« Proving Bush's Irrelevance: Veto Override | Main | Is This The Next Hurrah »

November 20, 2006


at 3 dead soldiers a day, how many soldiers' lives are the bushite warmongers willing to spend ???

and for what

those are the questions that destroy george's little bubble of victory

i'm going to conscientiously stop paying taxes... i mean, how much is all this crap going to cost?

I think that the Bush Administration are hoping the Democrats take charge, and ultimately blame.

I just had a little reading mishap. I misread "bipartisan" Baker Commission as bipolar Baker Commission. Did I inadvertantly stumble on the truth?

for the first time, I agree with Jodi

The Dems will hold hearings, but they will not cut off funds. So no one in Congress will stop Bush.

There is one group that could do it. Retired military leaders, led by Colin Powell. Demand that we leave. That would make Repubs in Congress scared, and might lead to some action.

The interesting play is Charlie Rangel and the draft. Many Dems fear this angle (what do the heirs of Clinton NOT fear?), and for sure it will never become law, but I am not certain that it isn't a good publicity stunt. For some reason, I like it. But maybe the polls would show that it does not convince people. Has anyone seen anything relevant?

The politics of Iraq is going to be "who lost Iraq". Bush is not going to withdraw no matter if the sun rises in the west. He is not going to take the responsibility for invading and losing. The Dems are not going to defund lest they be attacked for not supporting the troops. The best they can do is shed light on the decision making to war, the war profiteering and real situation on the ground. So who is going to have the courage to get the troops out of the middle of the Iraqi anarchy. Most likely the next Presidential candidate who runs on a campaign of getting out and then gets elected.

In the next 2 years we will have the kabuki between Bush and the congressional Dems while every month 50-100 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis will shed blood.

:( ...

Ab initio,

You are correct.

1968-74 all over again, except Nixon was a better President

I think most of the people here misunderestimate the will of the American people

and the fact that politicians live in fear of the mob

repuglican self interest will prevail

I doubt that the repuglicans are gonna stay with george AFTER they've gone over the cliff

repuglicans are having a Wile E Coyote moment right now

you know, after Wile E has ventured off the cliff but before he starts to fall ???

look for all sorts of repuglican congresscritters to start holding up little signs with humorous phrases on them

then the drop begins

and the repuglicans are living in fear of that plunge

the most ferocious organisim on this planet is 300,000,000 pissed off Americans

and we ain't gonna be pissed at any Iraqis

``The Dems are not going to defund lest they be attacked for not supporting the troops.''

This is not a new phenomena. In a speech---given in the House in Jan, 1848---that in general condemned the Mexican war, then Congressman Abraham Lincoln nevertheless insisted that ``I voted for the supplies''. Ten years later in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he repeated that point in response to criticism by Douglas of his stance against the Mexican war. One might call the position in which Lincoln, and many congress critters since then, have found themselves over their opposition to a war, the ``jingoism trap''.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad