HOUSE SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

BTW the bitch from Ohio who made the coward statement is the one who stole the election r4ecently from Iraq veteran Paul Hackett.

Foxfyre
We are doomed to failure in Iraq no matter how long we stay. Iraq because of it's conflicting parties Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis will never form a cohesive nation.. When we leave civil war is bound to erupt. In fact is not the present conflict a civil war.

Au, there would be many who would say the American colonies would be suicidal to take on the mighty British army and naval fleet. But they did it anyway, and nine years later, with a bit of help from their friends here and there, won their freedom and our great nation is the result.

The United States was in no way prepared for war and was badly outmanned and outgunned when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But we went to war anyway against the entire Axis and within a year we were the strongest force among the Allies. That one took four long years after we got involved, six years in all.

The cold war against the Iron Curtain nations took longer, and there were huge numbers of naysayers who believed the United States had no chance there. But the Soviet Empire dissoved, the Berlin wall came down, and all those nations are more or less back in the folds of the general human family. It was obvious during the 12 years preceding the invasion of Iraq, however, that economic warfare was not going to be successful in that one.

We failed in Vietnam because our military was not allowed to win it, and there were too many saying it couldn't be done or should not be done.

Now we have a chance to do a great thing in the Middle East and we have high skilled and trained men and women eager to do it and a constituency in Iraq providing a forum and a willingness to let us. All it will take to accomplish it is for Americans to be believers and demand an honorable victory. If too many Americans insist it can't be done or shouldn't be done, however, we will lose. And we and the world will be much the poorer for it.

Foxfyre
You seem to have missed my message. The conditions in Iraq because of it religious differences are not amenable to a united nation. When we leave and leave them to their own devices. Civil war is bound to break out with the winner in complete control. Attempting to forge a cohesive democratic nation is an exercise in futility.
As to your rah rah rhetoric it is in no way applicable to the conditions and people of iraq.

And, as some say, Foxfyre, the power vacuum in Iraq, if we left preciptiously, would lead to a struggle between Syria(Shiite); Iran( Sunni) and Turkey( Kurd) to fill that power vacuum from the North, East and West.

The implications of such a civil war spreading beyond its borders is horrible to contemplate.

President Bush will remain as President until the end of 2008. I believe him when he says that the troops will NOT be withdrawn as long as the Military Commanders in the field say the troops should stay.

When Hillary is President and the troops all come home, I sincerely pray that the White House will be impervious to an attack by Al Queda who will not have to concentrate on Iraq but can rather turn its attention to the Great Satan-the USA.

Blatham, The Canadian expert on American Poiltics wrote:

"It once again gives the appeaance( sic) of control or leadership away from the administration"

It is apparent that Blatham has not the slightest idea of how the US government works.

Blatham does not know that the House and Senate are the Legislative bodies.

Blatham has either forgotten or not read that the House and Senate HAD to be consulted in order for troops to be sent to Iraq.

Indeed, Bob Woodward reported in his "Bush at War" tome that:

...but on October 10th and 11th the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23.

end of quote.

Blatham apparently is unaware that the decision to send troops MUST be granted by the legislature( unless one wishes to set up a pre-emptive strike as Clinton did) and, the legislature must then be consulted if and when the troops are withdrawn precipitously.

Blatham does not realize that the funding for the troops does not come from the office of the executive but rather from the House of Representatives( after consultation with a Senate Committee).

The Canadian Blatham has not read, apparently, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States which reads--ALL BILLS FOR RAISING REVENUE SHALL ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THE SENATE MAY PROPOSE OR CONCUR WITH AMENDMENTS AS ON OTHER BILLS.

It would be quite simple for the Representatives of the American people to shut off the flow of monies to the Military, thus making a withdrawal necessary.


The comment made by Blatham is ludicrous--the only control or leadership the administration has is given to it be the votes of the House and Senate.

I am astounded that he does not know that.

I will admit that while even having the vote last night was stupid in many ways,it was strategically brilliant for the repubs.
Now,if the dems in the house keep demanding an immediate pullout,the vote is on record that they opposed the resolution,and it can be used against them in the next election.
If the dems say that they dont want the troops pulled out immediately,then their own words demanding a pullout can be used against them in the elections.

While I do believe the vote was not needed,it did put the dems in a very bad position,IMHO.

In that sense it was a good thing for the repubs.

"Strategically brilliant" is not the phrase I would use.

This stunt is simply theater, which will please those the Republican's can already count on; annoy those who already oppose the Republicans; and in no way move those in the middle, who are the ones they really need to sway.

The Republicans tweaked the nose of the Democrats, and proved merely that they still hold a majority in the House. Whoo-hoo!

The whole thing reminds me of a bunch of kids:

"Did so!"

"Did not!"

"Did so!"

"Did not!"

Let's get rid of them all, Democrat and Republican, and just start over.

If the Vietnam War is any indicator we will not begin a troop pullout "with honor" until these numbers are reached:

American combat deaths - 58,177

Iraqui civilian and insurgent deaths - 1 million

Cost of occupation - 173 billion

Cost of veteran benefits - 220 billion

Interest - 30 billion

Time line - 9 years...or 2010

Since you completely omitted my point by changing my words to apparently fit your ideology, there is no reasonable response to be made to your post.

Someone, quite confused about the facts, yet bloviated incorrectly anyhow, said:

What a silly, cheap, ploy.
I'm sure that's the first thing she said when the Democrats staged their "closed meeting."
It's funny, when I first read it, I thought some anti war person had gone nutso, and had created an utterly stupid tactical blunder.
The Dems keep harping about it--let them put up or shut up.
Then I read up on it, and realised, that, of course, it was a pro war Republican stunt.
She didn't seem to mind the Democrat stunt a couple of weeks ago.
As if anti war people are stupid enough to think you can unscramble the eggs just like that.
They don't know the first thing about how to conduct a war, and sadly, don't even have good hindsight.
If the American public are dumb enough to get fooled by propaganda about that vote come election time, then they deserve what they get.
It proved a valid point. They're all talk.
Ok, I have read more...this is part of a Bushco fightback/dissent is unpatriotic thing, right?
More should have been read before attempting to characterize it. How very telling. Recently, the liberals are completely avoiding facts. Just make them up as it suits threir agenda. This defensive reaction against irresponsible attacks by the Democrats was necessary. They won't be allowed to rewrite history.

So....how much of Congress's time, and taxpayer money did this ploy waste?
Such an important issue in Australia.
It would seem to show some contempt for political processes in your country.
Wrong.
Dissent unpatriotic, wasting time and money in a travesty of political process fine...hmmmm.
Meaningless, baseless statements.
I guess if this is a common tactic, well, so be it. But it seems to me a wasteful and would be didhonest one (if anyone was fooled.)
It proved a valid point, and entertained more than a few conservatives.

How good a tactic it will prove to be will depend on how stupid your electorate is.


What sort of effect do you think it is having so far? How are the various media viewing it?

Why is it ok when the Democrats do approximately the same thing--unprecedented dramas..?

Was that a stupid tactic? Will the electorate be stupid if they fell for that one?

I will browse current rsponses, but they are likely to go straight down party lines.

Lash
Your just po'ed because the dems have started playing the same games the republicans have been playing for the last 10 years. The only difference so far is that they havent started lieing like the President and the rest of his crooked administration.

I'm not p.o. ed.

I'm glad the Republicans, and the White House in particular, has finally defending themselves against erroneous, cheap lies, perpetrated by disgusting Democrats.

It's the GOP who has finally starting to level thre playing field.

I think someone who is so hyperbolically condemning of one's behavior, should answer what she thinks of the other's similar behavior.

The Republicans unanimously voted down their own proposal. That is all that needs to be said.

When did the Democrats last unanimously defeat their own proposal?

Just wondering.

Lash's posts drip of testerone laced vitriol yet he always denies that he is POd. Sounds like the epitome of an angry bitter man to me.

Ha ha...sorry, had to snigger :wink: