Look, I’m not the brightest penny in the drawer, but even *I* knew that Bush had no reason to compromise in his Iraq stance. I said so right here, weeks ago. So if *I* was able to figure it out, certainly professional politicians should have been able to do likewise and been prepared to be as stubborn and intransigent as Bush. That the only thing they could do was *give* him a reason to compromise on the issue of deadlines through a show of strength and concerted spin of his veto to their advantage.
Instead, in a monumental collapse of will and a total ignoring of the nationwide “we’re sick of this war” mandate that gave them success in the election, the Dems folded and gave Bush everything he wanted. Continued funding with no strings attached, unless you count the nonbinding benchmarks which Bush can ignore. Of COURSE he’s going to ignore them. He’s ignored the will of the people and the Constitution; what makes anyone think he’s going to attend to nonbinding benchmarks. And they’ve basically thrown away any future possibility that they’ll be able to rein him in, because they’ve sent him a firm message: Hang tough and we’ll cave.
The time to make the point, to hang tough, to get it done, was now. Not three months from now or six months from now. All they’ve managed to do is send a message to Bush that he can continue to do exactly as he pleases, and a message to the American people that they’re incapable of standing up to the president and making it stick.
PAD
• 
I wish it would have been more, but isn’t a minimum wage increase also part of this deal?
It’s the silver lining in a thundercloud that is burning us to a crisp with repeated lightning strikes. I’m glad they got *something* done, but they still shouldn’t have caved.
They should have said to Bush:
“Fine, you don’t wanna sign our bill? Then you get NO money. None at all. Not a red cent. And every single hour of every day we’re going to have one of our number talking to the media about this. For every address you give about how we’re leaving the troops high and dry, we’ll have one of our number giving an address about how you still have plenty of money left to get them out of harm’s way, and that if you leave them there then it is YOU who are not supporting them!
“You don’t want to compromise? We won’t either. The American people are behind us on this. But even if they weren’t, we’d still refuse to give you the kind of bill you want. We’d still just cut off fudning. Because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s worth not getting re-elected.
“We’ll tell you something else, áššhølë. If you’re insane enough to leave the troops there even after the funding runs out, we will impeach your ášš and try to have you imprisoned, because that is sure as HÊLL a high crime!”
So, perhaps the Dems ARE taking the “long view” here.
Putting an end to U.S. involvement in this war is more important than winning elections. Besides, Republican credibility is already shot. The Dems had plenty of credibility…before this.
An appropriate political cartoon on this situation:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20070529/cp.74612e633a9d21d53c38bca15b653cdf
Well, the Dems won’t have Cindy Sheehan to kick around any more. As soon as she began to gore their oxen with the same pitard she hoisted the Republicans’ (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!), they dumped supporting her like a hot rock. So she says she’s caving in and quitting.
Quoting Micha:
“
as someone who grew up Jewish and was the only other person in my High School save one other person who was, I hit my head against the wall for three years until the school district finally recognized the Jewish High Holy days as excused absences.”
Is it right to expect the school system to adapt to the needs of such a small religious group? and if so, to what extent? I really don’t know. I’m asking seriously.”
Whether it is a small religious group, or a small minority group of different color. America is a country that is supposed to offer equality to all who live here. All I asked was that the two most important Holy Days in my religion be recognized as days that an absence would be charged against me. The school district recognized Xmas, Good Friday, and even Lent (By changing the menu to allow for Catholics who gave up such things as meat and other things,) We even only served fish on Friday with no meat as an option in deference and so as not to offend those who still held to that. This was a less litigious time, but I have no doubt in my mind that I could have called on the ACLU and they would have helped me. All I want was bit of equality for myself and not only the other person who attended the School but for other of my religion that might also attend later. (Guess who had some ex-hippies as teachers.)
Bobb (i.I.)
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM
[The Democrats] should have said to Bush:
“You don’t want to compromise? We won’t either. The American people are behind us on this…”
Doubtful. The U.S. electorate is indeed sick and tired of the war in Iraq, but most people would react negatively to an attempt to cut off funding for troops in the midst of fighting a war in a foreign land. It would be an especially tough sell for the Democrats given that many of them voted to authorize Bush to go to war in the first place.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM
“But even if they weren’t, we’d still refuse to give you the kind of bill you want. We’d still just cut off fudning. Because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s worth not getting re-elected.”
Politics is about the art of the possible. You think the Democrats’ resistance to this war has been inadequate? If the Democrats lose the Congress and the Republicans keep the presidency, there may not be any resistance on Capitol Hill.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM
“We’ll tell you something else, áššhølë. If you’re insane enough to leave the troops there even after the funding runs out, we will impeach your ášš and try to have you imprisoned, because that is sure as HÊLL a high crime!”
First of all, the impeachment is akin to indictment: it sets up a trial in the U.S. Senate. If the president is convicted by the U.S. Senate, he is removed from office. Criminal charges that could lead to imprisonment would be a separate matter.
Second, I see no high crime in the president’s stubborn position. Once given the authorization to go to war, the President has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to decide how to wage that war. If the Democrats were to adopt the intransigent position you advocate, I would foresee a Constitutional crisis, which is something we don’t need while we’re in the midst of a war.
Besides, all is not lost. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who had been one of Bush’s staunchest bullet-takers, has stated that by September or October Bush is either going to need to show some progress or come up with a “plan B.” That may sound like mild language, but remember — this is the leader of the House Republicans, a member of Bush’s own party. If he’s making noise like this in public, I suspect he and other Republicans are making even more noise in private.
If the Democrats dig in their heels now by attempting to deny funding for the war, they risk losing public support and strengthening Bush’s hand. By September or October, however, they may be joined by some Republicans in calling for withdrawal dates. That would be a much different situation. I agree that it would be preferable not to wait, but in this world you have to play the hand you’re dealt.
By September or October
Don’t you mean next January, then next September, then the next presidency, and maybe then the one after that?
The thought that some in Congress are going to change in September after they haven’t done so after 4 years of this disaster is laughable.
Let’s everyone do the world a huge favor, and unless you either went to high school in Baghdad, or otherwise were playing against people who were either shooting at you or planting IEDs around the field, please don’t (and I can’t stress this enough, especially in the wake of Memorial Day) and I do mean DON’T insult our troops and their sacrifices by pretending that any sports experience you may have had is even remotely fûçkìņg analagous to being in a real, honest-to-God war.
-Rex Hondo-
When he accused me in the way he did, all I was saying was that I had learned the term in High School almost 30 years ago. I was not referencing it as in anyway as school as war. I was not pretending, I was merely using the term in a different situation. Why does every one here jump on a word and not the context of the messages.
I guess it is easy to jump on a word than discuss things in a civil manner.
Not you Rex, the one who began typing insults, and what I consider some profanity at my message,and what I felt was me.
On the internet long ago I learned that when some accuses someone as Hitler, or starts attacking with profanity that it best to ignore that person and remove yourself from the argument with him/her.
Bobb (i.I.)
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 29, 2007 12:31 PM
Don’t you mean next January, then next September, then the next presidency, and maybe then the one after that?
No, I meant what I said.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 29, 2007 12:31 PM
The thought that some in Congress are going to change in September after they haven’t done so after 4 years of this disaster is laughable.
No, it’s not. The Republicans took a shellacking in the mid-term elections last year. They’re scared of losing further ground in Congress, and losing the presidency. That wasn’t the case four years ago.
Micha,
Sorry I forgot to add an answer to my reply to your post.
I am Jewish first, an American Second, A husband third, and so on. I feel that an insult to my religion, is an insult to thousand of years of struggles all the Jewish people who came before me suffered. So as an addition to what a said above I felt it was my duty. Though some kids in my school thought this was just my way of preserving my attendance since if you had less than three absences, and an A grade before finals you did not have to take them. When after the absence you had to go to the Dean and defend and explain why you were not there. So there was humiliation involved.
Bobb
(Sorry my AD/HD causes me to get confused when posting.)
Micha,
One the I forgot to add to my reply above.
When I did not attend on those days and returned to school I would be called into the Boys Deans’ office to explain my absence. I felt humiliated as he questioned me. All I thought about then was the long history of my people, and the lies, discrimination, and even torture that the past few thousand years have brought. I was an angry young man, and if it happened today, which it still does in small ways, I become an Angry Old Man.
Bobb (i.I.)
Hyperlink? I did not post any hyperlink? What are you talking about?
