First, I said “politically”-- ie, from a political standpoint. But even your interprattion is wrong.
And that was just what I could pull off the front page of Yahoo News. If you don’t think Republicans in Congress want this to go away, you haven’t been paying attention.
For that matter, I’m more inclined to think the Dems are being more honest about their opposition to this. Like I said, they gain politically as long as the deal is still in play, so it would behoove them to keep it alive, if even just on life support.
The ambassador says that we must stay until the Iraqis get together on a truly national government that doesn’t favor any particular faction. Is such a government possible at all? Just how long should we give them to form such a government? In other words, what should be our determinants as to when our task there is done?
I think that we should have started planning for a comehellorhighwater withdrawal a couple of months ago. I wanted to plan for a withdrawal late this year. That might not be possible, or even a good idea, so now what?
Are you sure? I didn’t read it that way. The operative word I saw was “national unity government” which to me means: something everyone can live with even if they don’t get everything they want. Was there some quote you had in mind other than “national unity”?
I don’t think Bush is willing to consider the possibility that it won’t happen, so he has a very long time window. From my perspective, I say we give 'em a timeline and then get the hell outta there when the time’s up.
Me, too. What now? I’m willing to give them until the end of the year, but after that we start bringing our guys and gals home. A phased withdrawl that gives them a reasonable amount of time get their shiite together (pardon the pun), but a clear timetable that tells them its up to them.
Since things are going so well in Iraq, I’m surprised Bush hasn’t just declared victory and brought the troops home. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other unusually Conservative media sources could cooperate in coverage and a good portion of citizens would never know better. Good strategy for November.
Absolutely. I don’t see how you can call anything a ‘bombing’ unless a fusion reaction is involved. For ‘car bomb’ read ‘automobile malfunction’ and for ‘suicide bomb’ read ‘personal hygeine issues.’
It appears Bush has reiterated his veto threat. I don’t want to hijack this thread any further. I suppose I could list examples of Bush changing his mind about other things, but since I don’t think he’ll change his mind about Iraq, I’ll refrain.
…and if you think that introducing bills (it’s not just the R-CA doing so) is a method of demonstrating that you want it to go away, you haven’t been paying attention.
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. What Lewis is doing is introducing a rider to a defense authorization bill, thus forcing Bush to kill the DPW deal. Did you bother reading the cite I gave:
Note the plural-- Republicans. Note the effect-- the DPW deal “goes away”. Note that at least one other Republican was introducing seperate legislation to kill the deal.
You claimed that only one Republican in Congress was working to kill the deal. That claim has been shown to be false. You are wrong. Period.
As for Schumer’s 45-day review request, BFD. The administration has already agree to that.
I gave an example of A (single, unitary, one) Republican who was opposed. Who was working to oppose. The fact that I gave an example of A (single, unitary, one) Republican, after saying that there are dozens, does not in fact mean that I don’t know the difference between “dozens” and “one”. I was giving an example of a specific one in response to your ‘Republicans (as a group) want this to go away’.
Of course, it could all be a misunderstanding.
When you said Republicans wanted it to go away, I took it to mean “Republicans want those evil Democrats to stop making a stink about the DPW deal”.
However, it appears that you may have meant “Republicans want tho whole damned DPW deal to go away because it’s demonstrating what a bunch of hypocrites they are*”.
-Joe
*Or “Republicans want the whole damned DPW deal to go away because it’s so potentially politically damaging” if you prefer
