This is why the Democrats will lose in '08

[iplaw]

The spineless have folded again.  The Democracts today announced that they are dropping their requirement for withdrawal terms in the Iraq war funding measure.  But don't you despair, there's going to be language that "influences policy" in the next bill, you just wait!  

If there's one thing the American people can't stand, it's a wimpy, flip flopper.  If getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, then damn the critics and push through your agenda and the American people will praise you for it.  The majority of American do AGREE with you don't they?

[Conan71]

Just curious about Harry Reid's comment I heard last night that he has a "responsibility to get these troops out of Iraq".  Who made Reid C-I-C?

[Chicken Little]

That's some nice spin, IP.

Here's another take...from the same article:

quote: But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense.  Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."

Four years with no exit strategy and look now.  All of a sudden, Republicans are talking about strings.  Why the change of heart?  Could it be that the vetoed vote to end the Iraq War has caused a few Republicans rethink their position and look for ways to crawl out of this quagmire?  I'm thinking yes.

I'd say that Republicans are starting to face reality, but you may prefer to say that they are losing their backbone.  Whichever, if it brings this thing to an end, it'll be better for all of us.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

That's some nice spin, IP.

Here's another take...from the same article:

quote: But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense.  Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."

Four years with no exit strategy and look now.  All of a sudden, Republicans are talking about strings.  Why the change of heart?  Could it be that the vetoed vote to end the Iraq War has caused a few Republicans rethink their position and look for ways to crawl out of this quagmire?  I'm thinking yes.

I'd say that Republicans are starting to face reality, but you may prefer to say that they are losing their backbone.  Whichever, if it brings this thing to an end, it'll be better for all of us.

Spin my a$$.

Either Democrats are right, and they use their power to enact the "will of the people" who are supposedly on their side, or they're wrong and this is all just a stage show for '08.

You guys have bit**ed for months, going on years now, that if you were in power you'd straighten this whole thing out.  

You have the power, you have the votes, and supposedly you have the backing of the American people.  What's keeping you from doing what's right?

[rwarn17588]

I also noticed that McCain's poll numbers went up dramatically and passed Guiliani in at least two early primary states after he started criticizing the conduct of the Iraq War and its leader.

So it's not just Democrats that are turning against the occupation.

Face it: This occupation is extremely unpopular. It's in the range of 60 percent against, numbers that Reagan would call a "mandate."

[iplaw]

Okay.  Let's say that I agree with you whole heartedly that W is the devil.

1.  We have a Democractic majority that thinks the war is a mistake.  
2.  We supposedly have a growing number of Republicans that think it's a mistake.  
3.  The majority of the American people agree with the Democrats that this Iraq is a mistake.

Why, with all this moral authority and all the strings to pull to make this terrible mess go away, will the Democrats not force the hand of the President?  

Nothing is standing in your way anymore.  If not now, when?

[rwarn17588]

Well, the president's veto pen prevents the strings from being pulled, for one thing. The Democrats have passed a bill that reflects the will of the people, but the president isn't listening.

Second, not nearly enough Republicans have bailed on the president to override the veto.

Although that may change. I've been reading a lot of articles that suggest if things don't improve substantially in Iraq by September, something is going to happen. Maybe the GOP folk will urge the president to say: "You've deposed Saddam, the WMDs aren't there, and a new government is in place. Declare victory and get out, or we're going to get hammered in November."

And I don't agree that Bush is the devil. I don't think Satan would ever show that much  incompetence.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Well, the president's veto pen prevents the strings from being pulled, for one thing. The Democrats have passed a bill that reflects the will of the people, but the president isn't listening.

Second, not nearly enough Republicans have bailed on the president to override the veto.

Although that may change. I've been reading a lot of articles that suggest if things don't improve substantially in Iraq by September, something is going to happen. Maybe the GOP folk will urge the president to say: "You've deposed Saddam, the WMDs aren't there, and a new government is in place. Declare victory and get out, or we're going to get hammered in November."

And I don't agree that Bush is the devil. I don't think Satan would ever show that much  incompetence.

That's gutless.  They have the votes to defund the war and de facto bring the troops home immediately, yet they continue to duff around while this "immoral and unjustified" war continues.

Who's more disgusting.  The one who honestly believes the war was justified, or the one who believes it's immoral and has the power to stop it but refuses to do so?

The American people are fed up Mr. President, we have the power to make their will heard, and they will praise us for ending this unjustified occupation!

Weak.  

The American people can and will see your party's unwillingness to act upon its principles.

[Hawkins]

I don't think they flip flopped if they take out the time table.

The troops have to be funded, and so they have to work out a deal with Bush to get this through.

I will be totally shocked if the Republicans win the White House in '08.

I've already jumped on the Obama bandwagon because I think the democratic primary is the real presidential race this time around, and the LAST thing we need is Hillary in there.

I don't agree with everything Obama stands for, but at least he's a fresh start. He's pro gun control, but that will never get passed right now, as more and more states are adopting concealed-carry permits. Even Kansas has joined the club.  []

The Clintons and Bush family have been running this Country for the last 20 years!

We need to stand up like that girl in the rogue Obama campaign video that throws the sledgehammer into the screen to shut Hillary up.

We need a change.

[rwarn17588]

Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.

I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.

Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.

Those facts are undeniable.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.

I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.

Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.

Those facts are undeniable.

So you admit that they CAN end the war, they just CHOOSE not to for some reason?  They continue to play by Bush's rules, even though they have the votes, moral authority and the backing of the people to end the war...this is not leadership.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Okay.  Let's say that I agree with you whole heartedly that W is the devil.

1.  We have a Democractic majority that thinks the war is a mistake.  
2.  We supposedly have a growing number of Republicans that think it's a mistake.  
3.  The majority of the American people agree with the Democrats that this Iraq is a mistake.

Why, with all this moral authority and all the strings to pull to make this terrible mess go away, will the Democrats not force the hand of the President?  

Nothing is standing in your way anymore.  If not now, when?

No, the Republicans are still very much in the way.  The President vetoed the bill and there are not enough Republicans (yet) to override his veto.

I think you're jumping to conclusions, anyway.  All are now "in negotiations" on a new bill.  Nobody knows what that bill will look like.

[iplaw]

quote:I don't think they flip flopped if they take out the time table.

The troops have to be funded, and so they have to work out a deal with Bush to get this through.

The troops don't have to be funded, that's Congress' decision.  As soon as Bush knew that the Dems meant business and no more money was forthcoming he'd have no choice but to bring them home.

[Hawkins]

The troops can't all be withdrawn at once, so I would imagine that they do need to be funded.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.

I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.

Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.

Those facts are undeniable.

When it comes to b[:O]lls, does it take more to risk losing your job over sticking to your guns and supporting the war, or taking a populist view and ducking for cover and apologizing for voting for a war?

I'll choose those in the more principled category.