No, I tried to post a hyperlink to an article on the History Network website debunking the claims about Adams’ last words. (This is about the third time I’ve tried to include a hyperlink in a post and lost it to the spam filter–which I understand, but it’s still kind of frustrating.)
Anyway, the article points out that the only person known to have been at Adams’ deathbed said that his only intelligible words were “Thomas Jefferson,” and the “survives/yet lives/still lives” (“survives” appears to be the most common version of the quote, actually) seems to have been propagandistic mythmaking invented later.
They’re scared of losing further ground in Congress, and losing the presidency.
That’s not change, that’s simply pandering for political votes, a tactic that already cost them seats.
And it will only cost them more seats because of the simple fact that they’re continuing to string along the American people without accomplishing a god dámņ thing. The whole lot of them, Republican and Democrat alike, have guaranteed that.
They’ve signed off on the deaths of who knows how many American soldiers and Iraqis simply because they *think* it will keep them in office.
What they need is 10-ton sized wake up call upside the head.
Posted by: R.J. Carter at May 29, 2007 11:50 AM
Well, the Dems won’t have Cindy Sheehan to kick around any more. As soon as she began to gore their oxen with the same pitard she hoisted the Republicans’ (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!), they dumped supporting her like a hot rock. So she says she’s caving in and quitting.
You’ve got to give her credit for sticking to it as long as she did. She’s been trying to get something done for years and her life has suffered because of it. The Democrats finally take Congress, an achievement which she may very well have contributed to, and then they don’t do what they were voted in to do.
So, as frustrating as this is for people like me and Craig, how do you think she feels?
Anyway, I totally agree with her for criticizing the Democrats. They implied, and in some cases said flat out, that they were going to end this thing. So far, they have not kept their promise, and they deserve to be taken to task for that.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 29, 2007 12:28 PM
…most people would react negatively to an attempt to cut off funding for troops in the midst of fighting a war in a foreign land.
The thing is, Bill, that cutting off funding wouldn’t do a dámņ thing to hurt the troops at first. Bush would still have months to get them out of their before they began to run out of supplies and equipment.
The idea that cutting off the funding would mean saying to the troops, “Oh, we’re just stranding you here, hope you can catch a ride back home,” is absolutely ridiculous.
Unfortunately, that’s what far too many of the American people thought it meant. The Democrats could have told them that the troops would *not* be left stranded there, and they would *not* suffer the moment funding was cut off, and that Bush would have *plenty* of time to get them out of there with the money he still had left from the previous bill. They didn’t do that. If they had bothered to try, then maybe those people who say they’re opposed to the war but don’t want funding cut off would change their position on the funding.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 06:47 PM
The idea that cutting off the funding would mean saying to the troops, “Oh, we’re just stranding you here, hope you can catch a ride back home,” is absolutely ridiculous.
Any other time I would agree with you, but Bush makes things a whole other matter. Bush was already lining up plans on how to move funds around and stretch things out for a long time in case the Dems didn’t cave now. And I don’t really think that he ever gave any real thought to not getting what he wanted.
I have no doubt that, had the Dems not caved, we would have been months past the point of no return before Bush would have even begun giving any thoughts to pulling out. No death(s) would have overly bothered him because they would have been the fault of the Dems and their political games rather then anything to do with him.
Bush is, to be kind, a little mental. One thing that you always heard about the Bush boys before W ever came close to becoming Prez was that Jeb was his dad’s boy while W was more like his mom. Now, Barb can put on a nice public face, but she was also often known as a bit of an ice queen. She’s also the one who sees nothing wrong with giving donations to the needy only so long as the money goes to family/friend’s businesses and thinks that Katrina was good for all those poor people who were then much better off living in a temporary refuge area rather then their own homes back in NO.
No, I’m not sure Bush would see things the way others might. He would stick to his guns and blame every single death caused by a funding issue on the Dems’ forcing him to veto bill after bill after bill.
When he accused me in the way he did, all I was saying was that I had learned the term in High School almost 30 years ago. I was not referencing it as in anyway as school as war. I was not pretending, I was merely using the term in a different situation. Why does every one here jump on a word and not the context of the messages.
I guess it is easy to jump on a word than discuss things in a civil manner.
Not you Rex, the one who began typing insults, and what I consider some profanity at my message,and what I felt was me.
Could you please specify just what “insult” I tossed your way?
So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term “cut and run” in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.
In short, mouthing sports metaphors and platitudes while people continue to die is more insulting than any no-no word I may toss out.
-Rex Hondo-
And, frankly, it doesn’t matter one whit where you may have originally heard whatever phrase. If it is one of the Bushies’ main talking points, don’t act surprised when you find yourself standing to be counted with them by using said phrase in the exact same manner they do.
-Rex Hondo-
PAD, quick question…I know this is completely off topic, but this discussion seems to be winding down anyway, so:
How allegorical was your Farnaq Dahn/Trans Sabal storyline from IH meant to be to the what the situation was in Iraq at the time? It’s something we’ve been discussing on the CBR forums, and it seems like you had a frightening bit of intuition there regarding Dahns death. Farnaq’s own people killed him in the end (or so it seemed, regardless of the fact that we, the reader, knew it was Rick.)
Now, does that seem startlingly familiar to another real-life genocidal leaders’ capture/execution?
We were wondering what your thought on the matter would have been, and I thought why not go straight to the source, get the real junk…
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Could you please specify just what “insult” I tossed your way?
Rex, “the one who began typing insults” refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM
So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term “cut and run” in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.
No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM
In short, mouthing sports metaphors and platitudes while people continue to die is more insulting than any no-no word I may toss out.
If you can get past the terminology some proponents of staying in Iraq use, I believe they have a valid point. Regardless of our reasons for getting into this war (none of which were valid in my view), we have created a situation which demands our continued military involvement. If we leave, there is a very real risk that the Iraqi government we helped create could collapse in a heap of sectarian violence. That power vacuum could very likely be filled with a government at the very least sympathetic to Iran, given that there is a Shia majority in Iraq. Iran has been aching to become dominant in the Middle East and, unlike Iraq, is well on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran’s turning Iraq into an ally — or worse still, a puppet — may not hurt us in the short run, but in the long run could be a very real problem for us if Iran is able to extend its influence throughout the region. Unlike the B.S. “domino theory” used to justify our presence in Vietnam, this threat is real. In addition to our economic interests in the region, a juiced-up Iran could become a very real threat to our allies in that region, including, but not limited to Israel (I’m also counting Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, although our relationships with them have become quite strained). I suppose you could say we could sit on the sidelines and do nothing in that instance, but I doubt we’d let Israel “be pushed into the sea.”
(Micha, this isn’t an attempt to “drag Israel into this,” by the way. It’s just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation: we consider Israel to be a key ally and our government would be unlikely to sit by and do nothing if Israel’s existence were truly threatened. Moreover, I’d argue that we should intervene if it came to that.)
Unfortunately, right now our military involvement is at best a band-aid, staving off a disaster without making progress against the underlying causes of the insurgency. Bush has made some baby steps in the right direction by reaching out to Iran — dealing with them is an unpleasant necessity — but it’s not enough. We need to mount a diplomatic blitzkrieg in that region (pardon the mixed metaphor — using a German term for warfare to describe a diplomatic initiative may seem odd but it felt like the best way to get across my point that we need a huge and rapid diplomatic push), reaching out to any and all who can help us to positively influence things. Given how badly we’ve pìššëd øff the world, we’re going to have to make some heavy concessions and sacrifices to get other nations on board, but I believe it’s doable. Unfortunately, with W. at the helm, I have little hope that the doable will be done.
No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.
If that is the case, then it was still, at the very least, a tremendously poor choice of words, considering how loaded a phrase that is, particularly when discussing our military efforts in Iraq. It still tars anybody who doesn’t agree with the party line as a coward.
Perhaps I was a bit more brusque than I needed to be, but it’s been a rough week, I’m tired, and “Sound Bite Politics” really pìššëš me off. I suppose that’s why I don’t usually wade in too deep into political threads. It’s just not worth getting that worked up about…
-Rex Hondo-
A rather bleak thought just occurred to me. I’m currently working my way through A Song of Ice and Fire (about 2/3 through A Clash of Kings), and I just realized that just about anybody in the books up to this point would be a better ruler than Dubya.
