What? For missing a vote on a non-binding resolution? It was meaningless posturing.
Yes, the BS you just wrote is getting old. No, it’s already old.
That’s funny. Especially after they wasted a week on a non-binding resolution. Exactly how many weeks do you think they should devote to other non-binding resolutions? Which would be the same amount of time they will NOT be dealing with policy.
But they’re not. They are clearing areas and occupying them. That’s a different strategy.
A couple million Vietnemese and Cambodians would likely disagree with you if they were around to do so.
I think there are more considerations. Of course, YMMV.
A request to deliver up my email address to the Washington Times doesn’t really do it for me.
Could you summarize what tangible benefits we Americans will see for the half trillion or so we will have spent by the time this ‘surge’ gamble is complete?
Bingo. The first problem is that the Democratic party is showing its lack of spine. The second, bigger problem is that even if they followed through with what they believed they’d be slapped down hard – the U.S. population, the GOP, and Bush want war, so war we will have. Don’t even bother showing me a poll that says some large percent of Americans are against the war. It doesn’t matter. When push comes to shove the Iraqi war will not end.
What do you think will happen if an anti-war Democrat is elected President? That we’ll leave? Ha! Imagine the public outcry. The Dems would be tarnished for years (note: starting a pointless war doesn’t have a similar effect). The idea that we’ll leave Iraq within two or three years is close to fantasy.
Given the record so far (2 GOP losses, then 7), one more try might well do it, especially with vulnerable GOP Senators up in 2008. Smith (OR), Collins, Snowe(ME), and Coleman (MN) all bailed on this vote. Lieberman, of course, voted against debate. So all Democrats voted for it in the Senate.
Yeah, that was McCain’s defense. And yet 34 Senators who agreed with him voted anyway. He wanted to be Presidential by ignoring it, and I think it’ll cost him - as if supporting the war wasn’t going to cost him anyway.
Posturing indeed, but nowhere near meaningless.
Actually, the first problem is that the Democratic Party is just now beginning to show spine; but it will probably be too little, too late.
Of course it won’t end, not until Iraq is partioned into three countries; but otherwise, would you please care to rephrase the above in some marginally human language?!
That said president will pursue an anti-war agenda with even more zeal and arrogance than W has pursued his pro-war agenda. I don’t really think so, but I do hope so, because any conceivable alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
So a nonbinding resolution is showing spine now? Well, maybe compared to their past behaviors…
I don’t see Iraq splitting into three countries in the near future, at least officially. Maybe defacto, which could be argued it already happening…but why would that make us leave? I don’t see what could make us leave unless we get out asses seriously kicked.
As for a rephrase, what’s so hard to understand? The Dems want us to leave Iraq. The U.S. population doesn’t. The Dems understand this – hence, we get chickenshit like nonbinding resolutions. If they were smart they’d say something like “We fully support Bush’s role as Commander in Chief and his ability to guide the war in Iraq.” Then they’d become a rubber stamp, go with the surge, and then later, when the U.S. wises up, the blame will mostly be on the Republicans, or at least Bush. At this rate the Dems will magically end up absorbing the blame. “See! See! If only Bush could make actions without the Dems looking over his shoulder!”
Imagine the public outrage if the Dems took actions in an attempt to defund the war.
What could the Dems have done until now? It’s something the GOP members who have become tired of being browbeaten into rubber-stamping whatever Cheney wants can be induced to support. A fairly significant number of *them * have begun to show spine now. Which is, after all, the goal. The rest now have to explain why they’re refusing even to talk about what the majority of the country demands.
And you don’t see that happening yet?
What the hell? There’s a wide range of views among “the Dems”, to the first part. To the second, what the hell again? Most Americans Say U.S. Should Withdraw From Iraq, Poll Finds
I hope you’re using some of that Gen X irony stuff we geezers don’t get.
Or maybe you aren’t. That’s the situation NOW, chief.
What country are you in? Here’s a poll saying almost two thirds of the population wants the U.S. out of Iraq within a year. They support everything to stop the war other than defunding it, including putting a cap on new troops.
And except for the part where Republicans ask “why did you vote for it and change your mind,” it’d be perfect. I seem to remember that question caused John Kerry some problems. What you’re proposing is pretty clearly the exact opposite of what the country at large wants. The Democrats took over both houses because the public was unhappy with
That would carry more rhetorical weight if you were specific about what BS I just wrote was old.
One step at a time, baby, one step at a time.
