Congress unwilling to heed will of people
Can a member of Congress be against the war on Iraq and vote to fund it? I don’t think so, but this is exactly what the Democrats in Congress are claiming. The Democrats want to be perceived as “against the war,” but they won’t do the one thing that will actually stop the war: end the funding.
The Democrat-sponsored timetables for withdrawal in the House and the Senate versions of the Iraq war $100 billion-plus supplemental budget would have continued the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The House version would have left a total of 150,000-170,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq after the so-called “withdrawal date” of August 2008. The Senate’s withdrawal date of March 2008 was totally nonbinding on the president and therefore worthless, given President Bush’s complete disregard for Congress and the rule of law.
Whatever the ultimate compromise between the two houses, it’s clear that it won’t express the will of the people to bring the troops home.
Carolyn Bninski, Boulder
I guess you are starting to figure out what the rest of the world has known for years. They will tell you what you want to hear and do what they want. Always have and always will.
and thats all I have to say on that
Congress will go a different direction, allowing some form of funding to get to the President in a format he will sign. However, they will shift the battle to end the war to a different front of taking away his authorization to wage war.
"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq." -Washington Post
Actually, this does have more of a chance of success since it will not require passage by the President. In fact if he wishes to continue the occupation of Iraq he will be forced to come to Congress on a bended knee to state his case. He best bring more then the original here-say, cherry picking, "facts" he used in the original war powers act. This also gives an out to Congress who does not want to be anti-troop but wish to be anti-war.
Posted by Brad on May 4, 2007 06:10 AM"Whatever the ultimate compromise between the two houses, it’s clear that it won’t express the will of the people to bring the troops home." - Carolyn
Our country is not run by referendum Carolyn. We are a representative democratic republic that ELECTS our leaders for set terms to lead us and make policy. You vote for a PERSON at the ballot box - not an issue, at least at the national level. Any given candidate may not like the Iraq War when they were running for office, but lo and behold, when they land in Wash DC they all find out it is about compromise. People like you who are so opposed to the Iraq War and Pres Bush seem NOT to grasp this very important fact of our republic. You never get what you want 100%. Never. Deals are made and power is brokered. It ain't perfect, but it is the best thing going that I have seen.
Posted by Michael on May 4, 2007 06:11 AMMichael,
"Our country is not run by referendum Carolyn. We are a representative democratic republic that ELECTS our leaders for set terms to lead us and make policy."
Correct, but the popular opinion of the people translates into political power and if those representatives don't carry out the will of their constituents they will be defeated. That's what happened in 2006 and it will happen again in 2008 unless the Republican party "cuts and runs" from the electoral anchor that is Bush.
"You never get what you want 100%. Never. Deals are made and power is brokered. It ain't perfect, but it is the best thing going that I have seen."
This is why Bush is such a horrible leader. He has said again and again that he WILL NOT COMPROMISE. He is a rogue President that has and will continue to stand in opposition to the rule of law until he is removed from office.
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 06:52 AMMichael: "You vote for a PERSON at the ballot box - not an issue"
An interesting observation. That is indeed what people do since the person they elect is not bound to vote as his supporters want him to, or thought he would, or as he said he would. But I venture that most voters have the impression that they are indeed voting on the issues.
OK, this thread is not really the place for this comment but the forum has a rich tradition of that not mattering. What is strange when we talk of a democracy, even the republic form, is the make up of the Senate. Two senators from each state, regardless of how many people live in the state. So, in the senate, a "Wyomingian", which has a population of a half million, has seventy as much power as a Californian, which has a population of thirty-six million. That don't seem right (unless, of course, you accept the Republican view that it takes seventy Californians to have the brain power of one "Wyomingian").
Posted by Truth on May 4, 2007 07:33 AM"Two senators from each state, regardless of how many people live in the state." Truth
Very astute observation. The 2 senators from each state represent the STATE as a member of the republic. Each state has 2 senators therefore each state wields the same power and infuence in the Senate to further the interests of that state. The House is where the people are represented by population density. This was done for a very deliberate and measured reason. The Founding Fathers got this one very correct. California may carry a lot of weight and influence in the House because of their population density - but in the Senate, Wyoming carries as much weight as California does. That is how it was designed and that is how it works best - IMO.
