« Frontline/Firedoglake thread/ Media ownership | Main | Bush's base: hate the troops, or hate the commander? »

March 01, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d8342e90d053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Even Republicans Have Had Enough of Bush:

Comments

All this yet congress is afraid to get tough with this administration. Republicans mostly still standing by their man. Blue Dogs who ran as Dems to get elected, but really are Republicans. Meanwhile, Cheney seems to have forgotten to keep pretending that he's not the President. Cheney in the news, meeting with world leaders every day, and what is W doing? Yes, it does seem that we are pretty mainstream these days, but when do we get to see the impact of that? When does the world get to see that elections in America matter?

Bobby Kennedy toured Apalachia and drew attention to poverty.

Some high-profile senator needs to go to Iraq, and meet people in the street for the cameras. Meet soldiers on patrol in front of cameras. Talk to ordinary Kurds. Ordinary Sunnis. Ordinary Turkemens. Ordianry Shiites.

Two or three week media circus.

Dangerous, but important. And it could move the public in a visceral way that would prod Congress, and provide cover for true confrontation.

Who is brave enough to do it?

What's John Kerry's schedule?

Actually, we're not mainstream, the public is way ahead of Democrats on ending the war. Feingold is right that if Democrats don't show some courage soon and make bold moves to end the war, it will become the Democrats' war. We should at least try instead of being so cautious and fearful.
If we propose bold legislation to end the war and Republicans go on record as obstructing it, it's their loss, not ours. And as for politics, voters hate it when Dems don't offer a real alternative to Bush and look spineless.
I'm calling the timidity the "SOFT phobia," (Soft On Fighting Terror phobia). SOFT phobia is not even relevant when the great majority of the public want out of Iraq and repudiate Bush's war of aggression.
When we fear looking soft, we look.... well, fearful.
If we can't show leadership when the opposition has poll numbers like these, we never will. It looks like it's up to rank and file Democrats to listen to people like Feingold and double our efforts to light a fire under Congress. Now's the time.

I kinda got used to bein ahead of the crowd, especially about the moral bankrupcy of the repulican party, so I'm not really surprised

the repuglican canabalism has just begun

wait till they really start chewin on Mitt and Rudi, and 21 repuglican Senators begin to face the fact that their own heads are on the choppin block with presnit george

we're gonna hear a lot of hollerin about "those godless evil Democrats", and America is going to recognize the "Projections" hidden within those wails

we're gonna hear so many references to Bill Clinton that we have to develop somthing like "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies" to ridicule the freepi (that means YOU, tokyo jodi)

nothing dies uglier than a political party, and the repuglican party's death is going to be especially ugly

karma's a bitch, and she has the repuglicans' number

You know, there is a tried and true Democratic Strategy that works on the principle that Republicans have to make the first move and do it up front, and then the Democrats come along with their votes. Examples, The Censure of Joe McCarthy in 1954 -- something Eisenhower really really wanted, as did virtually all the Dem's, but they forced the Republicans to put half their membership out front first, and then the Censure Resolution passed by I think 67 votes. They did the same thing with Nixon. Democratic Senators held back -- got to hear the case, be a good jury member you know -- and the republicans had to push one senator after another up to a mike to say he had lost all confidence in Tricky Dick. It is a kind of leadership you know to make the other side take the lead in eating mud pie -- and my guess is that what's going on back stage in DC has a lot to do with this.

And by the way, did you notice today that Bush renounced one of his titles. Asked about Walter Reed, he said the White House had no responsibility for that. Guess George found it useful not to be Commander in Chief any more. His polls are not about any near term recovery.

yo, Sara, what's the track record for the repuglicans who swallowed the bullet and tossed McCarthy and Nixon overboard ???

in your opinion, which is worse for the repuglicans, lancing the boil or facing the voters with the boil still festering in 2008 ???

impeaching Clinton didn't help the repuglicans

george bush could be the other side of that coin

whaddayathink ???

anybody ??? (cept you, tokyo jodi)

If the situation were reversed, the Rep's would be salivating at the opportunity to crash the doors of Congress to remove Bush. They would absolutely be in their glory at this political golden moment to utterly destroy any conception for generations to come of leadership for their opposition.

With Bush/Cheney their admin has so devolved our policies across the board that impeaching them is beyond a political power grab and now a Country's quest for survival.

The Repubs who turned on McCarthy and especially Nixon are now considered heroes.

Going to Iraq is not going to Appalachia--way too dangerous to do what was described, Laura Bush's "one bomb a day" to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think the Dems have to start drawing lines in the sand even of they know theyn will be voted down. The Dems need to understand strategic losing of votes in order to get the other side on record--sopmething the GOP understands very well. I do think that by summer something bad will have happened to begin to move us out, but it would be good if the Dems would demonstrtate some resolve before then. I totally agree with the "SOFT" analysis above. Being afraid to appear soft just makes the Dems look afraid and soft.

So far Obama is demonstrating the most resolve, but we'll see.

And didn't Broder tell us Bush was coming back? 29%?? Too funny, except that each day we find the country sinking deeper into the mire.

Okay, please tell me what the hell the Democrats have to lose? Everybody in America now knows the "if you cut funding, you're not supporting the troops" lie. And what's to prevent the Dems from saying "We ARE supporting the troops -- we're bringing them home so no more die in this illegal, immoral, misbegotten war based on lies." But, no. True to form, the Democratic party continues to burnish their "wimp" image by not confronting Bush and the Republicans directly. Which leaves the American people to ask: "If they can't stand up to Republicans, how can they stand up to America's enemies?" No wonder Obama is surging in the polls -- he's the only one of the "presidential hopefuls" with any guts at all.

I abandoned Bush in 2004, to vote for a fake, a facade, Mr Kerry. That is how much I hated Bush.

There is one problem with pulling out of Iraq as it is now. What will happen after we bring our troops home? That is the Democrats problem. Right now they can safely blame the Republicans about Iraq, and every death.

Once they take control of the situation, then they will start getting the blame for whatever happens. That is the dilemma.

The elected Democrats in control of the House and the Senate know this. That is why they seem to be dragging their feet, insofar as their liberal left base (bloggers for example) are concerned.

It isn't a pretty picture.

Jodi, what's going to happen in Iraq has, at this point, nothing to do with who pulls the troops out. It's happening anyway. It's a multi-way uncivil war, and we're in the middle of it, with an administration that wants to make it worse by attacking Iran too. When we leave (soon, I hope, but I don't think many in Congress will actually do more than make speeches about it) it will remove part of the problem. Maybe it will get better, probably it will get worse, and it's not something we can solve without admitting our mistakes to the world.

Jodi, Me thinks you speak with a fork tongue! Why don't you just slither over to 'little green footballs' to the cold embrace of your fellow travellers.

Freepat,
I think for a Repub in office challenging this administration is the best chance of survival. For one thing most of them don't need to get through a primary, and thus they will seem more moderate, and more HONEST in the general. Voters like guys who don't always go with the party. Guys who stand up when something is wrong. The thing is this seems so obvious to me, that I have to think there is some deeper controlling factor behind these morons continuing to hold the party line. Money, threats from the party, What hold does Dick and the GOP have over them? Or all they really rotten bastard ideologs like Cheney?

As for what happens when we leave, Jody is actually on the mark in this instance. It's a catch 22, mitigated to some extent by the fact that most of the country knows that staying just flat ain't going to fix it. There is also the very real possibility that the administration will do everything they can to embroil Iraq and the area if the Dems pull us out, in an effort to make sure it blows up in their faces. That being said, Mimi is right, they are coming off as soft. They look like a bunch of weenies at the moment.

I really hate this fear tactic Cheney broken record argument, "What will happen when we leave" It is such bull shit. And all of you are right, the same thing that is happening now only probably a lot faster.

I know I'm going to catch shit for this, and please all of you know I really want our boys out, and think it is the morally right thing to do, but how do we handle damage control when we still have an administration in place that can be trusted to sabotoge a forced pull out in every way they can think of?

Isn't impeacment really the first step here? Don't we need dirty Dick out of play first? What need to happen is fairly obvious, how to do it, that is a real pickle.

P J Evans,
Liam
,

englighten me.

Tell me what will happen in the next 5 years after we pull out of Iraq, without some kind of resolution there.

And I don't mean in Iraq. What will happen with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the EU, .... and America?

Our mistake was having a bunch of fools grab the bear by the tail. But what happens when we let go. Not to the fools but to us?

Jodi, your average fighter in Iraq is in a power struggle over control of Iraq (and it's oil revenue)...that's what they care about...their country.

Sadr's "army" is not going to somehow follow us home, though they very well may kill many an innocent (and not so innocent) Sunnis after we leave. That we cannot help, and our staying has not stopped it from occuring, it may even be egging it on by preventing Iraqi political solutions.

In the meantime, the real boogeymen, Al Queda, is NOW training in Iraq. The new Al Queda recruits see us as crusaders and are coming in and are honing their skills and becoming battle seasoned.

Our leaving (or staying) will not prevent these new recruits from being dangerous to us in the future.

We did grab a bear by the tail, but holding on for five more minutes, five more months or five more years is not going to solve the problem.

Abby,

my thought is that it would be nice to calm the bear down, before we leave. If we leave I think that Al Quaeda will continue training in Iraq. I think that the Sunni vs Shia fight will spread out of Iraq.

I admit there is no way of knowing.

I would just hate to have to go back over there later if and when they do come after us in America just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

I don't claim to have the answers, but I haven't heard any good ones from anyone else yet myself.

But anyway, my answer mainly was about why the Democrats in Congress haven't jumped on the cut the funds and get the troops back home NOW push.

I think they too are concerned about the future.

Why push for something that cannot possibly pass congress? The Republicans in the Senate have filibustered even vague criticism of the President's policy.

Besides, many Dem's do not favor just bringing every troop home tomorrow. They favor gradual withdrawal and limited troops left behind for training purposes, etc.

BTW, the previous generals (that have since been replaced in Iraq) thought that adding troops would not help...they'd hurt. More troops are NOT taming the bear, they are just enflaming the situation.

Who are the bad guys we are fighting over there? We all recognize Al Queda, but they are just a tiny fraction of the problem...and they are not just in Iraq.

Abby

sometimes the best you can do is set a goal, and then attempt to accomplish it.

Yes my point has been that the Democrats ((in office)) realize the dangers of actually doing what their most liberal base wants them to do in Iraq. There is a difference in wanting something and in doing it. The difference is living with the consequences and being able to accept the blame for what comes.

As for the Generals Abby, you probably are not from a military family like I am. Generals must be politically acceptable, so they are quite politically sensitive until the day they retire. Their boss is the President.
This Iraqi war has "retired" quite a few Generals already. My father knows some of them quite well.

In Iraq, there are so many factions that even the major groups are divided in part. All have been galvanized by America's causing Saddam to lose power.
The major ones to keep track of are the Suni PLUS Saudi Arabia and the greater Islamic world, the Shia PLUS Iran, Al Quaeda, the Turks as concerns the Kurds. Even these groups are fractionialized.

Abby,

Going back at any time in the foreseeable future is simply not possible. The Army (the Marines less so) is broken for the next decade. This is rather a lot like the Army post draft, post Viet Nam.

Re: Bush takes no resonsibility for Walter Reed/wounded vet treatment?? He had NO idea??? This is ANOTHER blatant lie by the Repugs. Our NJ Rep. Chris Smith was fired as Chairman of Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 2005 because he did TOO GOOD a job. Got over 26 bills passed (worked with both parties) and constantly prodded this administration re:cuts in Vets' benefits by Bush and Co. His BIG mistake was voting against drilling in Arctic Reserve, which incurred the wrath of now disgraced Tom Delay, who had Dennis Hassert fire Chris. Smith has toiled ceaselessly for 24 years on Veterans' affairs. They put in a party loyalist who they said could tell Veterans' groups "enough is enough." Sound like our caring administration?? Yeah! The only CONSTANT with the Bushies is that they lie so glibly. Business as usual! This bunch of clowns should all be impeached!! (P.S. And I'm a Republican!!) It's time for a movement to organize a serious third party to run against all these idiots, Republiclans AND Democrats. Had a real problem with the 2006 elections - hate the Republicans for Bush & Co.'s complete incompetency in ALL areas and I live in NJ, a Democratic-controlled state where about 99% of the politicians are crooks! The FBI's in here big-time right now looking into corruption in the Legislature. Who do you vote for??? Third-party time, Gang!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad