Great, Congresswoman Pelosi, shove it up the ass of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines . . .
Nice going lady.
""Earlier this month, the House passed a bill that would have provided $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would have required the president to start withdrawing troops from Iraq 30 days after the bill passed, with the goal of having all combat troops out by the end of 2008.
a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said Democratic leaders do not plan to change this timeline or bring anything back to the floor before Congress leaves for the year.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1100 times:
Blame falls on a lot of people on this issue, my friend. Pelosi is being a stubborn ass, when the chance for a compromise might be open. The Administration has been stubborn for months, indeed, a few years, on this issue, and that's why we have the current deadlock we have.
The donkey really should be the moniker for both parties' anymore. They're so much alike that you can't tell them apart anymore.
Even Murtha says the Surge is working, and was actively seeking the compromise you spoke of (it's in the article for those wanting a source to that), but now he's back peddling like a Duck coming into Decoys . . .
MDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3): Even Murtha says the Surge is working, and was actively seeking the compromise you spoke of (it's in the article for those wanting a source to that), but now he's back peddling like a Duck coming into Decoys . . .
I was about to say that Murtha and Pelosi must have missed each others calls since they aren't on the same page.
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 307 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1059 times:
I fully back Pelosi and the democratic leadership for this position. It is bankrupting our country - and calls for some accountability to the war funding in place now. Indeed, if the democrats in the house are able to pass this, the senate can get their act together and call for deadlines - and it gets through the conference committee with the withdrawal provisions intact - then Bush will veto it, despite the fact that the democrats have fully funded his war. It is the President and the Republican Party refusing to fund the troops, not the Democrats. The blame lays solely at the feet of the Executive Branch and the Republican Party.
Too many people often forget that Congress is a co-equal branch of government as mandated by the US Constitution. Or that House Speaker Pelosi is 3rd in line of succession to the presidency, should Bush and Cheney be incapacitated. She commands a very high position in the United States government - and it is this war's cheerleaders that are causing funding to be withheld from the troops in Iraq - troops placed there precariously and illegally by a criminal administration.
Oh, Pelosi would be a horrible president. However, the fact remains that she's a very powerful figure within the government.
More to the point, however, the democrats are willing to pass war funding. They are not withholding it. It is republican opposition to the strings that the majority party (that is, the strings that the elected officials who represent the majority of this country) is attaching to the war funding. Ergo, the Republicans are refusing to fund the war by not voting for a war funding bill.
It's a media and right-wing narrative that has placed blame on the democrats for "refusing to fund the war". This is not only factually untrue, it is intellectually dishonest. The democrats are willing to fully fund the war - if Bush ends it. Wrap your mind around that. They are willing to give him every cent Bush has asked for - if he withdraws the troops. They haven't reduced funding, they are simply requiring the war be ended.
So, as a result, the republicans won't vote for this. Therefore, they are responsible for withholding the funds - not the Democrats. Also, bear in mind a full 54% of the American people want an immediate troop withdrawal. How can the Democrats be faulted for championing the will of the people?
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 7): The democrats are willing to fully fund the war - if Bush ends it.
Quoting Siren (Reply 7): Ergo, the Republicans are refusing to fund the war by not voting for a war funding bill.
Are you a lawyer? There's enough double speak in there to make it a pretty good bet.
The Democrats are willing to leave Iraq out in the cold - after having helped get us into the fight by voting right along with the Republicans to pursue the war - but have now gotten 'chicken'. When it ws popular, they were all for it. When it's no longer popular, they pull a John Kerry and off we go . . .
I've been told numerous times that I should have been one.
It's not doublespeak when it's the truth though. It's only doublespeak because the Rush Limbaughs say it is.
Iraq shouldn't be left out in the cold, however we have bigger issues at hand. This war is turning analogous to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. They were bogged down and unable to win. Just as we are unable to win this war. You do not defeat an insurgency. You do it by winning hearts and minds - and the million dead Iraqis from this civil war certainly won't be changing their minds about us - nor will the majority of others. We're cutting deals with militias now - that used to blow us up. What makes the US leadership think the militias won't take our money and our weapons and start blowing us up with them, again?
As for the only reason the "surge" is "working" is because the ethnic cleansing by the Shi'a has been so effective. We're taking credit for what would have naturally subsided anyway.
We are better off leaving the Iraqis hanging - and most of the Iraqis feel the same way. Long story short: We screwed up, and we lost a war that we didn't need to be involved in. The people who are running this war seem to think that they can turn their loss into a win. Not gonna happen. Not without 500,000+ troops on the ground and years of occupation. Had we done this right from the getgo - things might be different.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1003 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 10): Had we done this right from the getgo - things might be different.
The only thing you've said thus far in this thread that makes any sense.
But I'll bet we would have a differing opinion on what is "right from the getgo" as well.
I can tell you the biggest screw up - in my mind - was the lack of a plan after the attack . . . no plan for an occupation. Rather a shortsighted, do it on the cheap, plan. Thanks Rumsfeld, you loser. Further allowing PotUS to leave Rumsfeld at the DoD when he should have been canned. Public pressure was in the wrong place. We should have been more concerned about who was running the Pentagon.
Oh, wait - can't see that from your (not you personally) cushy little job in SoCal or the beer hall in Upper Podunk, PA, so it doesn't matter . . .
It only starts to matter when the bandwagon jumpers - see your posts above - allow themselves for forget to be objective.
I've clearly stated from the beginning we made some mistakes walking in the door in Iraq . . . and I support our troops and the war . . . I do however despise Partisan Politics using troops as a pawn - a classic example of this seen in my source document in the thread opener.
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 307 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 994 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11): But I'll bet we would have a differing opinion on what is "right from the getgo" as well.
Nah, we're probably on the same page. I think we should've stormed from Kuwait with 750,000 troops, and from Turkey with 250,000. We would have subjugated every last bit of criminality, and installed a government quickly. We would not have disbanded the Iraqi military - instead kept them, and weeded out the traitors and Saddam loyalists. We would have turned Saddam over to the Hague to face trial in front of a proper criminal court. We would have withdrawn our forces bit by bit until we were around a 'maintenance' level of 250,000 a year out. We would have ensured the new Iraqi government embraced American-style democracy and freedom.
Checkraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 974 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 7): Ergo, the Republicans are refusing to fund the war by not voting for a war funding bill.
Quoting Siren (Reply 12): We would have ensured the new Iraqi government embraced American-style democracy and freedom.
Other than those statements I think she's brought a very compelling argument.
The US was in a no-win situation from the beginning. The Iraqi people will never support an American-style democracy. It flies straight in the face of their culture.
World leaders need to realize that the only way to "win" a war is to go in and blow everything to bits. Your opponent needs to be brought to their knees, quickly. If you don't have the fortitude to do that it's probably best not to engage in the first place.
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 307 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): -Pres Clinton's DoD didn't leave us with that many troops after he escalated the drawdown of the military.
Don't get me started on how destructive that man was to our military. Good riddance, President Blowjob.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): WE shouldn't install a gov't, the Iraqi people should.
The Iraqi people didn't know how democracy worked. We needed to install a government and educate them - before they could even pretend to be ready to hold down the reigns of government. They got a government of 'their choosing' - a completely corrupt, incompetent, do-nothing government. That's the type of government that people who don't have experience with democracy vote for. Another example of this is the Palestinians voting for Hamas. They're not ready for democratic rule. The Iraqis needed a benevolent autocratic regime after the war - who would slowly transition powers to a legislature.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): The type of Gov't should be of the Iraqi people's choosing, not ours. They style of democracy as well.
The security conditions for a functional democracy are simply not there. If security conditions don't permit, there shouldn't be elections. In the end, it is the occupier's choice how to administer their occupied territory. We mismanaged Iraq.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): He was tried in a proper court, in his country, but the people he betrayed.
It was a court set up by the occupier, with handpicked judges - by the occupier. America tried him, not the Iraqi people. It was a farce of a trial. He was indeed guilty, however - it was not justice.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11443 posts, RR: 78 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): Too many people often forget that Congress is a co-equal branch of government as mandated by the US Constitution.
I bet that's not what you were saying when the Republicans had both houses. People who say this now are the same ones who were rejoicing when Daschle was installed as Senate Majority Leader in 2000.
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): Or that House Speaker Pelosi is 3rd in line of succession to the presidency
Your point? Other than that's a horrible thought?
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): The blame lays solely at the feet of the Executive Branch and the Republican Party.
Wow....thats disengenuosity at it's finest.
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): - troops placed there precariously and illegally by a criminal administration.
ok...so at least you're being honest in how you feel. Even if you're wrong and calling our troops war criminals. (And before you jump at that take a look at the laws of land warfare that every US serviceman and woman learns about following illegal orders...some very smart generals would not have jumped in illegally or they would have violated their oaths).
Quoting Siren (Reply 12): I think we should've stormed from Kuwait with 750,000 troops, and from Turkey with 250,000.
How when Turkey refused to allow us as they were afraid of the Kurds becoming less oppressed? Plus...you do realize that number represents pretty much the entire army...right? Taking the country wasn't the problem...it was the policing of it that fell flat and it's primarily because we weren't ready for the Iraqis to riot the way they did and tear the place apart. Failure of imagination and refusal to modify the plan quickly falls on the shoulders of Rumsfeld and ultimately the President, but there's problems in every war and you can Monday morning quarterback all you like....the point is what's happening now.
To leave now when we're making headway is criminally stupid and would devalue the sacrifices in blood and treasure we've made. It would also open us up to attack forever since the terrorists would prove their point that we can't last. They saw our reaction to Lebanon in the '80s...they saw our reaction to Somalia in the '90s ....and they saw how we acted in Serbia and Afghanistan when we sent missiles instead of men and were called cowards for for it...remember that Bosnia/Serbia was won by men on the ground, and Afghanistan turned deeper into trouble. .....
Leaving now is shortsighted and stupid.....it'd be an empty political victory that does nothing but hurt us, the Iraqis, and everyone who will be threatened by newly emboldened terrorist elements who will believe that they have license to do what they wish.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7891 posts, RR: 27 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 941 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 16): Failure of imagination and refusal to modify the plan quickly falls on the shoulders of Rumsfeld and ultimately the President, but there's problems in every war and you can Monday morning quarterback all you like....the point is what's happening now.
Nicely couched but I'd take it a bit further than that. This is the President's responsibility in total. His lack of both military and foreign policy experience blinded him to the incompetency of his own staff. His ultimate responsibility was to educate himself sufficiently to recognize the situation unfolding and do something about incompetence immediately when there was evidence as such. Instead, he chose loyalty and and faith in a proven micromanager with no ability to see long term. It's a wholesale failure of management and the responsibility lies solely with the President on that one. Give someone a job to do and you'd better damn well understand what it is they should be doing and what the parameters of expected outcomes are, especially with stakes this high.
You can call the above another Monday QB play if you want, but the President can't afford to lag on the job when troops' boots are on the ground and this one did just that.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 16): It would also open us up to attack forever since the terrorists would prove their point that we can't last.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 16): will be threatened by newly emboldened terrorist elements who will believe that they have license to do what they wish.
This is one argument I will never buy. First, so long as there are corrupt states in the ME that we deeply associate with (who directly fund schools that train young generations of terrorists, btw) and enough policy hypocrisy to go around, we will always be open to attack. New emboldenment will not depend on anything we do or don't do in Iraq. The mere presence of American flags in Saudi Arabia and US dollars flowing into Israeli coffers and the hands of Egyptian dictators is more than enough to embolden the already hateful now and forever. Btw, your sentence should be rephrased to already believe they have license to do what they wish. That much we certainly know by this point.
[Edited 2007-11-30 15:50:37]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty