What we should do differently, is make more of an effort to save the Iraqis that have helped us that have fled Iraq and are now penniless or remain there in danger of retribution. To our everlasting shame, we didn’t do that in Vietnam.

Surely you jest? You think things went well for the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Koreans after we left? And Kosovo as a beacon of success?

What the hell do you consider bad consequences?

“So what happens in a post-veto scenario? Most CBS/NYT respondents wanted Democrats to drop back: Fifty-six percent said they should allow funding for the war even if there is no timetable, 20 points more than those who wanted Democrats to withhold war funding until Bush accepts a timetable. ”

http://nationaljournal.com/members/polltrack/2007/todays/04/0427cbsnyt.htm

Passing a bill with a timetable is not about breaking President Bush’s veto. It’s about showing that the Democrats have enough power to muster in Congress, should they choose to do so, the votes to end funding for the war and bring the troops home. Bush’s veto, in turn, is about showing Congress he has the power to obstruct its institutional intentions, should he so choose. This early in the new Congress’s term, all of the brouhaha — the namecalling, the votes, the vetoes, the harsh statements — the entire affair is about Congress and the president asserting their respective institutional prerogatives and establishing a new power dynamic.

Keep in mind that this president has had a rather easy ride from Congress. Before 9/11, Republicans were markedly unwilling to assert Congress’s institutional prerogatives, and after 9/11, Democrats became significantly less willing to do so as well — which set up a dynamic in which the president was clearly dominant.

Clinton, in turn, had his own dynamic with the Republican Congress — when it started exercising institutional prerogatives, he did a lot of horse-trading and coalition-building to accomplish his agenda, a process made easier when the Republicans overplayed their hand and shut down the government.

Rather than complaining or fulminating, I’m just enjoying the show.

–|PW|–

The Bush admin has seen fit to provide him with less then half that number to fight the surge and the vast majority of those troops are based in Baghdad. The best the news gets is that the numbers of civilian casualties in Baghdad are down. The bad news however is that the number of civilian casualties in the rest of the country is up.

The truth is that whether we stay or go Iraqis will continue to die, at a slower rate if we stay, at a frightening rate if we go.

That the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is lost is no longer in question. Most polls would suggest a majority of Iraqis, like a majority of Americans, would like us out.

So why stay? Other than as a face saving exercise for the Bush admin there is really no good reason, except the moral one- we destroyed their country so are we right to abandon them to the coming slaughter that will undoubtedly occur once we leave?

A bad war was undertaken in our name and whatever we decide as a people the consequences will haunt us for generations.

Kim, you misunderstood him. He’s willing to work with Democrats that agree with him. This administration seems to feel that compromise in a one way street… toward the White House.