is not going to change regardless of what we do in Iraq.
In fact, one of the main arguments against impeachment is that it would balcken, again, the image of the office of the President and the country as a whole.
I’m still mystified with this sudden concern for the image of the presidency given the horrific vitriol to which this president has been subjected. Or said another way, I’m not buying.
So, in regard to the surge, one of the concerns is how slapping the President by defunding it would affect his ability to represent us on the world stage. For some, getting out of Iraq supercedes everything, but that doesn’t mean the concern doesn’t exist.
Well that’s nice to hear, Laime and I appreciate the fact that you apparently do have some concern about the effect "slapping the President" around can have on our "image". I’d say you are in a distinct and discreet minority and that your views and concerns are not at all shared by a majority on the left.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Furthermore, I don’t blame the Republicans, given the past Democratic rhetoric, for playing politics with the Dems at this point about this point.
I’m satisfied that you admit the Republicans are playing politics with this issue.

And no, I do not believe the election was all about Iraq, but it was in part about Iraq.

In either case, it does not mean that Democrats must shut off funding or admit to not being serious about Iraq, THAT IS THE FALSE DILEMMA. The Republicans are attempting to make this a chess game, but only by pretending that the Democrats have only two moves, both of which would put them into checkmate. The reality is that Democrats have numerous options open to them, including the motion of disapproval, and funding compromises down the road.

President Bush is a lame duck, he cannot be hurt more politcally than he already has been, at his own hand. He is really in a no win situation, far moreso than the Democrats, but he does not need to preserve any political capital or standing for the future, the Democrats do, so while he can afford to play chicken with the war, Democrats cannot.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Cap, you miss the point again. The elections were a referendum on Iraq to be sure...and the people spoke. And what they wanted wasn’t retreat but to have Bush fight more effectively. CT proves that.

At any rate, the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party is demanding you do SOMETHING. And they own the Dems.

Get cracking boys
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
McCain should answer for supporting this debacle from the beginning, but again, his separation is to suggest that if it was done his way, it would not have failed.
Sounds like Hillary and every other Dem who voted for the war (when they’re not whining that Bushhitler lied to them and tricked them that is)

Again, if every Dem who really opposed the war at the time had voted that way instead of reading the political winds, maybe things would be different.

It’s their fault.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Well that’s nice to hear, Laime and I appreciate the fact that you apparently do have some concern about the effect "slapping the President" around can have on our "image".
From the people I have spoken to around the world, the fact that the American people have taken President Bush to task for his arrogance and errors is the reason why the rest of world does NOT hate Americans. The don’t like Bush for sure, but they are hopeful that he is an abberation and not indicative of the direction of America.

Not that world standing is a valid reason to do anything, but impeaching Bush would improve our standing in the world.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Again, if every Dem who really opposed the war at the time had voted that way instead of reading the political winds, maybe things would be different.
Voting for the AUMF resolution was NOT a vote for war, it was a vote AGAINST war. President Bush himself pleaded with Congress to show a united front so we would be better able to force Saddam to capitulate, avoiding the need for war.

Failing to approve the AUMF and present a united front, according to President Bush, would make the necessity of armed conflict more likely.

So, according to Bush, voting for the AUMF was voting against war, and voting against the AUMF was voting for war.

It seems to me that the Congress was virtually unanimous against the war, and only Bush was for war.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
MCQ: "I’d say you are in a distinct and discreet minority"
———
I don’t do polls, so I can’t satisfy your customary demand for facts and figures. I am spekaing for a distinct majority of those with whom I debate politics and who are in opposition to this administrations’s policies.

Try to understand that oppositions to current policies does not involve hating our country or its symbols. The President’s office is one of those symbols, regardless how much regret there is about the current coccupant.
======================
" Democrats have put themselves in a position that no matter what they do or don’t do they’re likely to suffer and look bad.
... a position ... they managed to put themselves in all by themselves. "
—————-
That’s sort of an oxymoron, isn’t it? They did what they did in the circumstances of the day, and so they are where they are.

I am not a political tactician. In fact, the whole notion of tactics versus policies or ideas turns me off completely. But from what I saw, they didn’t really have too many options. When they did put forth some concrete suggestions, they were ignored. Being in the minority, especiaally in a Congress more intent on maneuvers than governance, limits their options rather severely.
The other ’problem’ the Democrats have is that they are a vey broad coalition. I admire that; in a two party system, I’m glad that all the chickens have someplace to roost. But tactically, it makes things more difficult.
=========

And about Chavez, you miss the point entirely. It wasn’t about who Chavez is or what he does, it was that he attacked OUR president.
You misread the opposition over and over, in underestimating their patriotism.


