Check your Constitution for the powers of Congress. You could see that it's hardly complete control.
So does it follow that Republicans should be left in office despite being most responsible for screwing up Iraq? I could go on about other reprehensible behavior as well. To keep them in office after this only because the Democrats might be "no better" is simply cynically irresponsible. Period. That's no argument for retaining the Republicans.
So, what are you arguing? That the clean-up crew came on the job 30 seconds ago and the place is dirty? I'd say it's too soon to claim that the crew just intends to collect their paychecks and not clean up. (Currently, a very Republican behavior.)
Considering the problem they've created,
when will we be out of Iraq?
Or maybe you forgot that Bush is the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces?
congress cut off funding to the troops in Vietnam.....troops came home.
I just don't think the Dems would cut off funds for the troops and be left open to that critism -- my guess is they'll push for a real plan to get out instead...(as it should be).
perhaps having a little heat on his ass will motivate the Chief Executive to execute something.
I know his plan. I'm asking about the Dems plan.
because now he seems confused about whether he was ever stay the course, and what that course could have been.
If you check your consitution you will find the Pres is the CinC and CEO, and is gonna have the first and last say even with a Dem congress. Obviously, they're gonna have to adapt to each other. Since Bush has been unable to make any serious progress in a war that has no obvious point, cutting our losses ASAP would seem like a fair default position. I imagine there will be A LOT of jockeying to find out exactly what Bush has been hiding and forgetting over there - certainly there's no reason he'd conduct this war different from any other campaign he's been in; and I'm guessing that once the military secrets come out, there'll be massive civil fraud and corruption, and who knows how many Republicans will go to jail? So Bush will almost certainly want to sandbag and stall at least until 2008, hoping to blame Dems for a mess of his own making.
I think that a regional solution has to be negotiated. It would have been hard in 2001, harder in 2003, very difficult now - but that's the Republican legacy. But it's going to happen sooner or later, the only question is who dies getting it done. Since Americans are our first responsibility, I would get Americans out first.
stay the course.
because he seems a little confused about that.
The rest of us are wondering WTF that course might be. Maybe he has a secret plan to end the war or something. Maybe end it by dying.
our problem now is to decide how much $$ we put into cleaning up, versus cutting our losses.
They control congress only; and history shows, and common sense shows, that Will Rogers was right, they are not an organized party. By nature, they are a crazy quilt of groups with many inevitable divisions.
The RNC still controls the executive. What goes on in the next 2 years will decide the 2008 election, but I don't think anybody could expect much more than a stalemate.
One exception may be immigration reform. It seems likely we may get the Senate version of immigration reform, and it's anybody's guess how that will affect 2008.
I for one will bet that we have at least half of our troops in Iraq in 2008; that we will not catch OBL, and there will be at least one terrorist incident, that both parties will blame on the other.
And I wouldn't be surprised if we have nasty-assed incidents in Mexico. For those who follow these things, there seems to be a hell of a lot of steam building up, and a lot more violence throughout the country for different reasons. I would not be surprised if Mexican violence gets out of hand entirely.
We'll have at least half as many troops in Iraq in 2008. I don't really care either way but the Dems will have some 'splaining to do.
Maybe I'm just really stupid or something, but what exactly needs to be explained?
they have absolutely no intention of ending the war and bringing the troops home.....both of which they have complete control of now. Or did we just trade one group of power hungry politicians for another?
people who say, "vote for me, I won't do anything" don't get elected.
The best you can really do is set them at each other's throats, ie to watch and neutralize each other. Every so often, you'll get such a corrput bunch in there that any pathetic mob is better; my Alzheimer's mother would be better.
But you can't say people don't want to bring the troops home. Bush will tell you he wants the troops home. The issue is when, under what conditions?
I don't think that we're going to do an about face and be out of there in a week; but who knows how it will play out? The Dems do not seem to have a vested interest in Iraq, as the GOP seems to.
That said, it's a little early to be blaming the Democrats for anything. Blaming them ever, under any circumstances, for anything in connection with Iraq is going to be pretty dodgy.
-- Modified on 11/11/2006 10:30:51 PM
and based on the Dems desire to take control I'll give them 3 months to clean up Iraq. Remember, they've been planning this thing for 5 years.
honest and capable people in it.
One of the critical issues in any task is, what resources, including time, do you have?
The govt is divided equally between the Dems and Repubs. The Repubs hold the executive and the reins on the military. It took the Repubs 5 years to fuck this up, and now you want a CONGRESS to clean the mess up in 3 months.
Lack of connection with reality was exactly how the Republicans got us into this mess. I'm not at all sure that we should continue the Republican strategy of controlling reality solely by controlling people's perceptions. I don't think that's likely to work very well, and if this election is any measure, I don't think that's what Americans want. IMHO, it's easier to do a job right the 1st time.
but all I've heard from the all the Dems (including state level) for the last 6 years is what an idiot Bush is. If they're so much better they can prove it.....fast.
all they have to be is ANY better.
That looks like a pretty safe bet. Complete fucking anarchy in DC looks like a better bet than the GOP.
OTOH, I don't see either of us running for office, eh? And in any case, what do you propose to do before the next election cycle? Stop reading the papers, close your mind? That would make you a Republican for sure.
-- Modified on 11/12/2006 10:11:28 AM
and I keep quite up to date on things. And what's this about "a Republican for sure" just because I don't march to some ego maniac's orders (from any party).
And while I'm not a fan of anarchy, i wouldn't mind a little gridlock.
is recognize that it's all balances: that there are things that govt, big & small businesses do well, and things they do poorly; and the structure depends on allowing each to do what it does best, and keeping out of what it does poorly; and that we depend on a depth of skill and character in every American, and we should be building and recruiting skills and character, and not excuses for cronies.
The daily problems, like crime, doubtless cost us more than terrorism. The question is, what can we do? It doesn't seem like the way we're fighting terror is doing us a fat lot of good. Getting off on small brown people who talk funny is even stupider and more malicious. Cunningham's gardener may not be much of a prize, but he's a better citizen than the Duke was, regardless of his papers.
the Democrats don't take over Congress for another two months. Also, Bush invaded Iraq 3 years ago so I do not see how the Democrats have been planning this for 5 years unless they had ESP. Finally, the Democrats do not have a veto-proof majority so some Republicans would have to go along--and don't forget Bush's penchant for signing statements which say he does not have to follow laws. Are you on board for impeachment if the Chimp-in-Chief defies Congress?
Check your Constitution for the powers of Congress. You could see that it's hardly complete control.
So does it follow that Republicans should be left in office despite being most responsible for screwing up Iraq? I could go on about other reprehensible behavior as well. To keep them in office after this only because the Democrats might be "no better" is simply cynically irresponsible. Period. That's no argument for retaining the Republicans.
So, what are you arguing? That the clean-up crew came on the job 30 seconds ago and the place is dirty? I'd say it's too soon to claim that the crew just intends to collect their paychecks and not clean up. (Currently, a very Republican behavior.)
Considering the problem they've created,
enlightenment on congressional control of things. And for what its worth I'm no happier with the Republicans...they had their chance and screwed it up.
WMDs aside, this business of saving a country from itself at the point of a bayonet is a complete misconception. Armies are not social workers, they are not cops, and they cannot do those jobs. The blind faith that threats will make a muslim into a deomcratic capitalist is an idea you could only get in a 20 second campaign ad.
Doesn't it amaze you that a majority of the American voters would never ask, exactly WTF we think we're doing? Like a dog chasing a car, what are you gonna do when you catch it?
Does anybody want to bet that mesopotamia will be a safer place for Americans in 2008, than it was in 2000? And whose bright idea was that?
Nixon had pulled troops out before that was even on the books. That made it easy to obey, didn't it? I rather think the President was relieved not to have to make the choice and to be able to pass the blame to Congress. Passing a law the President wanted to obey doesn't seem like an overwhelming example of power.
It's true that in theory the legislative branch has the most power. It's hardly total. The two houses check one another, and the power within that is sub-divided among it's 535 members. It's like a mutant centipede with too many legs.
Not to mention that they won't even be in power until January.
And you are still carrying water for the Republicans. Okay, tiger, you go get 'em! You realize we are all so tired of it that crap that we just voted against your rhetoric in overwhelming numbers?
Don't think we don't remember all that slack you cut to Bush who has had us in Iraq for longer than the fighting in WWII and still has no plan -- yet three days after the Dems win an election and two months before they even take office you want a "plan" from them. Maybe you should be asking Bush for one.
It might surprise you to find out that the Dems are not the demonized party that Rush & O'Rielly told you they were. Maybe, just maybe they want a well thought-out, well planned new direction in Iraq that could actually be succesfull -- unlike Bush's. But, of Coarse, you could NEVER allow yourself to consider that could you?
Oh, and by the way, the Dems don't owe you a damn thing right now. If and ehn they fail, I will join you in critisizing them -- but not two months before they even take office, so give it a rest.
I think you're right here. While the war is an overall issue, I think the financial and gay scandals undercut them seriously as well; and still the Dems are not veto-proof.
It's not just Bush's signing statments, it's the way that the executive has administrative deference in execution of most statutes. Many issues are so obscure that nobody's likely to challenge them. In a modern administration, the executive has presumptive and practical carte blanche to do as they please until somebody challenges them in court, or in another way. The absence of a veto-proof majority is a major handicap in an adversarial govt.
I'm not a Republican and GW is THE worst president this century (but I dont dwell on it like a lot of others on this board because he's gonna be arount for over 2 years).
2nd. How much time will you give them?
And the last century.
While Bush is CINC, there is no war without money. Congress controls the money.
Since the war and the president are widely unpopular, cutting off funds is likely to be viewed as a step in the right direction by the public. If W uses various tricks to keep the war going after Congress cuts the budget for it, he'd be seen as the 'bad guy' in a confrontation with Congress.
My personal bet is that after this election, W will turn more to Daddy's advisers. Baker, et al will push for a reduction in troops starting next year, with the last troops leaving just as the 2008 election cycle starts heating up.
The R's REALLY don't want to be in Iraq during the 2008 election, and the D's have enormous pressure to 'change course' after this election.
to learn something and change course then you really have not been paying much attention these past six years.
Nah, look at W's corporate history.
Once everything has gone very far up the proverbial creek, W seems to figure out he's in trouble and Daddy & Co bail him out.
Losing Congress is a big "I'm in trouble" sign for W. Time to run to daddy for help.
and I don't think it's just the family, it's the entire RNC & hangers-on. They don't want to go down, and they lean on him.
Dubya has never shown the nerve or independence to say "I'm the President", or anything like that. I think he'd be lost without the committee.
could not even save his own presidency. Junior wants to be able to say that his administration was not as bad as his father's. Well that is not saying much. If I remember correctly, Daddy wasn't too good at presidenting either.