Could, if we get 30,000 more troops sent over then repeat Beirut barracks bombing style fuckup in Green zone.
Maybe. A couple three months ago, said it couldn’t happen, but I’m upgrading from impossible to improbable. I’ve got no real metrics for this, but I have the sense of a quantum change in public mood that can be captured in a word: impatience.
We of the Loyal Opposition have, of neccesity, developed a hunkering patience that borders on defeatism, Eyore is the Dem donkey. We are used to waiting, entirely accustomed to being blocked at the door, bad shit happens in the instant, good things take forever. Not us so much as those of us who have been dragged over the cactus to the truth, grudgingly, after a thousand rear-guard actions. They were duped, and they know it, and they are deep-dish pissed off.
Not us who were always against this catastrophe, but those recently converted from error. They are impatient, they chafe with the memory of being so totally wrong, they want it over and forgotten, that they may recover their faith in their own judgement. These are the people who make up the continuing drop in GW’s approval: some of us never approved, so all of the others must have changed their minds, must have believed differently at some point.
I think this impatience and rancor changes the equation. (Well, duh, Sherlock…) I think it makes the impossible merely unlikely. Perhaps more to the point, it makes the threat of impeachment (or seppuku, the Decider should have a choice…) more plausible, more of an implicit pressure to change.
As the old punch line goes, First, you have to get their attention.
Hmm. I guess I was wrong.
So the question is, would the Democratic Congress dare to not fund troops that Bush sends over there? Or, if they beat him to the punch, will he try and blame them for “the escalating violence” and having hamstrung him from doing something about it?
But impeachment? It’s too late for that.
Republican support for war is under 50% by last poll. If things continue to unravel, there’ll come a point where GOP congressmen have to act in a bipartisan quashing of the president, if only to save their party from destruction at the ballot box.
Just today the administration preemptively rejected negotiations with Iran and Syria, and took what looks to be the first steps in a ‘surge’ strategy, without Bush giving us his little speech, or AFAICT consulting congress. This has got to be pissing off a lot of GOP congresscritters who do want to be re-elected come 2008.
I don’t see this as a possibility. That’s an easy political play for 08 for the Dems, though. Those who dare to charge flip-flopping can easily be ground into a small patch of slime on the floor.
This quote by Liberal was typical of the pro-war argument made at the time. How can one reason with such obtuse thinking?
Originally quoted by Liberal:
Unfortunately the only thing that has turned public opinion has been the death of US troops. Not the torture and death of innocents, not the lies, not the broken faith and poor predictions.
Well, at least the invasion has been a mirror to the US, showing it what it is. The character of its military and civil poplulation is plain to see. That’s a mission of sorts.
Like most conservatives, the supremacy of evidence-based reasoning drove him away from the board.
in rereading that thread, I was much nicer than I should have been. fuckwits.
I’ve posted part of this quotation from Bush before, but probably not all of it. It’s a real jewel. It from the first Presidential debate between Bush and Gore, October 3, 2000:
(underscoring added for emphasis)
During the next presidential debates, perhaps we should discuss whether or not what was said makes logical sense.
Is our system so completely bogged down that we have to tolerate two more years of a mad man? Can’t Congress and SCOTUS do something? Who will stand up to him?
One rumor on MSNBC has it that Bush is floating the idea of additional troops knowing that the Joint Chiefs will not approve of the idea and that Congress will not support it. That way he will have the “out” of being able to say, “If you had only done it my way, we would have secured victory…”
Well, hey, you don’t seriously expect him ever to admit he was wrong, do you? God forbid! No failure can be laid at his door. He doesn’t make mistakes and that’s that.
You know I read somewhere that the only creature completly incapable of learning from experience was the fly. Apparently there’s another one.
You have a rosy red ass? Are you a macaque?
My favorite from that thread was
How would you like it if Hitler killed you?
Maybe Assholedave should read the following article:
Britain never thought Saddam was threat - diplomat
Bolding mine for the benefit of scum like Dave.
I’m sure nothing can knock democrat-dave off his perch of happiness now that the Republicans have lost the house and Senate. Nosiree, so I fail to see why anybody even tries.
John, this is reason #1 why I like you so much, even though we butt heads constantly. You’re never afraid to use those three little words.
Pelosi has stated in no uncertain terms that the Dems will not cut funding
Yeah, unfortunately I tend to agree. And I don’t believe it would be a good move politically, not if we want to keep congress for more than two years.
Three? Damn, no wonder I failed math.
Yup. Those three words that you never hear men say: “I was wrong.” Or anyone anymore, for that matter. It’s as if we’ve become allergic to saying it; most people will do anything to avoid it. Admitting “I was wrong” is on a par with admitting you shot your neighbor’s wife and had sex with his dog.