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


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

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The politics of Iraq
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 10, 2007

Today the New York Times is reporting that moderate Republicans are warning President Bush that there must be visible progress in Iraq if he wants their continued support:
Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
Now, of course, this sounds worse than it is, as these are members of the House. If the same number of Republican Senators were warning the President, then he'd have a real worry on his hands. That's not to say he shouldn't understand that even Republicans are becoming disaffected, but to put in context the seriousness of 11 House Republicans becoming disaffected. Still, the White House has now received fair warning. The united front of Republicans, at least in the House, will not last forever.

Meanwhile, John Aravosis, on AmericaBlog is reporting that conservative Democrats in the House are preparing to vote in favor of a bill which, per Aravosis, effectively gives the President a blank check for the war with few if any restrictions:
It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.
So we're seeing some movement from the RINOs and DINOs as each side likes to label their "moderates". 11 disaffected on the Republican side and citing "political reality" in their marginal districts, an unknown number (mostly the blue dogs, I would assume which number in the 30s I believe) considering the political reality in their marginal districts and possibly supporting the president.

If ever there was a quagmire, its to be found in Washington DC as the politics of this war become ever more complex and convoluted.

Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

If ever there was a quagmire, its to be found in Washington DC as the politics of this war become ever more complex and convoluted.
When it should be easy. Agree that we have to win, and then figure out how they can support the President, the troops, and Iraq in accomplishing that.

Of course, it seems like many don’t believe we can win, or what that even means (even though we’ve had certain conditions as a stated goal since the beginning of the war.)

If we need more troops there, then support an increase in the military.

If we need more equipment over there, then support an increase in the supplemental, and possibly a relaxation of some acquisition regulations.

If we need more allies, then figure out what needs to be done to get them on the ground.

Don’t just say we need to do things, figure out how we can all work together to get them done.

Support instead of oppose.

I guess that’s to much to ask for with todays continuous election cycle.
Written By: Keith_Indy

Support instead of oppose.

I guess that’s to much to ask for with todays continuous election cycle
Yes, it would always be easier if everyone agreed on one course of action. But, of course, some people think the war is damaging to the US national interest, involves unnecessary killing, is overstretching the military, risks greater regional unrest, and is not moral. If one believes those things, then one has the moral obligation to oppose the war and try to work politically against the decisions of the President.

So given the reality of different opinions, often diametrically opposed but sincerely held, it is too much to ask.
Written By: Scott Erb

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.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks