“This is, was, and always will be George W. Bush’s war. He has made it clear he intends to proceed no matter what the country, the democrats, or even his own party wants. The only option is to cut off funding which would result in an immediate and total withdrawal. A result which even anti-war folks know would be a total disaster and don’t support.”

Actually the budget for fiscal year 2008 (begins Oct.1, 2007) has already been passed and as I recall a supplemental budget for additional funds for the Iraq war was passed late Spring / early Summer. So I don’t believe there are any pending military spending bills which could possibly result in immediate withdrawal. As far as I can tell, Bush’s war is fully funded through the end of the 2008 fiscal year (Sept. 20, 2008).

Right now the Iraqis view us as invaders (we are). And Bush’s fight in Iraq has only brought about more devastation in the 4 1/2 years he’s been there. Bush has one politcal agenda for his own purposes which doesn’t mesh with what the Iraqis need to see happen. So I say we pull out quickly, probably over a period of 9 months (in the past when push comes to shove we’ve been able to move massive amounts of troops quickly) and see what happens in Iraq. We may need to go back in (as part of a true coalition) to help stablize the region. After all if we do pull out now and then go back in the Iraqis can no longer claim that we’re invaders.

So why are we still in Iraq and what are we accomplishing by remaining? Particularly when many Iraqis want us out. We haven’t made progress at all and Bush’s plan is to put the fight off on someone else to deal with once he leaves office. Let’s save American lives and bring our troops home.

Gonzales was not Bush caving. The man perjured himself, violated the constitution on command, and gave some of the most embarassingly transparent cover up testimony ever seen and STILL Bush had his back.

Guest worker and social security never took off because they are simply awful ideas that should have never been pushed in the first place. The fact they even made it on the radar is testimony to Bush’s tenacity in pushing dumb ideas.

And I find your use of “interogate” regarding Bush and Cheney pretty funny. And not just because it wasn’t even under oath.

The reality is that most people, even most Democrats, want to pull out of Iraq, but they want to do it senisibly, with a minimum of danage to Iraq and to those troops among the last to leave.
The helocopters taking off from VietNam’s roofs is not an inviting scenario to want to repeat.
Any military tacticician will tell you, you can’t take everyone and everything safely out of Iraq in less than around 18 months, and probably 2 years is the safest bet.
So, the cut of funding now scenatio is just dreamland talk, unless you’re ready to have some GIs hitchhike home

Don’t believe everything you hear from politicains campaigning or from advocacy groups promissing you the moon in a shoe box.
.
It’s precisely because most Democrats want to use more sense leaving than what was shown invading, that the President can symie them. They are hog-tied by a dilemma.
It would be second worst mistake to do with Iraq to fall into the President’s trap and do something really rash like cut off funding. leave out troops vulnerable, and create a chaotic exit. I don’t think the Democrat’s could recover from that, and I’m not sure the nation could.

What planet have you been on these last few years to think Bush will compromise anything?

A planet where Harriet Miers isn’t a Supreme Court Justice, where Alberto Gonzales is the former AG, where there is no guest worker program, Social Security hasn’t been privatized and the Iraq Study Group was allowed to interrogate the president and Dick Cheney on the screwups that lead to 9/11.

Bush hasn’t been challenged on much, thanks to years of a sycophantic Republican Congress, but where he has he’s always caved.

I think you are the one not paying attn to how Bush operates. What makes you think he will give an inch? They guy has looked America in the face for years and lied and told us he’s going to do as he pleases. He’s never shown an ouch of shame about overreaching his authority nor has he shown any willingness to compromise. He told Congress to go shove their subpoenas, after the ’06 elections he brought us The Surge, he pardons his convicted former staffers, he ignores laws he feels hinder him. What planet have you been on these last few years to think Bush will compromise anything?

that would result in an immediate and total withdrawal, which no one wants

Actually, what it would result in is George Bush sitting down with members of Congress and hammering out an agreement over what to do in Iraq. Anybody who thinks George Bush will literally veto every bill that isn’t a rubber stamp hasn’t paid attention to how he operates.

You also seem to be of the impression that our presence is de facto better than our absence. But the current situation is that American forces are subsidizing all sides of a civil war and calling it progress.

Meanwhile major American political figures are considering whether to stage a coup and replace Maliki with a strongman or enforce an American partition plan which would cause the sectarian war to explode. Either of those plans will make things much worse.

Chris: right on. While the R’s make me angry with all their snide evil, the D’s make we want to vomit. They are gutless cowards.

There is a reason that cowardice is reviled more thoroughly than evil, and that’s because evil cannot win w/o cowardice.

Thanks.’

People like you manifestly do not elect honest people who speak common sense. So what wd be the point?

Thanks.

He called the Democrats cowards and traitors in 2006, but his party still got their asses kicked. The fear is unfounded.

There has been a concerted Democratic PR campaign to make us believe that they can’t stop the war without Republican votes or the President’s approval. It’s total crap, and more evidence that the Democrats don’t really want to leave Iraq, or don’t care about it more than the 2008 elections. Either way, if there is a hell, they are going straight to it.

John Warner demands a token 5000 troops home for Christmas.

Bush attacks the “reckless” timetable.

Warner refuses to back down.

Now the president decides to bring 5700 troops home for Christmas.

Bush always backs down when he thinks he’ll lose. The Democrats have never given him a reason to think he’ll lose against them. If they continue to cower at his veto threats they may as well just go home.

“Vetos aren’t magic trump cards”

Actually, yea they are if you don’t have the votes to over ride.

Again. The Democrats don’t need to override Bush’s veto. Bush needs to get a budget passed to continue his war. Without Democratic votes – he doesn’t get it.

That has nothing to do with their willingness to fight. Its because its easier to stop bills than get them passed.

“This became the Democrats war the day they got their majorities. ”

Wrong again. This is, was, and always will be George W. Bush’s war. He has made it clear he intends to proceed no matter what the country, the democrats, or even his own party wants. The only option is to cut off funding which would result in an immediate and total withdrawal. A result which even anti-war folks know would be a total disaster and don’t support.

Actually, yea they are if you don’t have the votes to over ride.

The GOP filibusters and Bush’s veto has stopped any meaningfull legislation the Dems might want to pass.

The Dem’s don’t have to pass legislation. The president does.

Vetos aren’t magic trump cards. Bush can stop all the bills he wants. But until he signs something he has no funding. The Democrats have to bring a bill to the floor and a significant number have to vote for it before it gets to his desk (over 30 Democratic Senators voted for Bush’s supplemental request). This gives the Democrats leverage that they’ve refused to use.

The Republicans have no problem stopping bills they don’t like. They are willing to fight for their bill . The Democrats aren’t.

This became the Democrats war the day they got their majorities. It’s time to stop making excuses for them. The president won’t change course unless he sees a credible challenge to him. And the Democrats won’t challenge him until their constituents demand it.

They indeed got their 2 “moderate” agenda items…….9/11 reforms and min wage.

It was political idiocy though to take the Republicans on over publicized troop withdrawal dates and federal funding for stem cell research without the vetoproof numbers behind them. There were more clever ways of getting legislative momentum built up on Iraq and stem cell but they chose not to be clever.

Prescription drug price controls and limited selection will be aired for the sham it is in the upcoming POTUS campaign with Hillary.

The bulk of the electorate expects cleverness, compromise and statesmanship to get around partisan gridlock. The Dems did not deliver this.

That’s why they run lower approvals than the worst politician on earth.

Its just more GOP spin control. Pass the word that the Dems are “in charge” even though all we’ve really got here is that both parties can totally paralyze the other. Then when the democrats can’t do anything we call them ineffective. And while the GOP can’t do anything either, the president sits above it all with the authority to end this and actually do something. And so many idiots fall for it.