Bush tho has improved his PR- for a while he would only give his speeches at military bases, where the listeners would probably have been court-martialed if they didn’t applaud. I wonder if he got the idea from Lyndon???

Yeah, I kind of missed the clarity of the Republican’s message on this one. On the one hand they seemed to be saying that it was totally meaningless, but if you voted for it you were emboldening Zarqawi, and demeaning the troops. So maybe it wasn’t really that meaningless.

more weapons we have in our arsenals, via their own words, to use against them…….Count on the fact that we will…

It’s hardly common parlance anymore. And it may seem nitpicky, but it diminishes the value of Representative Kucinich’s input. If Broder wants to live in the past, he might want to add ‘pinko’ next time.

If he wishes to lower the debate to that level, fine. But older readers like me will just bypass his stuff, figuring he’s a dinosaur with one foot already in the tarpits.

Other than that, I don’t recall what he said after that point.

Kinda reminds you of the way Iraq was tied to 9/11, eh?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa588.pdf
Escaping the Trap
Why the United States Must Leave Iraq
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Reagan was the architect of the eleventh commandment saying “thou shalt not criticize another Republican�.

I really don’t see that at all, especially since he challenged a sitting president (Ford) in the same way that T. Kennedy challenged Carter. I guess he may have enforced party loyalty after he led his wing of the party to dominance, but I never saw him as being that much of an uberpartisan; more like loyalty to a particular ideology, not to party.

Imo, a congressperson’s first loyalty should be to the Constitution, rather than the president.That’s who they swear the oath to. For six years,however, Congress acted as an adjunct to the executive branch, rather than the independent branch that the founders intended it to be. George Washington warned against overemphasis on party loyalty, because it subverts loyalty to the country as a whole. Too cozy a relationship leads to uncritical acceptance of faulty policy decisions, and fosters corruption.

This American Enterprise Institute report referenced is listed as having been posted December 14, and was called the “real Iraq Study Group report” by its author. file of report The draft was presented on December 14 by Frederick Kagan, AEI, General Keane, and Kenneth Pollack, (Brookings Institution) event detail. AEI released its final report to the press on January 5, 2007, under the title “Iraq: A Turning Point (With Reports from Iraq from Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman)”[[1]]. The event description stated the following:

“The study calls for a large and sustained surge of U.S. forces to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad. Mr. Kagan directed the report in consultation with military and regional experts, including General Keane, former Afghanistan coalition commander Lieutenant General David Barno, and other officers involved with the successful operations of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar. An interim version of the report was released on December 14, 2006. At this event, Mr. Kagan and General Keane will present their final report, which outlines how the United States can win in Iraq and why victory is the only acceptable outcome. “

Petraeus is not the author of the surge strategy, it was dreamed up at the AEI by Fred Kagan. In other words, it is the product of a think tank, that was shopped to various military commanders. Casey and Abizaid rejected it, as did the JCS. Gates was able to get Petraeus, who has an admirable counterinsurgency record, to take it on. Why pretend otherwise?

Kim,
I’ve heard that bandied about but what is the source of the information that Kagan was the author of the plan? Petraeus doesn’t strike me as a guy who’d risk his reputation by signing on to a plan that he didn’t really believe in, and he did author the counterinsurgency manual that at least seems to have been consulted heavily for the planning here. I’m not saying you’re wrong about Kagan but I do question it and wonder if there’s evidence of that?

Doctormatt, I agree with you about the time difference, but that is the only one. You have forgotten how Clinton enraged GOPers and alienated much of his own party.

I was reading a couple of Time magazines from the 90s lately, with stories of how enraged Democrats on the Hill were at Clinton triangulating with Republicans and undercutting them.

I think the Impeachment fiasco was the only thing the Democrats were ever fully onside with him.

Kritter makes an interesting point, I think, in saying that things might have been different if this exchange went on in 2001. I think this highlights the need for divided government in the United States. Historically, this has prevented excesses and disasters (FDR’s attempted stocking of the Supreme Court with extra Justices, for example…leading to his Democrats getting their clocks cleaned in the midterms in 38).

Having one-party rule seems to almost invariably be disastrous.

“Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs……

Why pretend otherwise?

These people lie so much that it’s just habit now. That’s why it’s serious news when the Administration actually says something truthful, like admitting there is a civil war in Iraq.

First, he argued that the House was at odds with the Senate, which had within the past month unanimously confirmed Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq — the man Bush said was the author of the surge strategy and the man who could make it work. Bush has made Petraeus his blocking back in this debate — replacing Vice President Cheney, whose credibility is much lower.

Petraeus is not the author of the surge strategy, it was dreamed up at the AEI by Fred Kagan. In other words, it is the product of a think tank, that was shopped to various military commanders. Casey and Abizaid rejected it, as did the JCS. Gates was able to get Petraeus, who has an admirable counterinsurgency record, to take it on. Why pretend otherwise?