Why did the Dems cave?

Email Print posted by z1p101 05/28/2007 02:00:22 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
You have to recognize who politicians are to answer that question. Sure there are some of them that actually believe in the cause of their party, but most of them are on the far right/left fringes and are not very popular with their own parties, nor are they fans of the war. The rest are just grifters with connections looking for the angles that help them keep their jobs.

So that said, what do the Dems politically gain by voting for funding the war untill about November?

1. They dump responsibility for the war back into Bush's and the Republican's lap.
2. They take away the support the troops talking point.
3. They get to do it while saying "most of us voted against this but we could not let the troops (or the wounded veterans) down".
4. We tried to change policy but Bush would veto are every attempt.

So what is the final angle?

The bet is and I'll take these odds any day are

1. That the people who said that this endeavor would require 400,000+ troops for many years and cost over 100 billion dollars are still correct.
2. That the Repugs trying to save their own political skins will turn on Bush come the end of summer. My own Republican congressman has already publicly said he will. Furthermore, being that he is on his tenth term without any real compotition untill his 06 scare, I'll bet he was one of the 11.

In the end, how much more sweet will it be for the Dems to force policy change on the administration closer to the 08 election? Excuse my language but the Republican party is not going to allow Bush and crew to "jerk this Iraq war off" untill the 08 elections. Not going to happen.

Now some could say that the Dems could have ended the war by not funding it at all. Most of us with at least a 10 year old mentality understand that this is not a boolean (yes or no) desision. There are other options than to stick to Bush's failed policy or totally give up. Unfortunately our great leader is really only 8 years old and will not take the "change policy and/or expectations" advice of his own party or it's elder (Reagan and Bush 1 crew) members.
< Christians Help Me | The Rosie Side of Sexism >
 Display:
Why did the Dems cave? | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
Pressure Cooker (none / 0)

I liken it to water heated under pressure.

As long as we stay there, the lid is on and things are at least containable.

As soon as we leave, the lid comes off and stuff starts flying everywhere.

It doesn't matter if it's next year or ten years from now.

These people have centuries of hate built up, they can wait a few! 

by MountainMan on 05/28/2007 04:43:47 PM EST

Occam's Razor (none / 0)
“Now some could say that the Dems could have ended the war by not funding it at all. Most of us with at least a 10 year old mentality understand that this is not a Boolean (yes or no) decision.”

The Democrats can end the war in Iraq by simply blocking additional military appropriations or supplemental funding bills. They don’t need to submit a bill to the president, only to have it vetoed again. All they need to do is prevent additional funding. They will have numerous such opportunities, and the next one comes up in September.

The reason that Democrats are devouring each other today is because any person with at least a ten year old mentality (which apparently excludes you) clearly understands that Democrats in the Senate and House are completely in control of whether or not the war in Iraq continues. They don’t need any help from Republicans to stop the war.

In September, Democrats will once again be forced to stand up and be counted. They can force an end the war in Iraq, or they can once again crawl up to the lap of George Bush and start sucking his dick. (Please excuse my vulgar language.) Either way, the ball is squarely in their court, and there will be hell to pay for Democrats no matter which way they vote.
 
This is referred to as a Rovian decision, not a Boolean decision, and I recommend you employ lubrication to ease the pain.

by KenTX on 05/28/2007 06:44:15 PM EST

Well Well Well (none / 0)
Looks like I found a 10 yr old who can't read or is detached from reality.

So I will explain this slooooly so even the ditto heads will understand.

First, there are other options to try other than follow the Bush plan to the letter OR end the occupation this minute. See, that is where Boole comes in. Rove is a little fat weasel with "the math".

Second, most Democrats do not think it is a good idea to just pick up and leave Iraq tomorrow, that is something the right wing echo chamber tells you. Unfortunately, we have an idiot and chief who's ego will not allow him to change gears in Iraq and take some good advice. This president would rather string this war along and dump it in someone else's lap so he does not look bad, he does has a history of this behavior by the way. And everyone, including Republicans realize this but the Repugs have have too many sound bites invested into this occupation war to not give it one more shot.

Now before you start typing, think about it. Almost all of the Repugs on the hill are saying we have to give the new strategy a shot before we change policy and we will know in September. That tells me the Dems will not be standing alone in Sept.

Finally Boole and Ockham have nothing to do with one another but lets look at the facts.

1. The people who correctly predicted Bush's Iraq invasion strategy are still right and say the surge is too little too late.
2. There are Generals coming out telling us that Bush's plan can not work.
3. Most Repugs on the hill say that they will wait untill Petraeus' report to make a decision, a carreer make or break decision.
4. The violence in Iraq continues to escalate along with US solder body count.
5. Polls say that Iraq is the #1 issue with voters.

There it is, use the razor and start shaving.

There are 2 possible outcomes, eather there are a lot of new Dem seats in 08 or Bush winds up under the political bus. Any others?

by z1p101 on 05/28/2007 11:23:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
how to make a liberal look stupid (none / 0)
“Most Democrats do not think it is a good idea to just pick up and leave Iraq tomorrow, that is something the right wing echo chamber tells you.”
We can draw three possible conclusions from your statement.
(1)   You know what you’re talking about.
(2)   You don’t know what you’re talking about.
(3)   You are a liar.

OK, let’s check the facts.

Whoops! That makes you look kinda stupid, don’t it? Let’s be kind and say it was conclusion number two, and you simply don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

“Most Democrats (54%) favor immediate troop withdrawal while another 24% in Nancy Pelosi’s party favor a firm timetable for withdrawal. Just 16% of Democrats are opposed to both options.”

So the majority of Democrats want us out of Iraq now, while maybe 75% of all Democrats would like to see us out of Iraq by the end of the year. Sound fair?

What do you think will happen if Democrats send Bush another appropriations bill with timetables attached? Think he might veto it again?

So, how can George Bush be compelled to exit Iraq by the end of 2007? Hmmmm? Oh wait, I’ve got it! What if Democrats simply block additional military appropriations or supplemental funding bills? It only takes 40 Democrat votes in the Senate! That means by the end of 2007, Bush will be forced to remove troops from Iraq. Sounds like a definite timetable to me!

So the only question remaining is whether Democrat lawmakers have courage of conviction. Because if they don't, their constituents are going to be mighty unhappy.

This is going to be so much fun to watch!

by KenTX on 05/28/2007 11:54:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice try again Ken (none / 0)

You really need to learn to read.

You're article refers to Democratic voters, we are talking about Dems on the hill. It says that the polititions want to start a withdraw, not leave today. If Bush will not budge on policy change that is the only sane solution.

The Republican rats are laying the groundwork to jump ship, making Bush's veto worthless. Like it or not.

Keep trying though, I enjoy your stupidity.

 PS, don't call me a liar, I just have the facts.

by z1p101 on 05/29/2007 12:15:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ZipBrain Rides Again! (none / 0)
“You're article refers to Democratic voters, we are talking about Dems on the hill.”

That’s exactly what we’re debating, you nitwit!

The Republican base wants their elected lawmakers to hang tough and keep fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Republicans are ecstatic about what happened in Washington last week. GOP lawmakers will not vote for withdrawal because the base will not allow it.

The Democrat base wants their elected lawmakers to bring the troops home as soon as possible. They are screaming mad about what happened last week. Democrat lawmakers will be forced to demand withdrawal in September because their base is going fukking nuts!

Now then pea brain, which side is going to get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey in September? Democrats have two choices:

1. Bring the troops home from Iraq.
2. Face the wrath of their base.

What will happen next, after Democrats force unilateral withdrawal from Iraq? The options for political recrimination are virtually limitless. I don’t have the time or the space to recount Republican options after Democrats play the surrender card.

It will be Heaven On Earth!

by KenTX on 05/29/2007 12:42:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nooo (none / 0)
That is not what what we are talking about. We are talking about political maneuvering.

The base is always loyal no matter how hard they are screwed (see KenTX).

You ditto heads like to keep reminding us all that the Democratic base is only thirty some odd percent, don't you? Why should you care about that?

