Dems push Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetable; Bush threatens veto

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

I would be shocked if the next president, even if (s)he is a Democrat, gets us out of there completely during his/her first term in office.

Edwards might.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Edwards might.

I doubt it (not that he’s going to win the Democratic primary anyway).

I think Kucinich and maybe Paul are the only guys who would pull all the troops out. The Dems in Congress mostly talk about stopping all combat actions not aimed at eliminating Al Qaeda in Iraq or training the Iraqi army. But you can’t have some small force over there doing that-- they’d be too vulnerable.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

I doubt it (not that he’s going to win the Democratic primary anyway).

I think Kucinich and maybe Paul are the only guys who would pull all the troops out. The Dems in Congress mostly talk about stopping all combat actions not aimed at eliminating Al Qaeda in Iraq or training the Iraqi army. But you can’t have some small force over there doing that-- they’d be too vulnerable.

Maybe. But even Hillary Clinton is now toughening up a bit on troop withdrawal.

[BrainGlutton]

And now Congress is planning to vote on the “compromise” bill in secret. We won’t even know who voted for it.

Clinton and Obama won’t say how they’ll vote on it.

[marshmallow]

@John Mace

I doubt it (not that he’s going to win the Democratic primary anyway).

I don’t know. The primaries are still a fair amount away, and with Obama and Clinton looking like moderate Republicans on Iraq…

Edwards is the only candidate, to my knowledge, to say that he’d pull out all the troops if he were elected. Obama got Iraq right from the start but about six months ago it seems like something changed; he seems to have been Clintonized.

[elucidator]

They’re still playing for the “middle”. Goddamit, there is no fucking middle! Everybody has made up their mind by now, or has no mind to make up!

[marshmallow]

Do you remember back in 2004, 'luci? The disconcerting amount of people who just weren’t sure? “Well, gee, I dunno, I trust my president in a time of war…” Look how far we’ve come. And yet, the triangulating continues unabated. Besides Edwards, only the ‘fringe’ candidates want to get out of Iraq ASAP (Gravel, Kucinich, and the GOP red headed step child Ron Paul, all who the media decided aren’t ‘serious’ candidates worth our serious attention even though everytime I listen to Kucinich my heart skips a beat, not used to not being bullshitted…).

I mean, if Clinton/Obama aren’t going to lead now, with the polls as they are, what good are they?

As for this abortion of the trust from the citizenry who elected the Dems to power last fall, there might be a small hope, however faint, of some brave men fillibustering the hell out of it. I’m to understand Kerry, Feingold (my favorite senator!), and some other chap (I think Dodd) were talking about it…

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

And now Congress is planning to vote on the “compromise” bill in secret. We won’t even know who voted for it.

Clinton and Obama won’t say how they’ll vote on it.

Sounds fishy, if you ask me. Got a cite from an unbiased source for the secret vote deal?

[XT]

Are you saying The Smirking Chimp is a biased cite John?!?!? :dubious:

(Ask not at who the chimp smirks…it smirks at thee! Classic)

BTW, is this the secret vote?

-XT

[Squink]

@John Mace

We don’t need (and shouldn’t want) “permanent” bases in Iraq, but we do need bases that we can use for quite some time. That is the sad truth of the matter.

Where does 50 years fall on that range between ‘some time’ and ‘permanent’?

President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq

To me, this sounds like “permanent.” The white house must be pretty confident of the Iraqi government to come out with the above less than a week after the president said this:

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

Where does 50 years fall on that range between ‘some time’ and ‘permanent’?Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq

To me, this sounds like “permanent.” The white house must be pretty confident of the Iraqi government to come out with the above less than a week after the president said this:

If Bush was going to be president in 50 years, I’d say that matters. But he isn’t. Look, I’ve said that I don’t doubt Bush would like to have permanent bases there. But after January 2009, he doesn’t get a vote on the matter.

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

We don’t need (and shouldn’t want) “permanent” bases in Iraq, but we do need bases that we can use for quite some time. That is the sad truth of the matter.

No, that’s theft. We don’t “need” those bases since we don’t need to be there in the first places. We wanted those bases, and so we grabbed the land for them and killed thousands in the process. All for their own good, of course.

We have no right to those bases, just as we have to right to be in Iraq in the first place.

[Squink]

@John Mace

But he isn’t.

This is good. The Korea/Iraq comparison just struck me as bizarre. Is Bush Churchill, or is he Truman? Does he switch on a daily basis? It’s getting so that nothing but nonsense comes out of the white house anymore. We used to at least get logically consistent delusions.

[elucidator]

@Der Trihs

…We have no right to those bases, just as we have to right to be in Iraq in the first place.

What theft! The US was simply preparing for the likely contingency that our newest and bestest friends ever, Iraq, would beseech our protection, the protection due to* all* our staunch allies in the War on Terror. Like Pakistan, our other bestest buddy and stanch ally. Yes.

[Mosier]

@Squink

This is good. The Korea/Iraq comparison just struck me as bizarre. Is Bush Churchill, or is he Truman? Does he switch on a daily basis? It’s getting so that nothing but nonsense comes out of the white house anymore. We used to at least get logically consistent delusions.

It might not be as crazy as it seems. There was a widespread insurgency in South Korea, and South Korean troops (with American help) were able to squash it and pave the way to a pretty successful country with a stable government. You can’t really blame the hawks for insisting that the same can be done in Iraq.

[Der_Trihs]

@Mosier

It might not be as crazy as it seems. There was a widespread insurgency in South Korea, and South Korean troops (with American help) were able to squash it and pave the way to a pretty successful country with a stable government. You can’t really blame the hawks for insisting that the same can be done in Iraq.

Yes I can, since the two situations aren’t at all the same. Intervening on one side in a civil war isn’t the same as invasion and conquest. We were the mortal enemies of all Iraqis from day one. The political dynamics aren’t even close.