 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
I’m satisfied that you admit the Republicans are playing politics with this issue.
Absolutely ... as were the Democrats during the entire ’06 midterms.
In either case, it does not mean that Democrats must shut off funding or admit to not being serious about Iraq, THAT IS THE FALSE DILEMMA.
Heh ... actually it’s a real dilemma, isn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
cAP: "Not that world standing is a valid reason to do anything, but impeaching Bush would improve our standing in the world"
————————-
That’s true, in the short term, but it would be a short lived blip. He still has some time left in office, and like it or not, he will be the face of America, He will still be meeting with leaders from other nations, still on the world’s TV screens.

When the world stops its jubilation, it will look at America in a broader context. Then, it will reflect on all our aberations: a series of governemtn scandals, a carastrophic crime rate, diminishing education standards and health care, and so on. One more impeachment won’t help us then.

Instead, keep your eye on the next election. For an improved image of some duration, that’s the prize.

And I disgree, completely, about the importance of our world image. When that image is tainted, our power of leadership is diminshed.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Laime, you make some good point some times, and then you come out with this -
Then, it will reflect on all our aberrations: a series of government scandals, a catastrophic crime rate, diminishing education standards and health care, and so on.
So these are the reasons why people are sneaking across our borders? Who knew!
Maybe you’d like to discuss your points of view with some of my emigrant friends from Africa, or the Middle East. They’d be dismayed to hear about this catastrophic crime rate, or our declining health care, etc. Perhaps because they can judge by a standard they’ve experienced, as opposed to one that’s been delivered to them by the MSM telling us what a hell hole we live in these days (no doubt it would be better if Satan weren’t in the Oval office and the Republican Devils hadn’t been ruling Congress since 1994).

When was the last time we had a cross country burn-fest like they did in parts of the EU last year?
Are our police being systematically ambushed in the streets like they are in civilized, enlightened, France?
Basque separatists in Des Moines perhaps blowing up trains?
Rockets fired into the Greek Embassy in Washington?

Corruption? Are you talking about the fact we actually get upset our politicians are on the take, as opposed to the ones in most other parts of the world where it’s expected or what?

You dwell too much on what the media brings you, and conclude we’re the only one with warts, and that none of the other enlightened 1st World countries, who we’re supposed to listen to, and consider before we do things, have any.
Try reading their newspapers for a while. They have pretty much all the same warts we do.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I suspect that this has been mentioned in prior comments, but this entire situation reminds me of LBJ, Nixon, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. If Democrat leaders are serious and honest about wanting to end the war in Iraq and cutting off funding is not a palatable solution to them, why not simply repeal Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, also known as the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Also, the possibility of invoking the War Powers Resolution comes to mind. Dems could set a fixed date for withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq (it was done in 1994 to withdraw US forces from Somalia). These are both well within the established scope of Congressional powers and, to my knowledge, are not actions that could be vetoed by the President. I am certainly not a constitutional scholar nor an attorney, but several leading Democrats are. They must be aware of these options, yet have not chosen to advance them as serious, viable strategies for ending the war. Instead, they want to fling mud with Republicans over the Surge and Murtha’s defunding plan. When Americans finally decide that we want serious government, then we’ll elect serious candidates. Until then, we get poop-flinging apes.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com



I was led to believe this was a libertarian blog.......where are the libertarians?
jeez. All I see here are statism. Will the real libertarians please stand up
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Voting for the AUMF resolution was NOT a vote for war, it was a vote AGAINST war. President Bush himself pleaded with Congress to show a united front so we would be better able to force Saddam to capitulate, avoiding the need for war.

Failing to approve the AUMF and present a united front, according to President Bush, would make the necessity of armed conflict more likely.

So, according to Bush, voting for the AUMF was voting against war, and voting against the AUMF was voting for war.

It seems to me that the Congress was virtually unanimous against the war, and only Bush was for war.

Cap
Er.....yeah. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Sure. So Cap, was it Bush that duped all of congress into giving him authorization to fight a war they were against, or was it Rove? So you’re saying that it’s congress fault because they’re so stupid as to allow themselves to get played thusly? If that’s so, seems that you and everyone else in the world owes the man the left derides as ChimpyMcHitler an apology, he may be a wee bit smarter than you gave him credit for.