Posted by Michael on May 4, 2007 07:51 AMThe dems. want us to lose the war on terror so they can blame it on Bush.They don't care that they are using our troops for human sacrifice.The dems. only serve themselves.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 08:45 AMThe dems. want us to lose the war on terror so they can blame it on Bush.They don't care that they are using our troops for human sacrifice.The dems. only serve themselves.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 08:45 AMI still don't understand how Liberal's get away with a flat statement about the "will of the people". Doesn't that assume a majority of the people "polled" in the disapproval count are dissatisfied with the President's performance for the exact same reason? I just don't think that's necessarily the case. I know the Liberals want to give up the war, come home, and expect the bad guys to leave us alone. But, I think that many Conservatives are unhappy with the President because he doesn't just get the job done. We want some hard core force used without worrying so much about the political fallout, both domestic and world-wide. His current troop surge tactic is a weak attempt at this solution. Anyway, you can't logically include all of us in the Liberal version of the "will of the people", ie, cut and run. And yet, that's what is happening, according to the media.
Posted by Dinty on May 4, 2007 08:52 AMWhy don't you want our troops to fight terrorists keith? ditty this one is for you too. The only people suggesting "cut and run" are the bush supporters who think for some reason they can speak for other people with any kind of intelligence. I don't want to cut and run, I would much rather have our troops fight a real enemy.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 09:13 AMAs a certified Liberal (insert insults here) I do not want to lose the war, not the one in Iraq or the war on terror. The part we hoped to win is over. Sadam is gone and Iraq is not a threat to us anymore, if they ever were.
The last few days our troops killed were, in an awful sense, collateral damage where the real targets of one group of Iraqs` was another group of Iraqs`.
I am so bloody sick and tired of smarmy conservatives speaking for Liberals. If you had the intelligence to do that ,you would be with us, not actually speak for us but understand that this is not a "winable war "and help get our people home.
Lliberals are thoughtful people who hope every day for a decent resolution. Some are probably as nutty as conservatives, but not all of us.
Go through any of these forums and look at the conserv-speak thrown out instead of ideas.
We are in a grown-up mess here with consequences that will hurt this country for years and all some of you pro-bushes can do is make cute anti-liberal comments.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 09:20 AM9:13,Al Qaeda not a real enemy.No wonder you don't use your name,I be embarrass too.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 09:23 AMWho's emarrassed? Is it really that important to you that I use a name? Al Queda is not a real enemy? So I guess it was my imagination when I saw the twin towers fall and videos of bin laden?
Posted by I have a name now because keith cried about it on May 4, 2007 09:28 AMThis is what I get when I raise a simple legitimate question with Liberals. You all just start running off on your tangential political rants without a responsive answer. Let me try it one more time. How can the Liberals logically assume all who disapprove of the President's management of the war (ie, his alleged 70% dissaproval number) necessarily agree with their end game of "cut and run", "quit and come home", or whatever other media sound bite you choose to use. Because, unless you include the Conservatives who disapprove of his performance, you cannot claim to represent the "will of the people". And this particular goup of Conservatives will not subscribe to your withdrawal timetable or Harry Reids declaration of defeat.
Posted by Dinty on May 4, 2007 09:57 AM"The part we hoped to win is over. Sadam is gone and Iraq is not a threat to us anymore, if they ever were." - Sharon B.
True enough Sharon. We deposed Saddam and he was hung. We killed his sons - Uday and Qusay, the heirs apparent. We also created a power vacuum and as is the case whenever a tyrant is brought down, old hatreds and tribalism have risen to the surface. Our planning either did not factor this in well enough, or we are simply ill prepared to deal with it. But regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, this would have happened in either case. We are trying (failing/succeeding??) to leave a somewhat cohesive country and govt in place before we exit. If we do not, the vacuum will be filled by al Qaida, the Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas, what is left of the Baathists, and every other group looking for a base of operations to export their violence and killing from. Can we do it? I don't know. Should we try? I think so, or be ready to go back in 2 or 5 years and do it again. My opinion.
Posted by Michael on May 4, 2007 10:02 AMMichael, you have written the most succint, logical, objective summary of the situation in Iraq that I have read in recent times. You have my vote for whatever office you want.
Posted by Dinty on May 4, 2007 10:12 AMWhat is there for us to win?
Posted by just sayin' on May 4, 2007 10:16 AM
Dinty says this:
"I still don't understand how Liberal's get away with a flat statement about the "will of the people". "
Then later in the same paragraph makes this "flat statement":
"I know the Liberals want to give up the war, come home, and expect the bad guys to leave us alone."
Dinty, at least you could have waited until the next paragraph before proving yourself a total hypocrite.
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 10:21 AM
Glad to see a word I used: "rogue," in previous subject-matter which describes Texas "Shrub" appointed by the Supremes. Let us enter a secular prayer the bush is gored.
I heard what must be erroneous: Bush ordered the military to attack Iran and the military refused.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com on May 4, 2007 10:35 AMWe have republic because the founding fathers also did not trust the will of the people. We are too uninformed. And we have checks and balances to prevent hasty or rash decisions. If dems have the political will, and can bring the troops home now under the permitted procedures of our system, they should. They should not play political games with the troops.
Posted by Bob on May 4, 2007 10:35 AMDitty, Let me say this again for you because you're just not getting it.
The only people who bring up this "cut and run" strategy are the people who think they can speak for the people on the other side of the aisle.
There is not one single person in DC that is in favor of cutting and running. The fact that you alone keep bringing this up, is because you deep down, think it's a viable strategy. Nobody has said "Cut and run is our best strategy". You simply think they do because you ran out of options long ago. When you get out of your high school basketball coach mentality of "just win baby", you will see that this is not a war we can win, this isn't even a war we can fight against. So the real question addressed to you and all others who think we are doing the right thing is: What needs to happen in order for you to declare victory in Iraq?
I respect you Michael because unlike some of your other fans, you actually want this war to end. The problem is we can't win a war when it's not our land being defended or attacked. We can't win when the only reason to be there is money. Oil money to precise. So we stay and continue to get slaughtered, or we go back in 5 years and "finish". I have heard from a couple people, not on this thread that "we are there now" and that we must see it through. The best analogy for that is taking your wife to a strip club, saying well we're here now, and expecting her not to get mad at you. Is it so difficult and insulting to you to admit you made a mistake? Can you really take responsibility for what you get yourself into?
Posted by I have a name now because keith cried about it on May 4, 2007 10:41 AMIf we had checks and balances, why such the rush to invade Iraq? The dems want accountability. To be able to say, ok you did not do what you said you were going to do, so you're done. The only one playing political games with the troops is the president. He doesn't want to be held accountable for what he does, that's why he can't commit to anything. It's not the dems fault we are in this mess, so why should it be up to them to stop it?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 10:47 AMVictory in Iraq, for me, is when the UN or an international coalition agrees to take responsibility and support the Iraqi government.
Posted by Bob on May 4, 2007 10:53 AMBush wants to stay, for whatever reason. Dems want to go, for whatever reason. Since we are there now, it's the dems who have to take the political initiative to make the change. If they can do it without Bush, they should.
Posted by Bob on May 4, 2007 10:57 AMMichael makes a very valid point.
History has given us the lesson of Hitler, of Stalin, of Pol Pot, and Hirohito of Japan. All of these leaders "filled the vacuum." And we know what happened after that. World War
I know that we ALL want our troops home safely, that the reconstruction of Iraq is a mess, and probably will only get worse, before it gets better (I am guessing at that, since I have no intelligence data to support my opinion). But let's look at history to really determine what we should have expected.
The US STILL has military bases in Germany and Japan, 52 years after the end of World War II. We still have bases in Korea (thank God) 40+ years after the end of that conflict. As a historian, the first 18 years in Germany were terrible as the wall was built, the country divided, the threat of conflict was constant throughout the Cold War. And the US military was there to assure (as was the Soviet Military) that there would not be ANOTHER powerful Germany that would declare world war for a third time in a century. It was the ignorance of the world to the vacuum after World War I that allowed Hitler to take power.
My guess (again guess only, but using history as my guide), is that the same thing would occur in Iraq, as the people would look to a powerful leader (and with the religious overtones of Sunni vs. Shia, one that would either seek revenge on the Sunni for Saddam's rule, or worst case scenario, would involve Iran to help support the Shia majority.
My problem is truly the "will of the uninformed." As a test, I would like to see how many of those that want an "end to this illegal war" could actually point out where Iraq is on a map. I may start listening to them a little more. Until then, I will let history guide my opinion on this, and hope that someone, someday, actually comes up with a real plan.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 10:59 AMIraq is just east of Saudi Arabia and Iran, north of Afganistan and the Persian gulf. If I had a map I could use on this site, I would gladly point it out to you.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 11:07 AMDinty asked
"How can the Liberals logically assume all who disapprove of the President's management of the war (ie, his alleged 70% dissaproval number) necessarily agree with their end game of "cut and run", "quit and come home", or whatever other media sound bite you choose to use."
The problem with your question is twofold: a) Your premise is faulty when you claim that the "end game" of liberals is to "cut and run" and "quit and come home". Those "sound bites" are the kind language games Republicans like to play so they can slay their straw men. b) Your question is what you call "loaded" or "leading". It's the same type of language used in dishonest push polls and other instruments of mass-deception employed with abandon by the Republican noise machine.
In other words, nobody will answer your question because it's badly constructed.
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 11:07 AMDamn this HTML editor...
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 11:10 AM9:28 What is ammarrassed? []
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 11:10 AM11:07
You seem to be well informed. What is your take on this mess, and what would your solution be? And please don't answer, "I would have never gone to war," as we are there now and a solution for what is happening now is needed.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 11:16 AMI don't know, what is ammarrassed? Since you were the only one to say it I assume that you would know what it means. I should've known better than to actually try to get you to make a point. My typos are far too important to overlook and actually read the posts. Al Queda is a terrorist organization that attacked the US in 2001. Did I confuse you with another Al Queadea? But since you were obviously born after that, I wouldn't expect you to know that. And what about my post that was jibberish, because you said it is? Did it not make sense to you? I clearly used too much logic for you. And where are you getting this strolling on capitol hill in a red dress? Is this how you pass the time? By just going off on a random tangent when your confronted with something that doesn't agree with you? Oh of course it is, that's how you explain being in Iraq.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 11:21 AMAhh, just ignore []
Posted by Miscreant 242 on May 4, 2007 11:25 AMCharles B - If the dem plan isn't to quit and come home, what is their plan?
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 11:27 AMMy solution? I guess the first thing I would do is sit everybody down and discuss what needs to be done and the best way to go about it. See unlike the president I know I don't have all the answers, and I know that nobody else has all the answers either. I would listen to all sides and break down the pros and cons of doing everything. But you're right, I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, but I, like many others are tired of the "well we're here now so now what do we do?" Nobody in the house wanted to hear other peoples opinion on what to do about Iraq, but now that it's shown to be a complete failure, now they want to hear others opinions.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 11:43 AMWhether we make it happen, or it happens without our input, Iraq may end up three or four countries like the old Soviet Union. It does not appear that Iraq wants a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, that may be one of the biggest sticking points to solving this problem.
When our troops shoot, what someone called "the bad guys" they are taking one side in a civil war. Then the next day they are forced to shoot at the other side. There is no clear enemy, no one in uniform that can be identified.
Someone needs to get to the oil fields and see how badly the infastructure has degraded and what can be done to repair and protect it, but that is to dangerous.
More later, must press my silver dress and load some bricks in my purse so I can clobber Keith when he shows up tonight.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 12:15 PMsharon b.,I'll be wearing my helmut.11:21,you still don't know who attack ed us on 9/11. I knew about Al Qaeda all through the 90's because clinton didn't do anything about even thou they kept up killing Americans.Thats why while watching the second jet hit the second tower the first words out of my mouth to this girl sitting next to me were "Bin Laden,that fu--in clinton".This girl reminded me of you 11:21,her response"duh".