Yeah, that’s so new, Condi was holding forth about how that was our new strategy back in 2005.
How did that work out in 2006?
How about what??
That’s a link to a registration screen at the Washington Times, a paper with zero credibility owned by Rev. Moon. Damned if I’m going to register with them to find out what’s behind the screen.
If you want it to be part of the discussion between you and me, you’ll have to quote.
Why would they feel it was necessary to hijack this thread to rehash Vietnam, rather than discuss that war in a separate one? That’s an awfully strange stance to attribute to the dead.
We’re going to find out in fairly short order.
As I said @15, Rep. Murtha, with Speaker Pelosi’s support, is readying a pile of conditions with respect to troop readiness and training to attach to any new Iraq funding bill. These conditions would have the practical effect of reducing the number of troops in Iraq.
No, it’s a different tactic; you, like our president, don’t know the difference. Our strategy in Iraq is to stay the course, and kill or capture all the insurgents. Clearing and holding areas is a military tactic to achieve that strategy. Until we formulate a different strategy, such as pursuing political and diplomatic solutions with the same resolve as our commitment to the military solution, the outcome will be the same; quagmire.
Don’t know why the link doesn’t work, it works for me. Maybe there’s a cookie involved. Regardless, here are some excerpts to the linked article. Evidently, it’s a UPI article they picked up. Sorry to disappoint you.
Rev. Moon Adds United Press International To His Media Empire
Here’s a couple other sources.
Stars And Stripes: Troops leaving Ramadi see fruits of their work
Marines.mil: Ramadi’s new mayor takes the lead on city’s reconstruction
You forgot the last part of the catchphrase – “Clear, hold, and build.” Like RTFirefly pointed out, that’s been a nice little saying since 2005. I’m pretty sure it even goes back to 2004. Besides, think about what the phrase itself actually means. If we only just started doing that then words fail me.
Fear Itself also had a good post about this.
No, unless I missed something huge recently. Checking CNN, I see situation normal: boatloads of dead Iraqis, a couple dead and maimed U.S. soldiers here and there.
That’s the point of a guerilla war, though. You can’t beat the conventional army. If you could, you’d just have an army and be done with it. The point is to nag and harass the occupiers and flee or go into hiding or assimilate into the local population when they come to fight you. They also kill anyone who buddies up with us.
In no way is this ‘getting our ass kicked.’ I mean, maybe you could say that about our goal of transforming Iraq into a democratic and free society, but that won’t make us leave. We’ll happily stay there as we bleed them. What they’d need to do to force us out in the short term would be something drastic, like cutting off the Kuwaiti supply lines, shooting down the ensuing support helicopters with RPGs, and breaching and overrunning the Green Zone. But it would take something like a military force to do that and if such a thing went into motion it would get destroyed. That, or it would work for a little while and then the calvarly would come and save the day. Or maybe it would work and we’d leave.
But it hasn’t happened yet, which is my point. We have to leave on our own accord if we wish to get out of there on the short term. Bush isn’t budging. Hence, all hope is on Congress and the Dems…sigh.
As for the polling data, I hope you guys are right. I really do. I hope I’m 100% wrong. But I’m not convinced. Like I said before, show me a poll that shows this and that, it doesn’t even matter. When push comes to shove we won’t leave. The American population isn’t demanding it…not yet anyway. Give it a couple more years. Besides, you can get a poll to support practically anything if you word it right. Just look at some of these figures
“Would you favor or oppose Congress cutting funding for the additional troops President Bush wants to send to Iraq?”
38% favor, 60% oppose
“Regardless of whether you think taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, would you say that the U.S. is very likely to succeed in Iraq, somewhat likely to succeed, not very likely to succeed, or not at all likely to succeed in Iraq?”
13% likely, 37% somewhat, 26% not very, 21% not at all
“Do you think Congress should or should not pass a symbolic or nonbinding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq?”
44% should, 45% should not, 11% unsure
This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
But hey, if you guys are right then we’ll put forward a timetable for withdrawal and be out of Iraq in oh, say, six months? I mean, 63% of the polled would support that (technically one year). Right? Wouldn’t that be great? Yet I can’t shake the feeling that it’s more likely for the Dems to just loft in the wind – neither supporting Bush or having the courage to say we need to get out ASAP.
I stand by my previous prediction of still being in Iraq in 2010.
Yes, I saw that. With regards to Iraq it’s quite the underhanded and sneaky way to go about things, which is necessary because otherwise it’d be out there and naked for all to see. But I really like the other parts – shutting down Guantanamo and the requirement for Bush needing Congressional approval for attacking Iran. It’s grand fantasy which we can all experience vicariously.
But I love Bush’s response. It gets so much mileage…will it ever not work?
Here’s what the not-affiliated-with-reverend-Moon Washington Post has to say about it:
I find the Democrats to be completely incoherent on Iraq. People on this board keep holding up civilian casualties as the moral benchmark of the war effort, but they’re eager to sign on to a measure which could push casualties into the millions. They claim to ‘support the troops’, but people like Murtha would rather underhandedly micro-manage the military and prevent the generals from doing their jobs properly rather than take a stand and simply cut off funding, so they can protect their miserable asses in case the surge actually works. They accuse the President of going into Iraq without a plan, but now they are agitating to pull out of Iraq without a plan. They told Bush his main fault was not listening to his generals, but now they are engaged in undermining the plan of the general they just voted to confirm. They blamed Bush for doctoring intelligence, but now when the intelligence community says things they don’t want to hear, they just put their fingers in their ears and go, “lalalalala”.
The Democrats have stupidly put themselves in a no-win situation. If the surge succeeds, the Republicans can now say that it succeeded despite the universal opposition of the Democrats. Politically, Democrats now NEED the U.S. to fail. And if it does fail, the Republicans can say that it would have worked had the Democrats not pulled the rug out from under the effort. And if, as I believe, failure in Iraq means a much more dangerous world, eventually the American people will make security their #1 issue again, and then Republicans can beat Democrats over the head with their current rhetoric. For example, Murtha claim ing that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, al-Qaida will have no need to be there and will just go home. Does ANYONE believe that?
The Post’s Editorial page has been largely indistinguishable from the Times for years now. I’m only surprised that they stopped before shouting to the world at large that Mr. Murtha has a tiny weiner.
The right is being hurt by this debate, so they’re getting nasty. What else is new?
The WaPo, unlike the Moonie Paper, acknowledges they don’t have a right to their own facts. But I find their opinions as incoherent as you find the Dems. I’ve started a thread about the "constitutional crisis’ claims pertaining to Murtha’s bill, and as I’ve said there, I can’t see anything unconstititional in Congress’ conditioning funding in any manner they want. Nor has anyone else. There’s no clash of powers; Congress has the power of the purse, period.
And if we stay, are we going to prevent that, or merely delay it a year or so?
Iraq’s gotten to its current state with us there, and on occasion with 160,000 troops in Iraq, more than we will have with the surge, and working from a baseline situation that hadn’t deteriorated nearly this far yet.
What we are doing isn’t working, and neither will the surge. If there was something we could do that would stop Iraqis from killing each other, I’d be all for it. But I can’t see such a thing, and I can’t see how staying will do more than slow down Iraq’s descent through the circles of hell - a conclusion that the NIE agrees with.
All we’re arguing about is when Iraqis will die, in exchange for whether Americans will die.
Wow. Apparently you think the Dems should cut funding off altogether, overnight, rather than attach conditions that will force a more gradual troop drawdown.
It’s the job of Congress to decide whether we’re upping the ante in this war, staying the course, or heading for the exit. Murtha’s conditions would put us on the road to the exit. The generals will figure out the best way to do that, just as they came up with a plan for the ‘surge’ that they were opposed to.
Besides, it’s ‘support the troops,’ not ‘support the generals.’ The generals’ lives aren’t at stake in Iraq - just their next star.
Let’s see: President throws egg against rock. Egg breaks. Dems don’t have plan for reassembling egg, but know there’s no longer a prayer that we can do it.
And that general was against Bush’s plan just seven and a half weeks ago. Gawd, what a crock of spin.
Seems you’re ignoring the parts of the NIE you don’t want to hear, either.
Yeah, and if I win the Powerball lottery…
You know, if there was any sort of reasonable chance that the U.S. might succeed, that would be one thing. But insanity consists of doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result this time. The Dems are Not Insane. The GOP is.
Fuck the politics, Sam - let’s do what’s right.
I don’t give a flip who gets to beat whom over the head for the next twenty years over this. And if you do, well, nuts to you.
Yes. AQ in Iraq is an inconsequential player. (Notice how big an effect the old boogeyman Zarqawi’s death had on everything? Me either.) They are a pipeline for young Arabs from other countries who want to do jihad against the Great Satan. Why would they keep on doing that just to do jihad against the Shi’ites? It just ain’t the same. Murtha has this exactly right.