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

 
Democrats new "battle plan"
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 01, 2007

This gets more and more interesting (and pathetic) as time passes:
House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdened military.

The plan could draw bipartisan support but is expected to be a tough sell to members who say they don't think it goes far enough to assuage voters angered by the four-year conflict.
An "anti-war" proposal that continues to fund the war? Make sense? And all the President has to do is "acknowledge" that the military may be overburdened to get the funds?

Right now, apparently, the Pentagon can issue a waiver to units going overseas, waiving certain deployment criteria in time of war that probably wouldn't be waived in peace. What the Democrats are essentially doing is raising that waiver process to the level of a Presidential waiver.

Whoa ... tough action.

Oh and I love this line:
Bush ''hasn't to date done anything we've asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me,'' said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of a group of liberal Democrats pushing for an immediate end to the war.
Bless her heart. She's screamed, she's shouted, she's held her breath till she turned blue (ok, maybe she was already blue) and since she hasn't gotten her way she'll just go along with continuing to fund the war. But it's Bush's fault.

Is this turning into a Congressional comedy or what?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If the idea is to end the war now, the Dems are doing a lousy job. If the idea is politically embarass Bush by making him sign a bunch of waivers (which I’m sure would trigger Murtha/MoveOn anti-war campaign offensive) then good for them, but Bush isn’t running again and couldn’t care less about political embarassment. And that will even provide cover for the GOPs surrender caucus to mealy-mouth the war and improve their polls.

The Dems believe in the war. The Dems are committed to the war. But the war they are fighting is against Bush. If they really cared about ending Iraq, the profiles in courage would take real, immediate action. Not slow bleed. Not non-binding. And all the protestations of Badger, Laura and their ilk won’t change that fact.

They’re headed for a spectacular splintering sooner rather than later. Just ask Hillary, who’s already getting a taste of it. Just wait until the important action alerts start flying!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Maybe it is finally dawning on them that being "anti-war" is only a platform and not a strategy, and that being "anti-Bush" is not a plan. It may have garnered some votes and scored some political points, but it is not leadership by any means. I hope the public recognizes it as well.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://gabbleratchet.blogspot.com
Just wait until the important action alerts start flying!
Yawn. Wake me if some DD milquetoast attempts to prove his anti-war mettle by smashing a barricade or something. I’m sure I’ll be amused if I’m not dead of old age.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
"Bush ’’hasn’t to date done anything we’ve asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me,’’"

Did she say please?
 
Written By: timactual
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