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 12:29 PMNo, I guess I don't know who attack ed us. See? I can do it too. You knew huh? Well since you were so informed, why didn't you do anything about it? You associate Clinton with bin laden. Yeah it must've been Clinton who arranged to have the entire bin laden family fly away two days after 9/11. I'm sure those were the exact words out of your mouth. So yes, her response was right in line with your statement....DUH.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 12:38 PMYou guys have really hit the nail on the head with oil, and I don't mean the "greedy US wanting it," but how do you divide evenly the oil riches in Iraq, if you split it into 3-4 separate States. That is what is holding up a large portion of the process right now in Iraq is who gets what oil, and who will manage it? What will be the influence of international oil companies (believe it or not the BRITISH own the biggest oil company), and how do you effectively share the wealth when the oil fields are not evenly distributed through Iraq?
I don't think President Clinton did anything wrong in regards to Bin Laden and anyone that says he did, doesn't understand history. Those that will point to President Bush as a lier need a history lesson as well. For the above poster, you can not blame someone's family for the acts of one of it's grown children. Would you be so callous as to blame the Cho family for the actions of their insane son?
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 01:22 PMOops, LIAR
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 01:24 PMI'm not blaming the acts of bin laden on his family, but don't you think it would've been wise to at least question them about where he is? Seems that would make some sense.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 01:29 PMDan 2,
This is an almost classical case of what happens when not having learned anything from history, the world finds itself having to repeat it.
Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine - and to some extent Lebanonas well - along with the various and sundry Emirates, etc., were carved out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire, by the "Mandate Powers" att the end of World War I. The "Mandate" comeing from having the largest army of occupation in the area at the time.
Even today - perhaps ESPECIALLY today - few if any Westerners have the slightest grasp of religious history, even that of the religions in the West; much less the history of the internal struggles in Islam that have bloodied the area for some 1200 or so years.
So, in Iraq, three totally antagonistic factions were jammed together inside the same boundary lines, given a King from one of the Arab Noble Houses that had supported the British in World War I; and were told to become a "Nation". After all, the English had managed to put Scots, Welsh, English, and even North Irish, together into "Great Britain"; so naturally Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni - along with an odd Bahai or two, and some random Eastern Christians, ought to be able to do the same.
It didn't work. And it won't work now, either. But never mind the history, just tell everybody that it's SUPPOSED to work, and that we, as Americans are there to make it work; and . . . ? Horsefeathers and Applesauce!
"Intelligence", Military, Naval, or whatever, has nothing to do with it; and is totally irrelevant anyway. And nice, kind, pious head patting, and "good wishes blessing", is so just plain stupid as not to be worth further comment.
The United States, or the United Nations, or any combination of the two - including troops from other Middle Eastern countries - could occupy the territory for another 1200 years; and the idea of setting up a "stable Constitutional Government in Western form", with all that includes and implies, still WON'T WORK.
Turkey is an excellent example right here and right now. While the work of Kemal Attaturk, in setting up a secular and Parliamentary Turkey, has managed to endure up to now - mostly because of a vast difference in economic resources, together with a different language from the rest of the Middle East, thereby creating a more unified culture with better economic support to sustain it - nevertheless, it is finding itself in a crisis, a RELIGIOUS crisis; since the basic IDEA of "Constitutional Government" as we know it in the West is TOTALLY ANTITHETICAL to Islam, where everything is always bound up in "the Will of Allah".
This is a form of total predestinariasm that so exceeds anything to be found in the West - including the worst of Calvinism - that even attempting to explain the psychological impact on the whole of life itself is close to impossible. The ideas of "rights" and "freedoms" as we know them just barely exist there; and then are rarely if expressed aloud, under risk of sudden execution for "departing from the faith".
There is NOTHING for us to "WIN" there.
(Of course, we can drain off the oil, and otherwise loot the place; but that is hardly going to improve matters any.)
Even the other Arab Nations don't really have solutions. Why should anyone expect us to?
But of course, why bother to learn history, or the internals of someone else's religion? Just follow the Ruling-Clas Party's propaganda; and it'll all come out. (And be sure to damn and blast anyone who says otherwise along the way.)
Posted by Old Grouch on May 4, 2007 01:46 PMMaybe? I don't really know. And I am sure that they did, but it's not like he hangs out with them, and calls them up on Ramadan or anything. Think of it like the "American Taliban" John Lindh. You think his family knew where he was that whole time?
I find it rather interesting to watch both extreme sides of the political spectrum fight it out, but not with ideas and solutions, or even conversations, but instead they seem to be attempting to win the "finger pointing" contest. The only idea's I have heard on either side is the "don't do it that way" argument. That is not a solution. From the Republicans it's "stay the course, don't cut and run." And from the Democrats it's "get out of this mess Bush got us into," and "just bring the troops home." No new ideas, no solutions, no conversations, and the sides just keep blaming the other. Look at this thread. We see name calling, accusations, "us vs them," but no intelligent starting point of which to say, "look, the world is f'd up right now, we need to reasonably come up with a solution that has a purpose, has a defined objective, and a plan B, C, D, E, and F, just in case it doesn't go the way we want it to. And at some point, we need to realize that no matter what we try to accomplish, we may not be able to.
I see the point of some on the left that say, we achieved our objectives, the "war" that we went to fight is over. I see the same nobility of the right saying, we can't leave Iraq a mess, because the long term consequences will be terrible. What I really would like to see, is how do we stabilize Iraq, but not be so deeply entrenched into a civil war?
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 01:48 PMOld Grouch,
I think we are actually talking about the same thing for once?
I could not agree more. We are an "act now" country and expect immediate results. We don't learn from history, and we certainly didn't learn from the British Empirical ways, as the world is left cleaning up that mess (there is actually an organization that is demanding British reparations from the empirical march of the British in the late 19th through the mid-20th century).
I am happy to have another historian (maybe) on this thread, providing examples that utilize factual information and not rash opinion, talking points, or "feelings" on a subject. If we are in agreement or not, that is not the point, but rather a starting point to discuss the differences we may have, and our researched opinions on the matter(s) at hand.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 01:57 PMChecked back in, and still no direct answer to my "will of the people" question. Just keep beating around the bush, no pun intended. If the Liberal plan isn't "cut and run", then how else do you interpret the language in the appropriations bill that the President just vetoed? I respect genuine Liberals who will stand up for what their actions represent, instead of trying to sell snake oil to a gullable, but uninformed public. Charles B, what's "loaded" about my question.? It's just a question of mathematical logic. You can't assume to know the "will of the people" with regard to the Iraq war based soley upon the President's approval rating.
Posted by Dinty on May 4, 2007 02:06 PMInterperate it however you want, it still doesn't change from, "we want you to actually end this war and get some accountability for what will or will not happen. The presidents approval rating and the presidents approval rating on the handling of the war are two completely different things.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 02:13 PMProzac or a nap anyone?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 02:20 PMDan2,
"What is your take on this mess, and what would your solution be? And please don't answer, "I would have never gone to war," as we are there now and a solution for what is happening now is needed."
I tend to think Joe Biden has some sound ideas on the subject.
I know the basics but I am no expert on the Middle East. I do know that in order for us to get on with the solution we all crave, there has to be an acknowledgement that going into Iraq was a mistake.
The best analogy I've heard is as follows: George Bush is driving you down the road and is headed for a cliff. You tell him "no, don't drive off that cliff". He drives off the cliff anyway. Then as you fall he turns to you and says "Well? What's your plan to get us out of this?"
What I'm trying to say is twofold: 1) We are in a situation with no outcome that will be preferable to not having gotten into it in the first place, and 2) The people who got us into it are not the best people to get us out of it. That is why I support an adversarial Congress vs. the Bush administration in general.
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 02:37 PMDinty,
"Charles B, what's "loaded" about my question.? It's just a question of mathematical logic. You can't assume to know the "will of the people" with regard to the Iraq war based soley upon the President's approval rating."Dinty, the polls are pretty clear:
"Still thinking about Iraq -- If you had to choose, which would you favor: the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq, or the U.S. keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years?
Setting a Timetable for Removing Troops: 57%
As far as teaching you what is "loaded" about a question with a faulty premise...I'll pass.
I really do like what Biden has to say, even if I think he has a tendency to be a bit, well, rash on some things.
But his plan for the middle east is one that I like a lot.
Charles, we differ on the reason for going to war, and I respect your opinion on that matter tremendously. Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean that you are wrong. I found the reasons compelling, and honestly I thought that when you have sanctions and deadlines as the UN put on Iraq, without consequences is like your mother saying "Don't do that or you will be punished," and then never punishing you for doing it. The UN said there would be "grave consequences" if Saddam did not comply, he did not, and the consequences were indeed grave. That is why I supported his removal from office. I am right here with you though in the fact that there was no plan at all, after that objective was met. So I disagree a little with your car and cliff analogy, to me it's more of a he drove down an embankment to see the view, but had no idea how to get back up the embankment or how to settle the land at the bottom of it.
I agree fully with your 2nd point. Without true dialog between the Congress and the President, and honestly with the military commanders, there is no solution to Iraq that will make anyone happy.
And btw, did anyone else catch the NUTJOB that was all fired up and swearing at the newspaper editors? That actually disturbed me a bit. I think the editors should have left it on, because even a crazy whack job has a right to rant, but WOW. Crazy!
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 02:47 PMCharles,
You know my feelings about polls. You can not make policy from polls. It is the will of the uninformed. And the United States has some of the most uninformed people. Use this forum as a staple, and you will see exactly what I mean.
Posted by Dan2 on May 4, 2007 03:01 PMIt's really pathetic that you think you are more informed than the majority of generals on the ground.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 03:08 PMAgain with the dresses, you have an unhealthy obsession with cross dressing. You should really just doll yourself up and get rid of this pent up frustration you have. Since I never mentioned Micheal Moore, why don't you tell me what it is about that film that you found to be false? I know his family disowned him, I know they don't speak to each other. I also know that bush senior and the bin ladens have been very close ever since the 80's. So what is my lesson supposed to be? To fall in line and believe everything I'm told by the white house?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 04:20 PMWay to dodge the issue buddy. So now cross dressers have idiotic views? Wow you must be going for a record of how many people you can get to hate you. You did a great job of pointing out that my views were idiotic, and an even better job expressing what about them was idiotic. You managed to slip past every point that would destable your narrow view of the world all the while showing your ignorance to everybody. Enjoy your tripe and don't forget to ask your mom to change your diapers this weekend.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 04:44 PMHey. I'm a conservative republican and I was a Bush supporter until he abandoned the American people in favor of illegal aliens. Now I'm also mad because he is being PC in war. I want the soldiers free to fight when attacked, attack when they feel the need and to stop being in more danger from reporters and politicians than the enemy on the ground.
I disapprove but my candidates mostly lost last fall. Now where do I fit inf in this picture?
BTW the best color dress for East Colfax is blue with flrt heels.
Posted by momma y on May 4, 2007 06:00 PMmomma y: "I want the soldiers free to fight when attacked, attack when they feel the need and to stop being in more danger from reporters and politicians than the enemy on the ground."
momma y, I checked the Iraq war dead website and could not find any evidence of GIs being killed by reporters or politicians. I got the impression that they were all killed by the enemy. Do you have some different info? The only casualty from politician gunfire that I know about was the guy your good friend Cheney shot.
Now, momma y, it's fine to be cute but try to avoid being ridiculous.
I just heard the White House Spokesperson say "the Democrats want us to set a "surrender date". How can anyone work with people who think in sound bites?
She used this term a couple of times. Ever since the conservatives took over our language we have had to put up with cute-wordy-ness instead of discussions.
PC instead of manners, cut and run, blame America firsters.
If we do nothing else, we should try to take back English for thinking people.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 07:01 PMDinty,
It isn't just liberals and democrats that want this country to end it's way too long -- and exceptionally costly -- occupation of Iraq, it's middle of the roaders and conservatives as well.
We hope that brain-dead terrorists leave us alone in future. But that won't happen till we end all our goofy interference in foreign countries affairs. Now what do you suppose is the chance of that?
Sharon B.,
"Ever since the conservatives took over our language we have had to put up with cute-wordy-ness instead of discussions."
You can't be serious. Do conservatives demand that illegal immigrants be call undocumented workers? Or that black people should be referred to as African Americans? And what on earth does the term living wage mean? If you're earning a wage, are you not living?
Posted by John II on May 4, 2007 07:49 PMJoe,
You have hit on a great deal of the problem right there: "Our goofy interference in foreign countries' affairs." As with the British in the days of the Empire, we go about insisting that all that is necessary to cure the ills an evils anywhere else is to walk in and push OUR culture down their throats.
Once upon a time, the slogan was: "The sun never sets on the British Empire". But, even today, in 2007, we still believe in trying to live back in "once upon a time". Never mind the fact that they didn't want us in Viet Nam; don't want us in Iraq - or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter - just" "Fight on and win!" (And, never mind the body bags either.)
I did read something that sounded as if it might possibly be a trial balloon for a plan. How actually workable it might be, I don't know; nor do I know how "fixable" it might be if it didn't work immediately, like the "instant coffee" results we seem to expect all the time.
I don't remember the writer, but I thank him for the ideas anyway. It starts with this.
1. Recognize that "Iraq" is a fiction to begin with. And a fiction that never will be a reality as presently jammed together.
2. Attempt to stabilize those portions of territory that show the most tendency to hold together without internal bloodshed.
3. Allow these territories to form governments, and internal police/armed forces to keep themselves stabilized.
4. Support the territorial governments as much as possible with economic and other assistance, bringing into the work ALL other nations and peoples willing to help create stability and keep the peace.
5. Get a U.N. peace keeping force in as soon as possible to replace American troops; and turn over to them anything necessary to do their job.
Above all else, QUIT TRYING TO SETTLE, OR "WIN" THE CIVIL WAR AS SUCH.
6. As rapidly as U.N. forces take over the job of peace keeping - guarding the borders of the stabilized territories and ending battles - remove American troops from the area, and bring them home.
And, from my own point of view, I would add; Give up the damned fool notion that American - or any other Western - culture, government, or even armed force is either wanted, or needed, in the Middle East; and the equally damned fool idea that we have any "moral", or other, "responsibility" to even TRY to solve THEIR problems, much less waste American lives on them.
If anyone thinks that he needs to be a "world savior", or some such, there is always the Peace Corps - or equivalent - where he can put his emotional energy, and his time, into a CONSTRUCTIVE EFFORT, instead of shooting off his mouth and weeping crocodile tears about what might happen if WE stop participating in the bloodshed.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 4, 2007 08:32 PMExcellent food for thought, OG. Thanks.
Posted by Truth on May 5, 2007 06:35 AMSorry Sharon B. Once again dear friends I feel compelled to point out the fact of domestic problems that plague this Country and the lack of action and funding to solve them. Education, Food, Housing and Healthcare for Americans. As for the middle east, bring the troops home now. We fought our own bloody civil war and had the courage to fight for our Independance. The Iraqis need to fight for their country. I did a tour with the Marines a long time ago and believe me, we don't want another granite wall with names of our dead in Washington over Iraq. I've met a few young Marines that did a tour or two in Iraq, they believe in the mission still , but I'm an old man and all I see is wasted lives and a country (Iraq) that 30 years from now will be advertising for American tourists to come over and spend their dollars walking on the same ground once sprinkled with American blood.
Posted by Harry on May 5, 2007 09:53 AMHarry, well said, and without insults. You must be new to this forum because some post just to make "points" whatever that means.
We have a son in Iraq.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 5, 2007 08:43 PMTRUTH-
Is it possible that the shrinkage of your already BB sized brain directly corresponds with the number of your asinine posts?
At your present mach speed rate , you'll be reduced to a slobbering , quivering basket case before like minded Charles B. can repeat his newly found catch phrase "Authoritarian Bush Cultists".
Snarky,
Ironic name...
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 05:55 PM