Dems repeating history? Friday's waste of time.

[mattp]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911, but at this point I'm wondering: is it really a good idea for the Democrats to work so hard to pass legislation with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq? I think it is a valid that some complain how politics and pork are being traded for a Congressional mandate. I wonder, too, if this deadline for withdrawal is a good idea anyway. The whole thing is rather complicated, but on the face of it there certainly is some reason to think that bad guys might just decide to lay low for a while and pop back up after we are gone and, similarly, the Democrats are playing into the hands of those who say politicians should not micromanage a military effort. Lastly, they are setting themselves up to be criticized as "weak on defense" just as they were for 25 years after the Vietnam war.

 

It seems to me the Dems would do better to rally around the bypartisan report and focus on drawing the rest of the world and in pariticular the rest of the region into an effort to resolve problems in and around Iraq, to work on homeland security, and -yes - to look for a way to bring our boys home but not necessarily with a Congressionally imposed deadline that is fixed around the election schedule rather than any military or in-theatre milestone.

 

Shouldn't we be talking about how America so willingly followed our President into this mess? Shouldn't we be talking about whether we as a nation want to continue with unilatteral cowboy politics and ends-justify-the-means tactics, or whether the U.S. might be able to step up to the plate and take a stand for freedom, democracy, deplomacy, and all that stuff we were told about in kindergarten?

 

The democrats are just pursuing more of the same, and I'm afraid they are wasting an opportunity to really take a stand for something and move the ball forward. They are probably going to waste their subpoena powers on short therm political hay, seeking to "expose" as many White House staffers as possible without ever addressing how the system is set up.

 

Sad.

[dt_3pin]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911

 

A novel political stance.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2007 by dt_3pin

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't agree with you on the subpoenas. Sanctioning misbehaving officials can and does have a long lasting corrective effect, historically. Sure, bad behaviour creeps back, but at least there is a period of several years, sometimes longer, where officials think twice about their actions. This is not carping or partisan vengeance, this is a vital part of the checks and balances of government that have been conspicuously absent since Bush took office finally at work. Bush has enjoyed the most imperious presidency in history; it's high time the other branches of government bitch slapped his administration back into the box framed by the constitution a bit.

 

As for the other stuff...I'm out of time!

[Weekend_Climberz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17735743/

 

Speaking to The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday, [saad Yousif] al-Muttalibi (Iraqi Ministry of National Dialogue and Reconciliation) said the negotiations were deadlocked over the insurgent groups’ insistence that they would lay down their arms only when a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition troops in Iraq is announced.

 

They just want us the fuck out of there. I think its time we sat down with everyone in the region and hash out the details and get the fuck outta there. Buy a hybrid for you next car and then we don't have to worry about how much gas will cost.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Oh, and MattP, where you been lately?

[eldiente]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911,

Sad.

 

Maybe you and Bush should good get together for lunch and trade stories as your both full of shit.... 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, this has been proven and well known for sometime. The Democrats as passing a useless funding bill with no teeth. If you actually read the spending bill, it has no way of ending this war and is in fact funding it for as long as Bush wants to wage it.. What a bunch of Nancys.

 

 

[counterfeitfake]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911,

Sad.

Maybe you and Bush should good get together for lunch and trade stories as your both full of shit.... 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, this has been proven and well known for sometime.

Man are you really this much of a witless douchebag? Matt was joking.

[Off_White]

You'd have to be familiar with Matt's posts and opinions to know that, and Eldiente is relatively new.

[Weekend_Climberz]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911,

Sad.

 

Maybe you and Bush should good get together for lunch and trade stories as your both full of shit.... 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, this has been proven and well known for sometime. The Democrats as passing a useless funding bill with no teeth. If you actually read the spending bill, it has no way of ending this war and is in fact funding it for as long as Bush wants to wage it.. What a bunch of Nancys.

 

 

Hook, line and sinker :tup:

[mattp]

Oh, and MattP, where you been lately?

I've been suffering some serious back pain and have not even been able to sit in front of the computer. Yesterday I had an MRI and started a dose of steroids so, as long as the steroids hold anyway, I may be able to post here.

[tvashtarkatena]

I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911,

Sad.

 

Maybe you and Bush should good get together for lunch and trade stories as your both full of shit.... 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, this has been proven and well known for sometime. The Democrats as passing a useless funding bill with no teeth. If you actually read the spending bill, it has no way of ending this war and is in fact funding it for as long as Bush wants to wage it.. What a bunch of Nancys.

 

 

Hook, line and sinker :tup:

 

Over the head at 30,000 feet, baby! Kids these days!

[Weekend_Climberz]

Oh, and MattP, where you been lately?

I've been suffering some serious back pain and have not even been able to sit in front of the computer. Yesterday I had an MRI and started a dose of steroids so, as long as the steroids hold anyway, I may be able to post here.

 

Damn dude :tdown:

[mattp]

I don't agree with you on the subpoenas. Sanctioning misbehaving officials can and does have a long lasting corrective effect, historically. Sure, bad behaviour creeps back, but at least there is a period of several years, sometimes longer, where officials think twice about their actions. This is not carping or partisan vengeance, this is a vital part of the checks and balances of government that have been conspicuously absent since Bush took office finally at work. Bush has enjoyed the most imperious presidency in history; it's high time the other branches of government bitch slapped his administration back into the box framed by the constitution a bit.

 

As for the other stuff...I'm out of time!

 

Yes, sanctioning misbehavior may have some of the effect you describe. However, I'd be much more confident that we are taking corrective action if, while going after Gonzalez, the Dems would promote a broader discussion of how the "system" works and how we might change it. Of course, this might risk having the evil Republicans allege that a Democratic administration could be tempted to or has done something similar and it might risk opening up a political can of worms that Democratic commitee chairs cannot control.

