What do Republicans have to do with the media? Since when are they distancing themselves from Bush over the war where it counts? Outside of Ron Paul, what GOP Presidential candidate has repudiated Bush’s aims?
Are you saying in such a situation (impeachment for holding the army hostage) the broadcast media wouldn’t defend Bush to the hilt and attempt to paint our hypothetical anti-war Democrats as traitors and weak kneed terrorist lovers? Are you saying the likes of McConnell, Kristol, Krauthammer, and Cheney wouldn’t make the rounds and be given the red carpet entrance? I guess it’s possible, but it seems unlikely since, for the most part, they continue to carry his water on the war to this very day, parroting the same bizarre talking points year after year while simultaneously spreading the propaganda for a potential new war in Iran. And they’ll do the same for the next war monger, whether there’s an R or a D next to her name.
Back to the OP, I find it hard to believe that Congress is this powerless to stop a seemingly unpopular war. I break it down into a few reasons:
Pelosi wants the war to continue for more anti-Republican rhetoric until election day over a year from now (hypocrite)
Pelosi is unwilling to play chicken with the funding assuming that no President would strand soldiers over there without food or bullets.
Pelosi is unwilling to send a bill to the floor saying “This war ends in thirty days.” and then shut down Congress to any Republican-backed bills if she does not get the veto overturned.
I just find it to be a bunch of BS that she is so adament that the war should end yet her response is “But he vetoed our request for timelines.” She’s not THAT passive.
Excellent catch, Ravenman. But I’m sure the post it was as innocent as it was misleading. Absolutely sure of it. Dio would never intentionally mis—uh, never mind.
The second part is true, as far as the nomination is concerned. The first part not so much. Two questions:
Which Dem candidate would you consider the most ant-war, and the least anti-war? I’d say Kucinich and Clinton, prespectively. And you?
By what measure, specifically, is she anti-war? She, along with Obama and the Breck Girl, has said that if she were to be elected that she would still have troops in Iraq at the end of her first term. So, given that everyone—Rep and Dem—is in favor of a draw down of troops to some degree (and you consider Reps in power to0 be pro-war), how quickly must one advocate puling troops out to be classified as anti-war? Or do you use some other metric?
One point made by someone on the Sunday talk shows was that even if one wanted to withdraw the troops immediately, "immediatley would take about 8 months. Just pure logistics. And that requires money, too. For the actual removal and to keep them alive until they are removed. She’s in an impossible position as far as “ending the war”.
Who cares? You are kind of missing the point here. Fine, they swept away the Republican’s…how ever you want to parse it. Did they do so on what you perceive as an ‘anti-war’ platform…or based on discontent with Republican’s? That’s the key question I was answering. Not some hair splitting about how badly the Republican’s got their collective asses kicked…or the definition of ‘swept’ wrt politics.
I don’t see the relevance to be honest. But OK…the Democrats are in ascendancy atm. Is it your contention they are doing so on an anti-war agenda? I’m not seeing it. If that’s not your point…well, what’s your point?
Lordy are you dudes all so politically naive as this? Look GWB (or his handlers) are very astude poltically. GWB will time this so that the troops start coming home at the end of his Presidency, so the he (and the GOP) get the credit, while the blame for Iraq falling apart into a Lebanon-like situation will fall upon the Dem’s. :rolleyes:
Well, if that were his gambit, he might as well submit to the wimpy liberals, and start the campaign to blame them for losing the war that he was just about to win. If its simply a matter of dodging the blame, then continuing the war is a risk. After all, something might go wrong.
You misunderestimated his delusion. The Leader does not expect to hand his successor a toxic turd, he expects to bask in the adulation of a grateful nation when he is proven to be right, all along. Which he expects any day now, because there are positive signs of progress. He expects to win. He expects victory.
IIRC, it is both, and I don’t know how one would assign votes to the anti-war and anti-Republican (or anti-child molesting) buckets. But there was certainly strong antiwar sentiment, if not 70%, and considering how well the Republicans did on defense and security in the past, it is reasonable to think that repudiation at the polls is also a repudiation of their performance in this area.
The main thing is that this represents a prediction by those with the money that the Republicans are going down. Again, anti-war must be some of it, but it is clearly not a repudiation of the Democratic Congress. Plus, I just like to share good news.