It is because elections are not won or lost by the base. They are won by the swing vote. And the swing vote is anti Bush now.

And lets keep the name calling to a minimum. Did I ever call you an idiotic Bush tool?

Keep trying and keep your talking points strait for once.

Thanks again Ken.

by z1p101 on 05/29/2007 01:04:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
your options are limited (none / 0)
“We are talking about political maneuvering.”
Precisely, and the Democrats have absolutely no room to maneuver on Iraq. They are stuck in a very small box, the size of a bullion cube.

They definitely have all the power they need to force withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The problem is there are an infinite number of unintended scenarios that can result from withdrawal, and Democrats will receive all of the blame.

On the other hand, if Democrats roll over again and follow orders from the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, their base will go berserk! It will be even worse than last week.

Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are the three smartest guys in Washington. Believe me when I tell you that they know exactly what to do with this opportunity. All they have to do to destroy the Democrats is to force them into another Boolean Decision.

by KenTX on 05/29/2007 01:30:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Blog On Democratic Underground (none / 0)
"We all know that Republicans have the ability and the technology and the infrastructure to have easily stolen the elections in '06 as they had the previous elections.  That '06 elections went too smooth for us.  We skated in.  Today, we're seeing the Republican machinations bear fruit.  This is what they wanted to happen.  Give the Democrats control, lose on purpose, don't steal this election, give the Democrats control, then just pull their unitary executive BS, stonewalling and lying as stall tactics." 

What this guy is saying is that the Republicans threw the election in '06, didn't steal it, let the Democrats win because Bush and Rove knew that the Democrats would cave on pulling troops out of Iraq, and to make the Democrats look bad. 

"Don't believe me?  These are serious people.  Don't believe me?  It's not hard to find posts on the freeper board saying that we Democrats own this war now because we're the ones who can stop it and we won't.  Nancy and Harry have played directly into Bush-Rove's hands, or they've been complicit in the whole thing all along.  Either way, by failing to take any action to rein in the out of control dictator Bush, we really, really do own this war, just as Bush Company planned." 

by KenTX on 05/29/2007 07:07:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cindy Sheehan is giving up! (none / 0)
She says she is mad at the Democrats.

Well shoot fire! I never saw this coming?

Does this mean that the Democrat Party is unraveling before our eyes? Oh no!

by KenTX on 05/29/2007 07:43:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Spelunkers vs. Bush (none / 0)
The Democratic Underground is a bottomless reservoir of stupidity.

I'll let everyone in on the real reason the Democrats caved. If the Democrats in Congress don't fund the troops, President Bush just vetoes any other spending bills. They're willing to appropriate the funds to keep American troops in Baghdad if it keeps the funds flowing to their bridges to nowhere in every congressional district.

That's right, Cindy. We're not redeploying from Iraq because Democrats are addicted to pork barrel spending.

Say what you will about Newt Gingrich, but at least he had the guts to shut down the government when he battled the White House.

by Twba on 05/29/2007 08:11:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba is finally losing patience. (none / 0)
I was afraid this might happen.

The problem for the Republicans is simple, actually. The appeal of their party is mainly to classical liberals, and their conduct in Iraq has entirely contradicted the classical liberal worldview. Nation-building is simply not a proper function for government, according to classical liberal thinking.

Classical liberalism is the political philosophy descended from English Whigs such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith and typified by Ronald Reagan. It is the political position to which Buckley has largely adhered over the years. Classical liberalism holds that government should not intervene in voluntary agreements, and that its proper role is in fact to help enforce them. A government should intervene in human actions only when they harm others. Then, and only then, does government have a reason for action.

