Bush Plan: More Troops in Iraq

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 pm

Come mid-January, it will be what the Dem faction wants, since they could (if they wanted) cut off funds, forcing withdrawal. Most Dems (with the exception of Murtha) are saying that they don't want to use their majority to withdraw immediately - that they'd rather, in effect, procrastinate and play a blame game for another couple of years. Not that I am surprised - to me the Reps and Dems are two factions of the War Party.

I admit that the Dem faction has a higher percentage of peaceniks than the Rep faction, but their peace contingent has nowhere near influence enough to override the faction elites or give more than lip service to policy change. (But probably enough to dupe peacniks into voting for a warmonger like Hitlery in '08.) Furthermore, the Dem "peaceniks" are mostly shallow, insincere, and inconsistent about non-intervention, i.e. most of them support "Democrat" interventions such as occupation of Darfur. How many have called for the end of the Kosevo occupation?

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:44 pm

Again, anything the Dems want to do has to be phrased in the context of "what can we get over W's veto" - they can only cut funds via the budget and W can veto the budget, even shutting down the government, as happened in 1995 when the Rs first got control of congress and tried to force their "agenda" through and Clinton vetoed them. Remember, W has NO problem whatsoever in shutting down the government - the neocons have been trying to "drown it in a bathtub" for decades. THE ONLY LEGISLATION GUARANTEED TO GET THROUGH IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS HAS TO BE VETO PROOF. The main thing Dems can guarantee is that "nasties" don't get out of committee, which is a great boon. All judgements of what and how well the Dems do in the next two years should be made in the light of veto reality.

LaWood · Post by **LaWood** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:33 pm

I still do not understand why other than he is labeled president, that G.W. Bush gets the blame for Iraq. It's clearly a pipe dream of Cheney-Rumsfield.
Cheney thinks he's still winning. He is totally delusional but still in charge, unless Daddy-Knows-Best George Herbert Walker Bush has him marginalized
with the ouster of Rumsfield.

Cheney should be investigated for months. He can easily be impeached and should be. A long investigation will keep him busy staying out of jail and keep his ass out of foreign policy. A change in the head of FCC would help immensely so that enough facts can get out that leaders from both sides can get a grip on what needs to be done. al-Jezzera will be opening a cable channel in Washington DC by Jan 1. That should help.

Bush could simply land an F-16 in Baghdad , the troop roll out a huge
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
banner and say we won, go home.

_

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:55 pm

Investigate Cheney, absolutely - he is the neocon who is under the impression (2-year-old thinking) if he wants something (Iraqi oil, for example), it's his. However, W is the endtimer who needs to start armageddon so he can be raptured out of here. Investigate the heck out of him, too. Then, in 2009, hand all the results of the investigations over to the world court. (Unless there really is a god and W & Cheney both expire on chicken bones the same day - say 1/31/07. Can you say "President Pelosi"? I thought you could. Probably the only way we're going to get a woman president at all.)