With Democrats like this...

ABC's Charlie Gibson q/a with Rep, Nancy Boyda (Kansas), an ex-Republican who was sworn in today as a Democrat.

Gibson: So when the president, in the next few days, as he is anticipated to do, calls for a surge and more troops going over there, how's the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives going to react?

Nancy Boyda: I would be happy to vote for more troops, but I am not happy to vote for more troops without a clear mission and sending more of young men into harm's way.

Gibson: But, of course, the president thinks he's defined one, a government in Iraq that can defend itself and sustain itself and govern itself. There's the mission that he's put forth. If he says we need more troops, is the Democratic majority going to be compliant? Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Boyda: I think we're going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he'll get it.

Boyda: Yes. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, "We're voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home."

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/05/is-boyda-nuts/

 

So in other words, the people are stupid for voting for Bush, but she's going to vote to support Bush's mission?

And what does "Congress doesn't make that decision" mean? I've tried to learn as much about American politics as I can, and I don't understand why Congress can't say to Bush, "um, no, you've had more than enough money and more than enough troops."

I mean, Congress has never voted to declare war so I would think Congress still has a say in how military operations are handled. Is this not correct?

 

Well, she is an ex-Republican. I lump her right in with Jim Jeffords.

Benedict Arnold.

 

Congress still holds the hammer. It can vote to cut off funding for the war.

 

The Dems obviously hate America. Why wouldn't they just follow the morally superior GOP-led Congress and just rubber stamp W's plans. The Constitution plainly states that during times of war, the President has supreme and unquestioned powers.

It's a little known fact that Thomas Jefferson supported wiretapping American citizens, opening their mail and home searches without warrants. Where do you think Karl Rove came up with the Patriot Act? He studied Jefferson's notes.

Duh.

 

Sarcasm Light Oblique. My favorite font.

 

Congratulations. You are now more qualified to be in the House than the lady from Kansas who, in two years, is going to discover what the phrase "tough primary battle" means.
Interesting that this was the person ABC went and found.

 

If the election was re-held tomorrow - Bush would still beat John Kerry by a 2 to 1 margin. The economy is better than almost any point in the past 50 years and we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. For those who want to make Iraq the centerpoint of any campaign consider that about 25% of Iraq is in full Iraqi control with 80% of the country having Iraqi troops in the lead. The economy is booming for the average Iraqi citizen and if these trends continue - then Iraq will be in pretty good shape indeed by the time of the 2008 elections.

More troops were a centerpiece of the ISG and if the Democrats vote against a "surge' or fail to fund the troops - then they will just be coloring themselves as anti-military and not serious about protecting the country from terrorist attacks (re-enforcing the impression that they care more about the rights of terrorists than they do about Americans). That will doom any Democrat in a 2008 general election. If more troops are authorized by the Democrats - then they have to pray that the war does not expand to Syria or Iran (both countries have given plenty of reason for us to attack) because then they will be as much on the hook as the Republicans and it will be hard to campaign against the war when they helped widen it.

Probably the best thing for the Democrats would be the status-quo but that means "staying the course" and they will be ridiculed for such a stance. The bottom line is the Democrats are in a catch-22 and once again George W has been misunderestimated.

 

Boy, would I like to see the sources for this construction of the Good Ship Lollipop.
Hard to believe the architect of these miracles can't crack 40 percent in the polls, is distrusted on his pet war by 60 percent of the American people, and will now embark on a course favored by 12 percent of the population.

 

Where did the ISG suggest more troops to plow into Baghdad?

 

You're right. Ignore reality b/c it, as we all know, has a liberal bias.

Before the war, it was Saddam's enemies who'd fled; then, it was his supporters. Now, a fresh wave of refugees is joining the 4 million Iraqis already in exile, the middle class on the run from violent sectarian purges. And the trickle is becoming a flood.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/refugee_12-28.html