 

At the heart of it I'm starting to think that chipping away at the current Administration may be satisfying and there may be some side affect as you describe (where future Administrations or individual government officials will fear potential sanction if they act improperly), but more than the side affect, we will only be further creating the impression that Washington is mired in an unproductive sword fight between Dems and Repubs if the main point in all of this is "we're going to bust the Bushies."

[tvashtarkatena]

One step at a time. The dems are still fresh from a narrow victory.

[JayB]

"CODEPINK members were crying outside Pelosi’s office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of “outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats,” referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday.

 

“We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin. “We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power.”

 

Such innocence.

 

 

[JayB]

BTW - sorry to hear about your back, Matt. That sucks.

[Seahawks]

"CODEPINK members were crying outside Pelosi’s office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of “outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats,” referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday.

 

“We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin. “We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power.”

 

Such innocence.

 

 

Democrats - Republicans are the same party. The rich. They give allusion of differences to keep the populace divided to keep there power and money flows. Same game that been going on for centuries. All our cronies are hand picked.

[billcoe]

Oh, and MattP, where you been lately?

I've been suffering some serious back pain and have not even been able to sit in front of the computer. Yesterday I had an MRI and started a dose of steroids so, as long as the steroids hold anyway, I may be able to post here.

 

Steroids? WTF? Matt, assuming the MRI turned up nothing, check this: No steroids needed

[counterfeitfake]

You'd have to be familiar with Matt's posts and opinions to know that, and Eldiente is relatively new.

This is true. I say do your research before you flame.

[chucK]

If I read it correctly it seems like the main point of Matt's post was that he has problems with the House budget bill passed today(?) that mandates that we be out of Iraq by Summer of 2008. I have been struggling with this a while too.

 

On the one hand we have the nasty situation Bush got us in. It is killing and wounding more Americans every day, as well as spending a ton of money (that could used to great effect elsewhere, education, medical insurance, deficit reduction, tax cut, etc...). Barring an amazing longshot, it is NOT going to get better. It would be nice to be done with this.

 

On the other hand, we have the prospect that forcing Bush's hand and getting us out of there will play right into the GOP's hand politically. True believers will be railing for decades about how the Democrats lost the war. The reality of how bad it was before the Democrats decided to do something will, of course, be forgotten (in fact at least 30% don't believe it is bad right now). Bush knows all is lost there. His purpose behind the "surge" is 95% running out the clock and he is HOPING that the democrats will have to do something. He even "conceded" in a speech a while back that the congress could cut his war funding. Once the Dems have taken some initiative and forced a strategy, they must also accept some responsibility for the aftermath.

 

So the choice comes down to this:

 

Do we do what we think is right for the country in terms of the Iraq War, by pulling out, stopping the carnage, and perhaps try to limit the aftermath damage by responding to requests of assistance?

 

Or do we continue to play the politics, give Bush free rein to fuck up more so we can be assured there is no way to blame the Democrats? Will it be better for the country in the long term to assure we get and keep these Republican crooks out of power?

 

I think it comes down to this, if you really think getting out of Iraq sooner will be better than later, then you should support option A. Playing politics with our people's lives and our country's treasure is poor form.

 

Keeping more democrats in office for longer may be good, but may be bad. You never know about those politicians (all Repubs aren't as bad as the current bunch in the administration).

 

I think it's a better bet to sacrifice some Democratic party power for the good of our country and especially all those military people and their families who are being destroyed, rather than the other way around.

 

So anyway, I'm down with this house bill thingy.

[counterfeitfake]

But you're only addressing a small part of what Matt said. That it may be a bad move politically for the Democrats was only one of his points, and one that seemed less important to him. The other points were that maybe it's a bad idea strategically for Iraq's future, and that maybe politicians shouldn't manage military conflicts.

[archenemy]

Why bother passing some deadline date to piss and moan about when all Congress has to do is stop funding the war. Isn't it them who hold the pursestrings?

[chucK]

I think this bill is the "pursestrings". It is a budget bill.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The Dems ran on the premise that they would get us out of Iraq. Now that they are in power, they are more interested in not losing their new-found power than the slogans they harped on for the last 5 years, and those campaign promises are fading quickly.

 

We'll be in Iraq through the end of Bush's term, and probably quite a bit into the next term - no matter which party is in power.

[chucK]

[...] maybe it's a bad idea strategically for Iraq's future,

 

I don't think Matt mentioned that, but it is a valid point. My point was specifically based on "IF you really consider Iraq a lost cause". I think many people believe that, and also think it's just gonna get worse. If you really think that, then you should work to end our presence there, because the stakes are too high to play politics.

 

I haven't been to Iraq and I don't talk to the generals or the Iraqi people. I read and watch more about this than a lot of people. If I were in congress and my better information told me what I am seeing now, my gut judgement would be that we have got to cut our losses. Iraq is not going to be a stable democracy for a long time, with or without our sacrifices. Your opinion probably differs.

 

That said, it may be reasonable to hold off, let 100 more grunts pay the price with their lives or limbs, let 1000 more succumb to PTSD, because it looks like whether congress/Bush like it or not, the true decision point is gonna come end of summer. Supposedly, if things continue as they are, that's about the time when our Army and reserves will just not be able to keep this up*. Come September it's gonna be Draft or Draw Down.

 

Is it OK to sacrifice just a small percentage more death and disability in order for Dems to keep a tighter stranglehold on Bush?

 

 

and that maybe politicians shouldn't manage military conflicts.

 

Bush is a politician and he's running this war like a politician. No draft, no extra taxes are two big things that are hurting the war effort so that Bush can keep his political strength.

 

At what point do you take over the reins from a fuckup? You don't think that time has come yet?