Thus the classical liberal position on international affairs would be as follows:
  • Every nation is sovereign over its own affairs.
  • Every nation is entitled to conduct its affairs as it chooses unless its actions affect other nations.
  • When actions affect other nations, those nations have a right and indeed a responsibility to their own citizens to remedy the situation. The obligation on the part of the reacting nation is to formulate a response that redresses the offense and ensures that there will be no imminent repetition of it.
  • An affected nation responding to a wrong has no right to impose additional consequences on an offending nation, even if the intended effect is to ensure that the offender will not resume the offending activities beyond the foreseeable future.

by KenTX on 05/29/2007 10:40:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing will change except the names (none / 0)
After the election it was fun to have a laugh at Acroso's expense because his predictions were so far off the mark. I think some of my predictions have held up quite well.

by Twba on 05/29/2007 03:19:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)

For leaving out the name calling.

And for the last time there are more option availabe than follow Bush's exercise in futility or leave Iraq tomorrow. That is what the Dems on the hill are shooting for and they can't get it untill the Repugs jump ship to save their jobs. The upside politically is that Bush and the Republicans are taking the heat for the Iraq disaster. And I've heard enough Repugs publicly say Bush is running out of time, think Sept. here.

Why haven't you brought up the what if the surge works point. I think we both know the answer to that one.

There are known knowns and known unknowns here.

Known knowns

1. The surge is not enough to end the Iraqi violence.
2. If Bush is still running the occupation his way come the 08 election, the Republicans are going to get massacred.
3. The Republicans on the hill are about to bail on Bush to save their jobs.
4. The average American could care less about the Iraqi people as long as US soldies are not dieing and US taxpayer dollars are not being spent.
5. The American voter has a short memory, but not that short. The Repugs have to move soon.
6. The base doesnt matter, the swing vote is what wins elections and that is who both sides have to pander to.

Known Unknowns you said it best.

1. The problem is there are an infinite number of unintended scenarios that can result from withdrawal.

You keep counting on the Repugs not bailing on the war. I'm telling you it is comming.

by z1p101 on 05/29/2007 09:07:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Senate Rules (none / 0)
"You keep counting on the Repugs not bailing on the war. I'm telling you it is comming."

The best vote counter in the history of the Senate was LBJ. If he was in the Senate today, the first thing he would look at are the situations with Lieberman and Tim Johnson.

Lieberman could very easily jump parties, especially over the war. He has threatened this move a thousand times. This would shift control to the GOP.

Even if Lieberman doesn't switch, you need for at least 10 Republican Senators to bail on the war effort, and join up with the Democrats to hit 60 votes. And that doesn't even consider the 67 votes required to over-ride a presidential veto, which is certain to occur.

McCain controls the moderates like Lindsay "mini-me" Graham. He will keep these folks on the reservation. His presidential hopes depend on it, and John McCain is a force in that body.

Anyway you look at it, you simply don't have the votes to over-ride the veto. The only way you can stop the war is to road block appropriations, which is very easy for Democrats to accomplish.

The other way is to agree to Bush's terms with respect to goals, timetables and benchmarks. This is actually the most likely scenario. Write it down and make bank on it.

I suggest you read up on Senate history. The best book is Master of the Senate, The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro. Study this book, and then you'll understand how to count votes in the Senate.

Tell Dem boys to man-up, step up to the goddam plate, and take a fukking swing at some Big Time Constitutional Responsibility.

If Democrats want to stop the war, they don't need any help whatsoever from Republicans. It is time for you guys to quit talking and do your constitutional duty.


by KenTX on 05/29/2007 10:02:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh boy (none / 0)

Another Ken history lesson. Do I really have to go through all your old 06 election predictions based on your knowledge of history and smart people like Rove? Thanks, I don't have the time anyway. So lets get to it.

It's a new day, new kind of 24/7 media, new kind of war, new kind of congress. Read all the history books you want it won't help you here.

That said, I know that the Dems are not going to cut off occupation funding, not yet anyway, so give up on that talking point for now. They have a convenient foil in George "veto" Bush to blame right now and they can afford another couple of months. As sad as that is for our country.
 
I'm glad you brought up Lindsay "mini-me" Graham. He is up for re-election this year I beleve. Is he really going to follow McCain all the way to the unemployment line? Don't think so.

Also I could think of others Repugs that are a lock to vote for policy change off the top of my head. Collins, Sununu, Specter, Coleman, Hagel. Thats 5 and I just started.

The key here is not to listen to propaganda ministers like Rove. But to what the politician are actually saying. And they are saying this is the last shot at the Bush plan. Didn't the team of 11 tell Bush that this is your last vote or something like that?

Well let me give you an actual example of what they are saying.

"It seems to me it's time for them (the Iraqis) to show what is their ability and professionalism to step up," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. He said if conditions do not improve by mid-July, the president should reconsider his strategy.

Now if someone like old man Warner starts insisting on policy change, how long before the rest of the lemmings follow?

And if you start typing again, think first.

By the way, it's make book on it not make bank on it. Hurts my ears when you say it.

by z1p101 on 05/30/2007 02:21:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How sausages are made. (none / 0)
The Bush strategy for the September Showdown is already taking shape. The administration has expressed a willingness to incorporate major elements of suggestions by the Iraq Study Group.

So Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell meets with Collins, Sununu, Specter, Coleman, Hagel, and Graham and tells these moderate Republican Senators that the administration will agree to their timetables and benchmarks.

After this agreement is reached, where will you find 17 Republican Senators to agree with ending U.S. military operations in Iraq? You won’t. The GOP will hang tough.

In fact, the amendment will be offered to the Senate floor by a guy you voted for in the 2000 election, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Don’t piss off Joe, because he is liable to throw the entire Senate to GOP control.

So Bush will offer Democrats two choices in September: (1) Take a giant bite out of this dead skunk sandwich, which is comprised of immediate withdrawal and surrender to al Qaeda. (2) Take a giant bite out of this shit sandwich, which is comprised of funding the war in Iraq for another year on terms amenable to Dick Cheney.

What will this choice do the Democrat Party?

by KenTX on 05/30/2007 05:54:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Full Circle (none / 0)
You did not tell me anything I didn't already know here. My point right from the begginning is that policy change is coming in Sept. because the Republican party can't afford to keep giving Bush a blank check. So the Dem occupation funding vote was just a talking point killer that delayed Bush's forced policy change closer to election time.

Who cares if Lieberman introduces the legislation and why would that be important?

The Dems will get their time tables and bench marks. The Republicans get to save face and say we gave it one last shot. And Jon Stewart gets to do one more 5 minute bit showing Bush contradicting himself. Everyones happy.

You could have saved me a lot of typing here.

And I never voted for Lieberman.

by z1p101 on 05/30/2007 11:22:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
gets boring after a while (none / 0)
He tends to do that.  He follows the hanity play book 

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 05/30/2007 01:41:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you got nuthin'! (none / 0)
“The Dems will get their time tables and bench marks.”
The Dems will get nothing, just like they got this time.
Any timetables or benchmarks will be negotiated among Republicans, and will involve goals for the Iraqi Government to achieve a political solution to the sectarian infighting.

Democrats have nominal control of the House and the Senate because their majorities are so razor-thin. That means that while it looks like they control Congress to John Q Public, in reality, they can’t get anything passed without significant buy-in from Republicans.

This is the best of all worlds because Democrats now look like they completely own the war in Iraq. Everyone knows they have the power to end the war by simply filibustering it to death and not allowing continuation of appropriation. Every time they cave on war spending, they look weaker and more ineffective, and Bush looks stronger.

Who was screaming after the vote last week, Republicans or Democrats?

Republicans in the House and Senate are smart enough to know this, and that’s why they are sticking together. They will use votes on the Iraq War to further divide Democrats. The 2008 Democrat Convention will probably look a lot like the 1968 Democrat Convention. There will be blood in the streets.

"You could have saved me a lot of typing here."

You can save yourself a lot of typing by shutting the hell up on subjects you are clearly uninformed on.

by KenTX on 05/30/2007 02:20:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I got nuthin'? (none / 0)
What makes you think I want something? This war isn't costing me anything. I'm just throwing out "outside the echo chamer" observations here.

And as far as what the Dems got, I listed them at the top. I left out the pork part though. Didn't make me to happy eather.

And as far as John Q goes, this is still Bush's disaster. This vote you like so much and Bush's magic veto crayon made sure of that for a few more months.

The Republicans in the house will go first, they are sweating this more than the Senators are. Remember the 11 again.

And your Repug benchmarks. What do you think they will say? Don't worry Iraq if you don't get your act together nothing will happen. Also Mr Bush, feel free to have another 30,000 man escalation 3 months before the 08 election. Come on, think for your self for once.

More likely they will look a lot like the Democats bench marks. I can hear the Dems now, "we wanted to do this 5 months ago and we would have saved hundreds of American lives and billions of dollars, but the Republicans wanted to give the surge a chance and Bush would veto everything. We couldn't deny the troops funding, could we?". Classic set up.

And please enough with the cut the spending and leave tomorrow talk because it's not happening and it's a moot point.

You continue to ignore all the facts here including the big one. Americans want us out of this mess.

by z1p101 on 05/30/2007 05:18:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One more (none / 0)
Did you notice that the Dems announced this at the same time the Republican base is spitting nails over the immigration bill. You don't think that was just by chance. Do you? It's what you call a wash.

by z1p101 on 05/30/2007 05:27:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good call (none / 0)
"Did you notice that the Dems announced this at the same time the Republican base is spitting nails over the immigration bill. You don't think that was just by chance. Do you? It's what you call a wash."
I certainly did notice the timing, and my hats off to the Dem leadership. This was a shrewd move.

Since I'm married to an activist in the Minutemen organization, I am somewhat knowledgable on the subject. 

I don't see this immigration bill reaching the president's desk. No immigration bill means no damage to control. However, if Bush signs an amnesty bill, then the Democrat strategy of dividing Republicans will be successful. 

by KenTX on 05/30/2007 09:33:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
impressive NOT (none / 0)


Being a member of the minuteman organization isn't something to be proud of outside of Texas.





--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 05/30/2007 09:40:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
have you no shame? (none / 0)
"Being a member of the minuteman organization isn't something to be proud of outside of Texas."

Some people complain about illegal immigration.

Some people, like the Minutemen, do something about illegal immigration.

Some people, called hypocrites, complain about illegal immigration while denigrating people who do something about illegal immigration.

Now, get off that computer in the nurse's station and go start the catheter on that greasy Guatemalan dick.

by KenTX on 05/30/2007 10:41:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont have anything to be ashamed of. (none / 0)
The minute man organization is a bunch of red neck hyper racist po dunks.




--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 05/30/2007 10:47:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Ken (none / 0)
If you are still crusing around out here I stumbled over this today. Sessions and McConnell? The good ole boys are starting to make noise now.

Still think I don't know what I'm talking about?

There is no way Bush will be saying just 6 more months by the end of the year. The draw down is coming and I don't care who takes the credit. Thats up to We the People to decide.

All I ever said here was it was a smart political move on the Dems part to wait a few months.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2007 09:46:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
dems still have to make a choice (none / 0)
Let’s take another look at the money quotes.

"By September, when General (David) Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down."

“I don't think we need to be an occupying power. This is a fine line we've walked, and this surge has got to be temporary. We do not need to be and cannot be perceived as just occupying Iraq for any extended period of time."

"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president himself to lead it."

How is this substantially different than the KenTX plan?

“I think we should gradually draw down our front line forces, and use the resulting cost savings to pay Sunni Chieftains $20,000 for every al Qaeda head (I'm talking cranium here!) they deliver to U.S. authorities. 

We should make the same offer to Pakistan and Afghanistan and Lebanon. $20,000 per skull.

Let's be reasonable here, we are going to have U.S. military bases in the Middle East for the rest of our lives. Why do we need a military presence in Europe? To guard the whores and dope in Amsterdam? Why do we need a military presence in Asia? That's Japan's job now.”

As I have said before, the change in direction will be negotiated between the president and Republican leadership in the Senate. I have said all along that Mitch McConnell, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Cheney will sit down to hammer out the Lieberman/McConnell War Appropriations Amendment.

Democrats will then have two options:
1. Go along with the Lieberman-McConnell Amendment.
2. Filibuster all Iraq spending bills and end the war completely.


So you are back to a choice between a giant dead skunk sandwich and a giant Shiite sandwich. In the end, we will give you another Boolean Decision to make, further carving up the Democrat Party.

by KenTX on 06/01/2007 10:09:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sigh (none / 0)
For the last time.

I don't care who calls for the begginning if the withdraw. I don't care who does the negotiations. I don't think leaving tommorrow is a good idea, neither does the Democratic leadership.

I know that if Bush and Cheny are still getting their way next year that the 08 elections will be a Republican bloodbath. So does the RNC. So the Dems played it smart by taking the talking points away and have the Repubican make all the decisions.

What do you think these Repug negotiations are going to say? "Keep going the way you are going Georgie, you're doing a heck of a job." Or are they going to be filled with a bunch of benchmarks and time tables for the Iraqi government to get it's act together. Which is not happening any time soon. Any amendment they come up with has to make it through the house and the are sweating harder. The smart Republicans realize they can't afford to be lock step any more.

Bush's hand is going to be forced on this one way or another. And once again I don't care how. Never said I did.

And I thought you were joking about the KenTX plan. You are, aren't you?

And you keep using this "you" word. I don't know why.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2007 11:07:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's how to tell who won. (none / 0)
When Democrats are screaming mad about Iraq funding in September, like they are today, then you'll know that Karl Rove beat your ass one more time.

by KenTX on 06/01/2007 12:07:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who won? (none / 0)
Who cares?


What is this a football game? That fat little piglet Rove isn’t going to kick my ass, I have nothing invested here. I don’t care who wins. That “you” thing again.


The Democrats can scream all they want. I discussed this before. They are only +/- 32% of the population and according to you only 57% of them want immediate withdrawal. What is that, around 17% of the country? Nobody is listening to them.


All I keep saying is come September the Republicans are not going to take orders from the White House any more. They are going to force Bush to change to a strategy that looks like what the Dems have been asking for since last year giving them the “I told you so” line. And that idiot Bush is going to look like the failure he is.


The troop withdraw will start on Bush’s watch because nobody wants to clean up his mess or loose the election because of him.


You keep looking for more but it’s not there.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2007 04:42:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
zippy the hippy prediction (none / 0)
"The troop withdraw will start on Bush’s watch because nobody wants to clean up his mess or loose the election because of him."

Three Options:

1. Increase troop level to numbers even higher than the surge level.

2. Maintain troop level at surge level.

3. Reduce troop level to some number lower than surge level.

I'm guessing that by September, we're looking at option 3.

If Bush offers to bring 20,000 troops home in return for additional funding from Congress, and people like you choose to call it a "withdrawal schedule", then so be it. We can live with that kind of withdrawal. 

The great thing is that we only have to wait 100 days to find out how this issue is resolved.

Again, the important thing to watch is which side is demoralized and disgusted with the outcome.

by KenTX on 06/01/2007 07:34:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
makes sense to me (none / 0)
"Until Republicans on Capitol Hill start casting votes that sync with their public and private complaints about the president's war policy, Bush will continue to get his way. Even in the best-case scenarios for Democrats going forward, they could still fall short of the veto-proof majority they will need to take control of this war. The more likely possibility is that only the 2008 election can change things. "

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 05/28/2007 07:55:26 PM EST

Thanks Leeberal (none / 0)

For getting it and reading it.

Not in any particular order.

by z1p101 on 05/30/2007 02:50:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oops they forgot something (none / 0)


The repugs are  still responsible for the horrific mistake that is the war in Iraq.

No amount of bungling the Dems have done so far can help the repugs get out of the political quagmire they are in. 


The mere fact that so many people are pissed that the Dem's arent getting troops out of there fast enough. Is proof enough that a majority of people have not swung to the right wing view on the war and the repugs are still up shit creek.

 Again there is nothing the Dem's have bungled so far that even comes close to the bungle that is the Iraq war in voters eyes.

Let the right wingers babble on.




--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 05/30/2007 04:20:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why did the Dems cave? | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: