The I word.

[ADifferentOkie]

We've seen the Democrats' stomach to fight this thing ... and I wasn't very impressed.

They sent a bill they knew he'd veto, just so they can put they're hands on their collective hips and say, "Well, we tried, but the Big, Bad Boogeyman is playing politics."

*Boy, I wish that was a more coherent statement.*

Wow. You think this about having the stomach to fight the war?
It's not more about being in a hopeless situation we never should have been in in the first place, where thousands are dying for no reason, with no realistic goals in sight?

 

[User 1019]

We've seen the Democrats' stomach to fight this thing ... and I wasn't very impressed.

They sent a bill they knew he'd veto, just so they can put they're hands on their collective hips and say, "Well, we tried, but the Big, Bad Boogeyman is playing politics."

*Boy, I wish that was a more coherent statement.*

Wow. You think this about having the stomach to fight the war?
It's not more about being in a hopeless situation we never should have been in in the first place, where thousands are dying for no reason, with no realistic goals in sight?

Not sure I'm picking up what you meant by "fight the war." Did you mean opposing the war or waging it? I'm sorry. Just missed it, there.

I was calling out the Democrats for giving up. Seems to me like they've just thrown their hands in the air.

 

[ADifferentOkie]

We've seen the Democrats' stomach to fight this thing ... and I wasn't very impressed.

They sent a bill they knew he'd veto, just so they can put they're hands on their collective hips and say, "Well, we tried, but the Big, Bad Boogeyman is playing politics."

*Boy, I wish that was a more coherent statement.*

Wow. You think this about having the stomach to fight the war?
It's not more about being in a hopeless situation we never should have been in in the first place, where thousands are dying for no reason, with no realistic goals in sight?

Not sure I'm picking up what you meant by "fight the war." Did you mean opposing the war or waging it? I'm sorry. Just missed it, there.

I was calling out the Democrats for giving up. Seems to me like they've just thrown their hands in the air.

A perfect example of a failure to read (or comprehend) a post.
I thought you were calling out Democrats, basically, as "cut and runners," impugning their intestinal fortitude to fight in Iraq.
My apologies.

 

[ADifferentOkie]

Just so I don't sound like a complete idiot, I got that from the first sentence, not the second.

 

[User 1019]

No, I just hear so much baloney from both sides about this thing, and no one's willing -- or trying hard enough -- to do a ****ing thing about it.

Twatwaffles, the whole lot of 'em.

I think we misunderstood each other, so, we're tied at 1.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Of course, the bil he vetoed would have funded the war. So the choice is, for the moment, give him everything he wants and become further complicit in his catastrophe or, send him a bill he vetoes and then fail to override it.
What would you have the Democrats do?

 

[User 1019]

I'd hope they (that's both sides of the aisle) work a little harder to try and find a bill that he'd sign.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

He won't sign any bill that doesn't give him precisely what he wants. Period.
That's what the last 2 weeks have been about.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Here is what I think will happen. They'll send him another bill, he'll veto, the override will fail. Then they will sit down and put in "benchmarks." These benchmarks will be as concrete as Jello and they will be vague enough that when the time comes, the President will be able to say "This benchmark has been met, so we need to stay to see the job through" and Pelosi/Reid will be able to say, "This benchmark has not been met, so lets get outta there," and both will be able to make a prima facie case for their statements. And because he is the Commander in Chief, Bush wins that stalemate. The President will have weaseled into a way to get what he wants and the end result will be no different than what would have happened if the Republicans were still in charge.

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here is what I think will happen. They'll send him another bill, he'll veto, the override will fail. Then they will sit down and put in "benchmarks." These benchmarks will be as concrete as Jello and they will be vague enough that when the time comes, the President will be able to say "This benchmark has been met, so we need to stay to see the job through" and Pelosi/Reid will be able to say, "This benchmark has not been met, so lets get outta there," and both will be able to make a prima facie case for their statements. And because he is the Commander in Chief, Bush wins that stalemate. The President will have weaseled into a way to get what he wants and the end result will be no different than what would have happened if the Republicans were still in charge.

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

The point being that Bush doesn't have the mad skillz of Bill?
Maybe. I like what Edwards is saying, too. The country? I'm not so sure.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

I agree, totally. ****, that's what a majority of the country wants. But Democrats and all their pollers and consultants and other dumb ****s will wuss out and display balls the strength of fish food flakes, and give President Nimrod what he wants.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

I agree, totally. ****, that's what a majority of the country wants. But Democrats and all their pollers and consultants and other dumb ****s will wuss out and display balls the strength of fish food flakes, and give President Nimrod what he wants.

If the D's did what Edwards want, and the WH went fullcourt with the "D's hate the troops, want them to die over there, boogedy-boogedy!" meme, would the country buy it? I honestly don't know.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Here is what I think will happen. They'll send him another bill, he'll veto, the override will fail. Then they will sit down and put in "benchmarks." These benchmarks will be as concrete as Jello and they will be vague enough that when the time comes, the President will be able to say "This benchmark has been met, so we need to stay to see the job through" and Pelosi/Reid will be able to say, "This benchmark has not been met, so lets get outta there," and both will be able to make a prima facie case for their statements. And because he is the Commander in Chief, Bush wins that stalemate. The President will have weaseled into a way to get what he wants and the end result will be no different than what would have happened if the Republicans were still in charge.

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

The point being that Bush doesn't have the mad skillz of Bill?
Maybe. I like what Edwards is saying, too. The country? I'm not so sure.

Well, if you are right that 70% of America opposes this war, how is digging in and forcing Bush's hand not going to be viewed favorably by the country?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here is what I think will happen. They'll send him another bill, he'll veto, the override will fail. Then they will sit down and put in "benchmarks." These benchmarks will be as concrete as Jello and they will be vague enough that when the time comes, the President will be able to say "This benchmark has been met, so we need to stay to see the job through" and Pelosi/Reid will be able to say, "This benchmark has not been met, so lets get outta there," and both will be able to make a prima facie case for their statements. And because he is the Commander in Chief, Bush wins that stalemate. The President will have weaseled into a way to get what he wants and the end result will be no different than what would have happened if the Republicans were still in charge.

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

The point being that Bush doesn't have the mad skillz of Bill?
Maybe. I like what Edwards is saying, too. The country? I'm not so sure.

Well, if you are right that 70% of America opposes this war, how is digging in and forcing Bush's hand not going to be viewed favorably by the country?

Logic says you're right. My instincts say you're right. So, I guess my answer is, **** it, do what you think is right and let the chips fall, which is the Edwards position.
I just don't know if you're right. This country ceased behaving logically a couple of years back.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If the Democrats had any gumption, they would follow Edwards' advice and keep sending Bush the same bill over and over again. Do what Newt Gingrich would have done circa 1995 -- dig a trench and refuse to move -- and make Bush do an act of Clintonian political magic to get himself out of the mess.

I agree, totally. ****, that's what a majority of the country wants. But Democrats and all their pollers and consultants and other dumb ****s will wuss out and display balls the strength of fish food flakes, and give President Nimrod what he wants.

If the D's did what Edwards want, and the WH went fullcourt with the "D's hate the troops, want them to die over there, boogedy-boogedy!" meme, would the country buy it? I honestly don't know.

Well if the D's let that happen then they should cease to hold office. Because setting up timelines for withdrawal, which the country wants, while still providing funding, which the country wants, is uh, what a majority of the country wants. If they somehow **** that up it would be because of their own stupidity, not because the American people suddenly changed their mind or suddenly decided that Bush knows what he's doing.

That said, I totally expect Hoyer and Pelosi and the rest of the gang to capitulate.

 

[jimmymcd]

If the Dems defunded the war, I would say great, you finally did something instead of posturing and stirring up the $hi+. I might not agree with it at all, but that's why we have elections. Then again, my guy lost the last two prez elections, so what do I know...

 

[Tom Petty]

Who is to blame? More like "what" is to blame.
I firmly believe that if the internet had been around when FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, whoever, was president, there would have been calls for impeachment.

yes, an informed public is dangerous isn't it you little twatwaffle?

go fetch me anything pyramid newbie ... and make it snappy.

 

[jimmymcd]

No, jackass, information isn't a bad thing. Your reading comprehension disability begs disbelief.
I always thought you sucked as a musician, too, old man. Get your cellmate to fetch you something.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Please please please please please Please PLEASE keep beating the impeachment drum as we head into 2008.

That is all.

 

[Tom Petty]

No, jackass, information isn't a bad thing. Your reading comprehension disability begs disbelief.
I always thought you sucked as a musician, too, old man. Get your cellmate to fetch you something.

no, it's your writing skills that suck newbie. and the cellmate thing, very old, *****.