-Rex Hondo-
While I disagree with many Republican platforms, I do admire their conviction. When they lost on banning gay marriage, or banning flag burning, they didn’t then support it with talk of compromise; they said they were against them, they were still against them, and they would continue fighting against them.
Indeed.
As repulsive as I find the Conservative position on social issues, I have to admire their conviction.
One thing that should be noted is that “Conservatives” seem to comprise groups with similar or at least very compatible goals.
The same can’t be said of “Liberals”. I see something Schizoid in many Liberal positions. You support feminism, but you also must support tolerance for Eastern religions that crush feminism. You’re for secular science, but you also support Green radicals that have very anti-science stances on matters like genetic modification. There are many disparate groups under the “Liberal” umbrella.
Is it possible that Liberals adopted so much of the post-Modernist, multiculturalist, relativistic point-of-view, that they don’t know how to fight fiercely for what they believe anymore?
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 29, 2007 08:14 PM
…Bush is, to be kind, a little mental…
Oh God. If he’s really that bad, then he has to be removed from office.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 30, 2007 06:03 AM
Rex, “the one who began typing insults” refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.
Yes, Bobb thinks that by not referring to me by name he will piss me off further. Honestly, I don’t even care anymore.
No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.
Here’s what he said, Bill: “IMHO Americans these days talk about saving others and intervening where people are being hurt but when some form of sacrifice is asked, a number of the folks yell ‘Cut & Run.'”
The implication is that I, and those like me, are yelling “cut & run” and we’re afraid of making sacrifices.
As Rex correctly observed, that phrase is loaded these days. Whenever somebody says “Oh, you just want to cut and run,” I won’t feel bad about giving them an earful…or an eyeful in this case.
If Bobb didn’t intend it as an insult then perhaps I should apologize to him. Nevertheless, if he says the same thing to somebody else and they react in a similar manner, he should not be surprised.
Doug A. posted,
Hyperlink? I did not post any hyperlink? What are you talking about?
No, I tried to post a hyperlink to an article on the History Network website debunking the claims about Adams’ last words. (This is about the third time I’ve tried to include a hyperlink in a post and lost it to the spam filter–which I understand, but it’s still kind of frustrating.)
Ah, I now I understand. Thanks you for clearing it up.
Also to the person I am no longer answering to, I will answer this. I am not trying to anger you, I just feel your posts, )other than the one I am referring to right now,) I just figure you are not worth my time. If that ticks you off I am sorry, that is just the truth and you may take from that what you may.
Bobb (i.I.)
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 30, 2007 10:41 AM
Here’s what he said, Bill…
Whatever. If you want to be angry, be angry. I don’t care anymore. I’ve lost my appetite for personality clashes.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 30, 2007 06:03 AM
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Could you please specify just what “insult” I tossed your way?
Rex, “the one who began typing insults” refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM
So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term “cut and run” in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.
No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.
Thank you Bill! I guess since I was born in Texas,
and much like the President speak English as a second language sometime the way I “speak” is a bit confusing. Someday there will be a way to hire an interpreter to help solve all the Texan/English problems. 😉
Bobb
Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 30, 2007 11:13 AM
Thank you Bill! I guess since I was born in Texas, and much like the President speak English as a second language sometime the way I “speak” is a bit confusing.
Don’t sweat it. My late grandfather mangled English about as badly as Popeye, but I understood him. And despite his interesting syntax, he was a very intelligent and wise man.
You know, Rob Brown’s not a bad guy, he’s just passionate. And in all fairness, “cut and run” sounds like a pejorative. When’s the last time you heard someone say, “Hey, great job with the ‘cut and run!'” Better to say that pulling out of Iraq may be premature — that way people can focus on your ideas and not on their anger.
I happen to agree that it may be too early to pull out of Iraq. But I don’t agree that those who believe otherwise are advocating that we “cut and run.” Only a fool refuses to flee from a building so consumed by flame that there is no hope of putting it out. The question is whether or not Iraq is a fire that we cannot put out.
Posted by Rene at May 30, 2007 07:35 AM
As repulsive as I find the Conservative position on social issues, I have to admire their conviction.
The problem with such conviction is that inflexible principles are as bad as being unprincipled. On the one hand, the Democrats who voted in favor of using force in Iraq when that was popular and turned against the war when it lost popularity are finding themselves in a pickle. I laughed my ášš off when Joe Biden, during an appearance on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” said he voted to prevent a war by authorizing Bush to, y’know, go to war. On the other hand, Bush’s stubborn belief in his principles is what got us stuck in the mess we’re in now.
It is important to have principles, as the Democrats should be (but probably aren’t) learning now. But it is important to also be aware of facts that contradict our beliefs, and to be open to changing our beliefs based on those facts, as Bush should be (but most certainly isn’t) learning.
I’ve avoided posting in this thread because I find myself severely underqualified to comment, but now, at last, I can offer something. Somewhere up above, Rene commented about the singleness of purpose of conservatives versus the apparent contradictions in liberals. Now, I know a lot of liberals who disagree on many things, so just by calling something “liberal” does not actually mean all those calling themselves liberal will subscribe to it. Same with conservatives. There are many gradations of both liberalism and conservatism, so many that the terms become almost generic, really indicative of nothing but the most basic of attitudes. Also, most of what you hear about from the media about liberal or conservative viewpoints tends to be pointing to the most radical of the viewpoints about any given subject, so I tend to be a little suspicious of the terms anyway.
Peter, Peter, Peter. It’s just politics. You keep making the mistake that it’s about right and wrong when instead, it’s just politics.
Of course the Democrats didn’t want to get tagged with “not supporting the troops” or “weak on defense” label. Yes, Iraq War 2 is unpopular with the majority of people, but so was Vietnam and the Dems got tagged with the soft on defense cliche and it stuck.
You’re making the mistake of assuming last year’s vote meant the voters would back Dems defunding the war. Voters have also declared they wanted the government to keep its hands off their Social Security. Voters will vote for all the services government offers but decry the taxes to pay for them. It’s not about morality or even logic. It’s just politics.
But it’s about life and death? What major national bill, especially national budget ISN’T about life and death? Defense? Immigration? Drugs? Crime? Health? Education? Poverty? All those and more have significant life and death consequences. It’s just politics.
— Ken from Chicago (in a Democratic-dominated state that’s massively in debt while the governor is offerring even MORE services while taking property and income taxes off the table–and suggesting “Gross Receipts Tax” on every single business transaction … but claims in no way would that affect the consumer and what they pay, even his fellow Democrats, in a trial vote, unanimously voted against it)
“Putting an end to U.S. involvement in this war is more important than winning elections.”
Of course. But I don’t believe the Dems have any idea how to get out of Iraq either–not without risking the country fall straight into Iran’s hands. I think the Dems want to keep this war in Republican hands, and rightly so. If we lose, or if it escalates, it’s the GOP who deserve the blame.
Posted by: dan at June 1, 2007 01:02 PM
If we lose, or if it escalates, it’s the GOP who deserve the blame.
Does it really matter who deserves the blame? The lives lost will remain lost, regardless. Have we become so fractured by partisan politics that we’ve forgotten we’re all citizens of the same nation?
Perhaps the problem is not in Washington, D.C. Perhaps we, the electorate, are the true problem. If we want better leaders, perhaps we need to be better citizens. It’s worth thinking about.
not without risking the country fall straight into Iran’s hands
Iraq fell into Iran’s hands as soon as the Sunnis were taken out of power.
“Have we become so fractured by partisan politics that we’ve forgotten we’re all citizens of the same nation?”
Yes. The religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing is totally disconnected from reality and the separation of church and state. They don’t believe in the constitution, they believe there is only one way, theirs and it shoul be forced on everyone.
As far as both Dems and Repubs, after they get elected, they change into someone/something else that has only their own agenda/welfare in mind, and screw the people they claim to “represent”.
The american political process is so pathetically broken I don’t see a real fix that’ll work as long as money is involved…
“Of course. But I don’t believe the Dems have any idea how to get out of Iraq either–not without risking the country fall straight into Iran’s hands. I think the Dems want to keep this war in Republican hands, and rightly so. If we lose, or if it escalates, it’s the GOP who deserve the blame.”
Just a thought…what makes anyone think that the Iraqi warlords leading the insurgency would be any more tolerant of Iranian oocupation than they are of US occupation? I think the Administration needs to stop trying to push this fantasy that a democracy is even possible in Iraq at the moment. The only thing that allows a democracy to be born, and survive that often violent act of creation…is to have a big enough group of people willing to die and kill to preserve that entity. Iraq doesn’t have that, and they aren’t likely to ever have that within this generation, because they are too innured to the idea of the military strongman/warlord calling the shots. There’s no sense of nationality among the various factions present there, so they have no reluctance to use force of arms against each other.
We broke it…we can’t fix it, unless we’re willing to become that warlord willing and capable of doing some truly terrible things. In the absence of that, we should get the heck out and let them sort it out for themselves, because that’s the only way things will ever attain a semblence of peace again.
Posted by Sean Scullion at May 30, 2007 11:07 PM
I’ve avoided posting in this thread because I find myself severely underqualified to comment, but now, at last, I can offer something. Somewhere up above, Rene commented about the singleness of purpose of conservatives versus the apparent contradictions in liberals. Now, I know a lot of liberals who disagree on many things, so just by calling something “liberal” does not actually mean all those calling themselves liberal will subscribe to it. Same with conservatives. There are many gradations of both liberalism and conservatism, so many that the terms become almost generic, really indicative of nothing but the most basic of attitudes. Also, most of what you hear about from the media about liberal or conservative viewpoints tends to be pointing to the most radical of the viewpoints about any given subject, so I tend to be a little suspicious of the terms anyway.
That’s because the major media fail to distinguish between FISCAL conservatives & SOCIAL conservatives and between FISCAL liberals and SOCIAL liberals:
–Fiscal conservatives: Lassez faire government, let the “invisible hand” decide, buyer beware, less restrictions on government, free trade, etc.
–Social conservatives: Want an activist government to establish a “morally correct” society, religious conservatives, for prayer in school, against gays in military, pro-prohibition, pro-restricting swearing and nudity in the media, etc.
–Fiscal liberals: For an “even playing field”; for equal opportunity in education, employment, financing, housing; want an “activist government” to establish a “politically correct” society, greater regulation of food safety, drug safety, consumer good safety; pro-restricting violence and ethnic epithets in the media; etc.
–Social liberals: For freedom of speech; for legalized drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, if it’s adults are giving informed consent and it harms no one else then said act should be okay, be it polygamy, polyandry, bëášŧìálìŧÿ; want smaller government out of their lives.
By no means exhaustive, but that gives you a gist of the FOUR major political movements in the country.
Thus Fiscal conservatives and social liberals often see eye to eye in shrinking government. Fiscal liberals and social conservatives sometimes are allied in restricting speech in the media.
As far as the major political parties, it becomes understanding where the Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservatives, there is some overlap because some are liberals socially and while some are liberals fiscally and some are conservatives socially and others are conservatives fiscally. Incidentally the social wings of the parties are their respective “bases”.
Theoretically the Libertarian party should dominate with its fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, in wanting less government in both areas, yet the party itself doesn’t seem to engender popular enough candidates, or the two major parties co-op the Lib’s issues.
— Ken from Chicago
Peter, how could YOU not expect today’s Democrats to send a loud and clear message of “hang tough and we’ll cave”?
It’s the same message they’ve been sending to all our foreign enemies since Vietnam.
Meanwhile, the republicans have been sending the message of: Attack us, and we’ll attack someone entirely unrelated to those who attacked us.
Posted by: Adam at June 3, 2007 10:41 PM
Peter, how could YOU not expect today’s Democrats to send a loud and clear message of “hang tough and we’ll cave”?
It’s the same message they’ve been sending to all our foreign enemies since Vietnam.
President Richard M. Nixon, a Republican, was the one who ended our involvement in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell to the communist-led North Vietnam not long thereafter.
President George H.W. Bush, also a Republican, declined to order an invasion and occupation of Iraq after expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait, despite calls from many to “finish the job.”
President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat, ordered a military strike against Iraq to punish them for a violation of the cease-fire agreement to which they agreed in order to end the first Gulf War. He also initiated an extremely successful military campaign that led to the toppling of a brutal tyrant in Bosnia. He also ordered an airstrike against a facility in Sudan because U.S. intelligence indicated it was being used for the production of a nerve agent known as VX.
Real life usually defies attempts to reduce it to simplistic slogans.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 1, 2007 01:42 PM
Iraq fell into Iran’s hands as soon as the Sunnis were taken out of power.
No, it did not, any more than Britain fell into our hands when Tony Blair became Prime Minister. The Shiite majority in Iraq may be inclined to see Iran as an ally, and even to accept their support, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’d sit still for an Iranian occupation. There is a difference between supporting a foreign government and having that foreign government as your puppet.
Iran supports Hizbollah, for instance, and wields a great deal of influence over them. If Hizbollah ever perceived its interestes to be at odds with Iran’s, however, I think that situation could change in a hurry. The U.S. provides a great deal of support to Israel, but as we’ve seen the Israeli government will often act in ways that run counter to our desires (as well they should — Israel is a sovereign nation).
The Iraqi government in place now was installed by the U.S. Iraq is NOT in Iran’s hands at the moment, and doesn’t necessarily have to be. It could, however, very easily become a pawn of Iran should we leave now. This is one of the reasons why I believe that it is too early to pull out of Iraq, despite my misgivings about the war and the awful toll it is taking upon our soldiers and our nation as a whole.
Posted by: Bladestar at June 1, 2007 01:59 PM
Yes. The religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing is totally disconnected from reality and the separation of church and state. They don’t believe in the constitution, they believe there is only one way, theirs and it shoul be forced on everyone.
If you believe that only “religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing” folks are capable of intolerance, you are as guilty of stereotypical thinking as they are. Extreme liberals are as bad as extreme conservatives in terms of trampling on constitutional freedoms, and in fact the two groups are often in alignment when it comes to supporting censorship.
Posted by: Bladestar at June 1, 2007 01:59 PM
As far as both Dems and Repubs, after they get elected, they change into someone/something else that has only their own agenda/welfare in mind, and screw the people they claim to “represent”.
The american political process is so pathetically broken I don’t see a real fix that’ll work as long as money is involved…
That sounds like the words of someone who has given up. If so, don’t fool yourself into thinking that by giving up you become an innocent bystander. When you throw in the towel, you become part of the problem. One of the reasons why political parties are so easily dominated by special interest groups is because those groups get together, raise money, and make noise; whereas the majority of us are too apathetic to take action for that which we believe.
The majority of us don’t have the money or the time (we’re too busy working our áššëš of to keep what we fûçkìņg have that the government, oil companies, and corporations are trying to take away) to have any effect.
ANd when we DO participate and VOTE like we did when we put the Dems in comtrol of congress, they turn around and piss all over us and just do what the old guard wants anyway, so fûçk you Bill.
What the hëll can any of us do? We don’t have the billions needed to buy the politicians…
Nothing you can do when you have no actual power…
Who will invade America and free us from the religion rightwing and the spineless Dems?
And how could Bush & Co. not see this coming?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19028561/
Iran was the appropriate target not Iraq! Most Americans don’t want defeat either. What I and others I speak with is to ruthlessly crush our enemies and put an end to this. If Bush would stop running this war as a social service program and return to ending states that sponsor radical Islam bent on converting the world to it’s whim, I’m confident his approval numbers would increase and the country would rally behind him and the war, but he won’t. George Bush and most in the Republican Party are philosophically bankrupt as are the Democrats. The difference is they’ve turned to religion to justify their reasoning and Dem’s are just plain Nihilists, which makes the Conservatives more dangerous to America than the Democrats. It’s much harder to get someone to abandon their religion than it is to turn a cynic.
Rex Hondo makes some excellent points. Other than mentioning the ineptitude of the surgeon he was able to sum up the situation very objectively. Rex should be a reporter. His post along with others show better examples of reporting than we get from CNN and Fox News. Regarding PAD’s original post, He’s right. The Dem’s have completely jumped the shark and run away from their promise of “change”. They are empowering this war and not resolving it. Personally I agree we need to bring our troops home. I know this is surprising coming from someone who voted for Bush and still support him. However this is a war that is not being supported by the people we are trying to help. They want a regime that tells them what to do and controls them. A regime that kills their families and allow honor killings and no vote. I say leave and let them kill each other. Just don’t put a date on it. I don’t want to let the insurgents know when our soldiers will be facing the other way returning home. God Bless our troops, they deserve to be blessed and honored for their sacrifice.