Or maybe that’s the saddest attempt at avoiding any Dem responsibility whatsoever for THEIR votes for the war?

I had no idea that Roberts Rules of Bizzaro Parlimentary Order applied to Congress, where votes have the opposite meaning.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I was led to believe this was a libertarian blog.......where are the libertarians?
jeez. All I see here are statism. Will the real libertarians please stand up

Aaaah I AM ONE! At least I’m one of the 22% of the populace listed as "leaning libertarian." Or do you mean the Gold-Standard Loving, Dope-Smoking, No-War, Abolish the State Badnarik-voting LOSERS Libertaraians, the one’s whose greatest insult is "Statist"? You mean THAT kind of libertarian
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Well, Darohu, sit down, stay awhile. You might wanna check your ego at the door. Or perhaps consult a face mirror. I think I see your big toe poking one of your tonsils.

Oh, and by the way, us real libertarians realize that without national security, we won’t be able to smoke our LEGALIZED weed at the Goodbye, Dept. of Education rally.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
That’s better...........
I’ll stay a while...........but will not check me ego at the door.
Though I don’t believe it’s all or nothing. I do think it is important to resist statism....and what is best for national security is most definitely not fighting in a civil war in Iraq.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
I suspect that this has been mentioned in prior comments, but this entire situation reminds me of LBJ, Nixon, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. If Democrat leaders are serious and honest about wanting to end the war in Iraq and cutting off funding is not a palatable solution to them, why not simply repeal Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, also known as the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Also, the possibility of invoking the War Powers Resolution comes to mind. Dems could set a fixed date for withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq (it was done in 1994 to withdraw US forces from Somalia). These are both well within the established scope of Congressional powers and, to my knowledge, are not actions that could be vetoed by the President. I am certainly not a constitutional scholar nor an attorney, but several leading Democrats are. They must be aware of these options, yet have not chosen to advance them as serious, viable strategies for ending the war. Instead, they want to fling mud with Republicans over the Surge and Murtha’s defunding plan. When Americans finally decide that we want serious government, then we’ll elect serious candidates. Until then, we get poop-flinging apes.

Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com



There’s that, or they could try to win the White House *cough*.

Democrats probably understand that war reaching a conclusion isn’t in their best interests. They would prefer to triangulate Republicans and the insurgents.



 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
I had no idea that Roberts Rules of Bizzaro Parlimentary Order applied to Congress, where votes have the opposite meaning.
Really?

So you are saying that the President was lying when he said that he needed a united front to pass a resolution authorizing military force in order to avoid the need for military action?

Okay, Bush was lying.

You do realize that Bush did not need the AUMF to take action, he had all the authority he needed under the War Powers act, so the AUMF was literally a symbolic gesture, providing that statement of commitment that the President requested in order to AVOID war.

I would think that the concept of peace through strength would be something you could understand.

I understand that members of Congress are not making this case, simply because it is too cerebral and too easily ridiculed by the simplistic people who get all giddy over statements like "I was for it before I was against it".

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Voting for the AUMF resolution was NOT a vote for war, it was a vote AGAINST war. President Bush himself pleaded with Congress to show a united front so we would be better able to force Saddam to capitulate, avoiding the need for war.
It was essentially a vote in support of the president . . . in which case I suspect Democrats who voted for it were doing so based upon the political calculations at that time, with perhaps a few exceptions. The exceptions are likely the remaining Democrats who support Bush on Iraq, like Lieberman . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It was essentially a vote in support of the president . . . in which case I suspect Democrats who voted for it were doing so based upon the political calculations at that time, with perhaps a few exceptions. The exceptions are likely the remaining Democrats who support Bush on Iraq, like Lieberman .
The President ASKS for Congress to pass a bill, that is essentially symbolic (since he had authority to invade Iraq under the War Powers Act) in order to send a message to Saddam that we mean business, the stated purpose of this message is to discourage Saddam from testing our resolve, increasing the liklihood of avoiding military conflict. Congress passes this resolution.

So the opinions around here on this vote are as follows:

People who voted for this bill were voting FOR war.
Democrat who voted for this resolution approved it only based on political caluclations.

No one voted for this bill for the stated purpose, to send a message of our resolve in order to avoid conflict.

And you accuse ME of following "Rules of Bizzaro Parlimentary Order ".

You’re delusional.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider