Mar 27 2007
GOP & Bush Double Dare Democrats To Screw Up More
The GOP in the Senate and Bush have made a smart tactical decision to put the Dems in the hot seat regarding funding the troops and their liberal foolishness. The house has passed and the Senate will (barely) pass funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is they have also added useless pork, including the crass amount of $100M for party conventions, along with useless verbage on surrender dates. The money needs to move fast so the GOP will let the Dem disaster limp to passage in the Senate (1 vote margin, as with the house) so Bush can come out and make the obvious statement.
Bush will tell the nation that first and foremost, both houses have shown support for the war and the surge by passing the needed funds. And then he will tell the nation that paying for party conventions should not be in this Bill, but if money is available should go directly to supporting the troops. Same with spinach and peanut subsidies And he will call on Congress to move their collective behinds and get the minimum necessary funding passed ASAP or risk lives. And the Dems will do as they are told. They played a weak hand will not only lose, but their in competence will give Bush a boost with America.
I really do hope you’re right, AJ. I realize this bill is not, in any way, comparable to CFR, but I had confidence that W would veto that too, and we all know how that worked out.
Unbelievable. Hagel sticks it to republicans again. Why is he still a republican?
Hagel is up for re-election in 2008. I think Republicans would be wise to get a real conservative to oppose him in the primary.
Could it possibly be that elections count, and Congress Critters and Senators voted the way the folks back home want them to?
After all, Competency is not one of this administrations strong points and the election in November said that the American people are growing weary of President Bush’s war.
Steve_LA ,
Yes, No, No and a qualified Yes
The other thing that I am questioning is that no one seems to want to hold the President accountable for the conduct, success and failure of the war in Iraq.
I don’t like what the Democrats are up to, but in some ways this is like an intervention with someone who is hooked on drugs, alcohol or in this case power that the “Decider in Chief” is hooked on. President Bush sure as heck is not listing to the American public right now and he’s been terrible at explaining his reasons to continue on in Iraq. Well short of “Stay the Course” and other clap trap.
AJ,
You missed the most important fact in this story.
Sen Lieberman did not change political parties to stop this as he threatened.
Chew on that long and hard.
So, congress is voting on the “competency” of the presidency. No irony there!
Irony hardly, but as I said in a previous post, elections count, and right now Bush could not get elected dog catcher in Midland Texas. This argument that Bush is the CIC ignores the will of the people who voted overwhelming to dial back on the way in Iraq in November. It’s only the turn of the election cycle that has the President still in office, he has very little support for the course he is taking this country anymore.
The vitriol coming from the Left pretty much has masked comments from ordinary Americans who question the direction that the President has taken this country. Thanks to Bush hate, any criticism is rejected as being part of that hatred.
Steve_LA: you know what Steve, I WON’T attack you, even though I’m “famous” for tearing into Leftists on this, and other boards.
I don’t agree with all your comments, even most of them; but I think I can tell, in your case, you are a least heartfelt, sincere, and your concern is not driven by partisanship and pure political gamemanship/”gotcha”!
So, okay, you’ve got your opinion, good for you; well said comment/dissent; without being a nutbag; even if we disagree.
Dalein,
Personal stakes for me, I have a son who just turned 18. I have no desire to sacrifice him to the Iraqi Civil war. He’s pretty gung ho, but even he is seeing some that the emperor might not have on clothes.
As to being a Leftist, nope more a Libertarian Republican veteran who thinks that if Republicans had done some serious but friendly leaning on the President a while back, we would not be facing the mess we have today. This lock step backing of the President is strangely deja vu for me having grown of age during the Viet Nam era and another Tricky Dicky President.
Election cycles are what they are and the close votes are underwhelming. So the “surge” is still operative.
What if it works?
Visualize history being written that “Bush remade the ME. Democracy took hold. And al Qaeda met its demise.”
Popular media being what it is, it’s not surprising that a segment of the people that can’t identify its leaders or locate Iraq on a map would believe the MSM version of the facts.
Macker,
How long do you want to give the surge to work? That’s the real question here. Congress is saying this far, no further. The President seems to not want any limits ever.
After November 2008, well January 2009 it’s out of his hands anyway.
Well actually I heard that the Republicans did not filibuster this because they wanted it to be vetoed.
We shall see.
However, I don’t think the Democrats in this Congress are in any position to talk about competency.
No, Steve, what the Congress is saying to the terrorists, is hang in there we will surrender soon.
And if this is about competence, why don’t the Democrats come up with a plan to competently win instead of completely fail?
why don’t the Democrats come up with a plan to competently win instead of completely fail?
Terrye, there really can be only a couple possible answers to that question. (1) They are so short-sighted and drunk with the quest for power that that haven’t thought through the long-term consequences of what losing would mean. (2) They are afraid of offending the terrorists. As to which answer is the correct one — flip a coin.
I believe I heard the President say that they should just get that bill through to him so he could veto it, and tell congress to send him a clean bill to sign. I do think that’s what the republicans in the senate were doing, regardless of the speeches they made. With Hagel, though, who knows?
Yes, Lieberman DID change parties. If you look at the Senate roster, he is not listed as a Democrat. He is listed as Independent.
Oh, and can we get an “Impeach Hagel” resolution going? I am sure we could find something to pin on him if we looked hard enough.