Congress convenes with Dems in power

[The Dog]

Agreed, the media never asked tough questions, did hardly any investigative reporting - I think Colberts speech to the press corps was when things turned around for the media.  I was waiting to laugh the whole time (it wasn't really comical) until it dawned on me that he wasn't joking around.

Regardless of who voted for what when, Bush is probably the only person left in the world who thinks staying in Iraq until "we achieve victory" is a good idea.

Anyways, way off topic - like I said, lets see what the new  congress can do before we make conclusions.  I have high hopes they'll be much more effective then the last congress.  Every poll I have seen has the american public firmly behind the Dems agenda....

[SLCPUNK]

I was waiting to laugh the whole time (it wasn't really comical) until it dawned on me that he wasn't joking around.

One of the best bitch slaps I have seen for sometime. The deserved every last bit of it, and it wasn't long enough IMO.

[-Jack-]

I hate to say this, but the reason congress did nothing was because Democrats refused to compromise as the minority. They were used to being in power and so when the Republicans took power they didn't know how to work with the majority "correctly."

Jack, from everything I've read, seen, heard in the past couple of years it was the exact opposite.  The dems were almost completely shut out of the political process by the repubs.

I don't think the majority can blame not getting anything done on the minority.  They were the majority in the house and the senate and they had their guy as the president!  What else more did they need?

When Clinton lost his majority, he worked with the repubs to get things done.  Bush has never done anything even close to that.  its always been his way or no way.  look at how he wants to add more troops now when NOBODY is saying we should.  Yet he is completely ignoring his new congress and the american people.

In terms of working together, bush has done nothing to suggest he is going to do so.  In terms of the new congress, i'm not saying they are going to change the world, but in comparison to the repub congress of the last 6 years, i would bet they get a hell of a lot more done.  Not to mention I doubt we'll see any dem names in big name scandals (foley, cunningham, etc....)

I don't really feel that way. It's all a matter of opinion really because we aren't members of Congress and therefore do not know how exactly everything works..

As for the minority, majority thing... one of the great things about America (or bad things depending on how your perspective) is the power it gives to the minority. It isn't mob rule... just because you have more people doesn't mean you will win everything. Which in my opinion is a very good thing. It keeps things in check. The minority cannot have the power because they lack the numbers.. and the majority can't have too much power because of restrictions. 

In congress it's not like the minority is a small one either. It's usually pretty close. The Dems knew they had the power to stop the majority Republicans and therefore chose to do so... in my opinion it was for the worse, merely putting a cog into the machine. When a congress "gets nothing done" it's because BOTH sides choose to not agree on things. Most of the time the minority party should take a bow as they are in fact, only representing the minority. Which by the way is what most people forget, Congress is supposed to be a representation of the people and ONLY that.. it is supposed to serve the people, which is why I feel the Dems did a bad job as the minority, making it selfishly about a power struggle instead of representing the people properly. Not that Republicans are saints either.. no politician really looks out for the good of the people much anymore.. just that I feel they do a better job as the minority.

In the end though, just my opinion. If your opinion is different.. what does it matter you know? Were all friends here.  ... most of us.. lol.

Peace.

[The Dog]

In the end though, just my opinion. If your opinion is different.. what does it matter you know? Were all friends here.  ... most of us.. lol.

Peace.

absolutely! 

and i hear your point about the minority working with the majority.  you could very well be right, i'll have to read up on it (like i said though, everything i HAVE read implies the repubs shut out the dems from the political process).  Having the majority though should give you a pretty big head start in passing legislation though.

I do think the dems (at least Clinton) did learn the lesson that compromise is essential to getting anything done.  We'll see what happens the next two years....

[pilferk]

You choose to be an emotional reactionary rather than an objective thinker. 

Says the man who, just a few posts earlier, supported his position with a fictitious conversation based on his own supposition and emotional reaction to the dems taking office, and what his hyperbole opinion is of what will happen over the next 2 years.

The FACT is that the majority of congress does NOT have the kind of access to intelligence that the president has.  Not by a long shot.  What the president basically eluded to, in his "plea" to congress was that he, and is immediate cabinet and administration, had information they were not privy to.  He presented that information, which was not available from any other source, and failed to offer the qualification that the CIA had passed on TO HIM, and his administration.

By hook or by crook, most of Congress was decieved.  Lied to may be too strong, maybe, but then we're arguing semantics....Bush may very well have believed the info despite the CIA's "qualifications" of it.  He may not have intended to decieve them....but he certainly had more information than what he decided to pass along.

[pilferk]

I hate to say this, but the reason congress did nothing was because Democrats refused to compromise as the minority. They were used to being in power and so when the Republicans took power they didn't know how to work with the majority "correctly."

You may want to recheck the validity of that assertion.  The Repubs, actually, rebuked every attempt (early in their majority) by the Dems for compromise.  It was their way, or no way.  There was no bipartisanship because the Repubs refused to be bipartisan, by and large.  There is more than adequate documentation for this, and the Repubs very public, very nasty, lambasting of the Dem minority.

American politics only work efficiently when there is compromise from both sides. Because the Republicans were a minority in Congress for so long they realized this and used it to their advantage quite well.

And once they finally took power, they were so giddy they refused to play nice with others.  Very well documented.  And look...the dems come to power and immediately try to make nice with the minority.....

And of course the Dems are going to talk about compromising and how its "important" yadda yadda now that they are the majority. What were they doing the last couple of years as the minority? Not co-operating. And whats funny is, if this congress doesn't work so well they will make the Republicans out to be the bad guys and blame it all on them.

Go back and read the coverage of the most recent session of Congress.  You'll see that it wasn't that the dems wouldn't cooperate, it was that the Repubs gave them no chance to compromise...no quarter on their agenda.  There was no WAY to cooperate....they were railroaded through the process.

I'm not saying the Dems are evil and trying to ruin the system or anything. It's just that when you become used to having the majority, it must be hard to adjust to being the minority. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans act now.

We really need a politician who can bring the two sides closer, because this stuff is killing me. Or maybe a upstart more balanced 3rd party. That would be cool.. even if near impossible.

And when you're in the minority for so long, it's hard not to get "drunk with power" once you're the majority.

I'll agree, though....our next pres needs to bring the two parties together, not further espouse partisanship like the current administration has done.

[pilferk]

I don't really feel that way. It's all a matter of opinion really because we aren't members of Congress and therefore do not know how exactly everything works..

As for the minority, majority thing... one of the great things about America (or bad things depending on how your perspective) is the power it gives to the minority. It isn't mob rule... just because you have more people doesn't mean you will win everything. Which in my opinion is a very good thing. It keeps things in check. The minority cannot have the power because they lack the numbers.. and the majority can't have too much power because of restrictions. 

Exactly right.  The system is set up to give the minority some power in the process.

In congress it's not like the minority is a small one either. It's usually pretty close. The Dems knew they had the power to stop the majority Republicans and therefore chose to do so... in my opinion it was for the worse, merely putting a cog into the machine. When a congress "gets nothing done" it's because BOTH sides choose to not agree on things. Most of the time the minority party should take a bow as they are in fact, only representing the minority. Which by the way is what most people forget, Congress is supposed to be a representation of the people and ONLY that.. it is supposed to serve the people, which is why I feel the Dems did a bad job as the minority, making it selfishly about a power struggle instead of representing the people properly. Not that Republicans are saints either.. no politician really looks out for the good of the people much anymore.. just that I feel they do a better job as the minority.

So the minority should HAVE the power to have an effect, but shouldn't USE that power?  That seems sort of wrongheaded.  The Dems blocked (when possible...which wasn't all that often) the Repubs because the Repubs refused to compormise at every turn.   That's not supposition and opinion, its a passing familiarity with a whole LOT of the reporting and documentation, some of it from the Repubs, themselves, that exists on the sesssions where the Dems were in the minority AND there was a Republican president.  The Repubs didn't need to compromise, so they simply ignored, berated, abused, and generally pissed on the Dems.....so, in return, in the few cases where they could use their minority power to actually either a) force the repubs to compromise or b) block the Repubs in doing something particularly "against" the dem ideology, they did it.  That sounds, to me, like the system working the way it should...the dems just couldn't block anything worthwhile enough to get the Repubs to sit down at the table to compromise....except, maybe, the approval of judges.

[The Dog]

Pilferk, good posts.  The repubs had their agenda and the majority to push it through.  at no time did the words "compromise" enter their vocabulary.  It was their agenda or you were blasted to the press about how uncooperative and anti-american you were....

[Guns N RockMusic]

The Shape of Things to Come
By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 8, 2007


Major Garrett has been covering Congress for cable news outfits, newspapers and news magazines since 1990, when he was a reporter for The Washington Times. Now Fox News Channel?s congressional correspondent, Garrett spent Thursday on Capitol Hill, where the first Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in 12 years was sworn in. I called him to get his take on what changes and surprises we're likely to see this year in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House:

Q: Is this Democrat takeover of Congress really a big deal -- a historic deal?
A: It?s historic at two levels. One, for the first time in 12 years, Democrats will control the agenda in the House. Why does that matter? Well, we can?t spend a dollar or tax a dollar in America without first the consent of the House. So the party in control of the House says a lot about how we spend money and how we tax money in America.

Point two is, for the first time in American history the speaker will be a woman. It?s not just any woman. It?s Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California. One of the articles of faith of gender-politics is that you split both sides evenly -- gender and politics. Yes, she is a woman, but also she has a political record, and Nancy Pelosi historically has been among the most liberal members of Congress. Last year, according to National Journal, her voting record was more liberal than 91 percent of her colleagues.

Q: Do you think this ?takeover? will actually result in any important legislation?
A: I think there are a couple of things that will occur, most definitely. There will be some arrangement to raise the minimum wage. President Bush has already signaled that. Democrats want it. It?ll be up to Republicans and the White House to decide how much of a price they want Democrats to pay in terms of small-business tax breaks, but ultimately that?s going to get done.
The president also wants to work on immigration. Because the Democrats are much closer to his immigration policy than many of his House Republican colleagues, I think that has a good chance of getting done.

Also, I think there is movement afoot to deal with Social Security -- not on the president?s terms, not on post-2004 election terms of personal accounts, but entirely on Democrat terms, meaning no personal accounts or maybe something that bears some ghostly resemblance to a personal account, but higher taxes or some rejiggering of benefits along a much more traditional line of quote-unquote ?fixing? Social Security.

I can tell you Democrats and Republicans are moving in that direction, and the only ones who seem to be standing athwart of history screaming ?stop,? as Bill Buckley once said famously, are free-market conservatives.

Q: There are a few still left in the House.
A: One or two. They could caucus in a phone booth.

Q: What about President Bush?s call in The Wall Street Journal for compromises and bipartisanship? Does it have a chance?
A: Well, it does?. If the president can find votes with the majority of the Democrats and some moderate Republicans on some issues, he?s going to get his way on domestic policies.

It?ll be interesting to see how this new Democrat majority deals with Iraq. The president is going to have a new direction there, but there is already building tremendous intensity among the activist Democrat left for the new majority not to play ball. I would argue that Iraq at that level is a much bigger and more immediate headache for Democrats than it is for the president. It?s been a headache enough for the president, no doubt. This is going to be a simmering issue that will boil up to the surface within a matter of certainly months but possibly weeks.

Q: How nasty is this going to be in Congress? Is there going to be a lot of partisanship and a lot of gridlock?
A: I think Republicans are too shell-shocked right now to be nasty. Republicans are reacting to this defeat much differently than Democrats did when I covered the Republican Revolution of 1994 that manifested itself with the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years in 1995. Then Democrats were seething with anger and ready to find offense at the slightest provocation from Republicans, real or imagined.

As a matter of fact, (look at) this little debate that?s going on now about the Democrats moving their ?First 100 hours? agenda without any committee meetings or floor amendments. If Republicans had tried that when they came to power in 1995, the Democrats might have considered burning the Capitol down. Republicans are saying, ?Well, you know, OK, We?ll take them at their word. After the first 100 legislative hours they?ll give us some bites of the legislative apple.? That just shows you the difference. In the Contract With America, everything that went to the floor went through committees, had to withstand the acid test of Democratic amendments meant to peel away Republicans when they came to the floor; Amendments were offered, Democrats were able to marshal their resources and their wit and wisdom and offer their alternatives on the floor -- and Republicans passed everything. It was proof positive that they were not only willing to push their agenda but also subject it to a full and open debate. Democrats aren?t and Republicans are basically letting them get away with it.

Q: Beyond the ?100-hour agenda? will Democrats try to pass anything big or controversial?
A: Not without a handshake from the White House.

Q: Will the most liberal Democrats try to sabotage the troop surge or larger Iraq policy?
A: ?Sabotage? is not the right word. Congress has only one mechanism by which to alter war policy -- that is to deny funds. The central question Democrats have to ask themselves is: ?Do we deny funds or do we not?? That?s it. That?s all there is. They can do nothing else, because the commander in chief sets policy. So, there are many wise men and women in the Democrats' ranks who are counseling this new Democrat majority: ?Don?t cut the funds.? Because if you cut the funds, Democrats become co-authors of the next chapter of Iraq, meaning they are co-responsible, equally responsible.

[Guns N RockMusic]

 

Right now the leadership?s position is: pressure for a change, pressure for a new direction, see if that works and see how long they can tamp down this activists? revolt in their ranks, which is more grass-roots than at the member level right now. But if the grass-roots get fully motivated it will get to the member level and will become a voting matter by summer.

Q: So the Democrats are not going to get too crazy? They?re not going to try to roll back the tax cuts or start subpoenaing people?
A: Those are two completely different questions. On taxes, the first thing Democrats are going to try to do is prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting another tranche of upper-middle-class taxpayers. Actually, Democrats are going to be trying to shield the middle-class and the upper-middle-class from the alternative minimum tax. That?s the first thing they are going to do when it comes to tax policy. That will be welcomed by many taxpayers who might suddenly find themselves unexpectedly paying higher taxes -- because they are defined by a 1971 bit of mathematics put into the tax code -- as being obscenely wealthy in America, when obviously they are not.

But subpoenas are a totally different thing. This Congress is going to define itself by investigating the White House up one side and down the other. The investigative mechanism of Congress will be brought to bear fully on Iraq. Because that?s the mechanism by which Democrats tell their activists they?re dealing with Iraq: ?Hey, we?re investigating. We?re oversighting them. If there were crimes, we?re going to get them punished? and things like that. That?s going to be their safety valve to not have to immediately defund or reduce funds for the war.

Q: Will the conservatives -- the fiscally sound conservatives, all four of them -- will they unite and return to their lost conservative values to combat the Democrats?
A: They might. But that?s not what?s going to be what gets it done. I spent four years covering the Republicans when they were in a minority and the Democrat majority in Congress was basically in its death throes. What Republicans did was they stopped just saying, ?We want something cheaper.? They started saying, ?We want something better? and they actually went through the hard work of creating what that better thing would be; that is to say, new ideas to reshape existing government programs along the lines of efficiency or cost-savings or maybe getting rid of regulations that had long outlived their usefulness. That?s what works in American politics.

Right now, Republicans are too dispirited to say, ?Oh, we?ve got religion. We want to do it cheaper.? That?s not going to get it done. That?s not going to create a political following necessary to get them back in power. They?re going to have to put the shoulder to the wheel and ask hard questions and come up with some innovative answers about how to make what they have work better, smarter and cheaper. Whether they?re up to that, I don?t know.

Q: Do you see President Bush learning how to use the veto pen?
A: I do -- as a matter of necessity. But his first response will not be the veto pen. His first response will be, ?Can we cut a deal.? The president is, as all presidents are, acutely aware of his diminished role in American life. He?s still the president but he has a weaker hand to play than ever before. So in certain respects he has to come on bended knee. He will seek accommodation first and wield the veto pen only as a last resort.

Q: What will Nancy Pelosi accomplish or try to accomplish that may surprise us?
A: I think we may find the San Francisco liberal -- who opposed the war, who organized her Democratic caucus in the House to speak out against the war -- in the position of straddling a quote-unquote ?consensus? or ?accommodationist? role against her left wing in order to protect the president?s policy -- at least in 2007. You may find in the not-too-distant future liberals denouncing Nancy Pelosi as an Iraq War sellout.

[The Dog]

Bush to announce Iraq plan on Wednesday

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EST Wednesday about his new approach for the war in
Iraq, the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops.

Bush's decisions, more than two months in the making, already are drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to begin ending the war, not to send in more U.S. forces.

Now in its fourth year, the war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military and was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress in the November election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Bush in a letter last week that "we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

Snow said he contacted television networks Monday morning to request air time for the president's speech, to be delivered at the White House. He said the administration welcomes a debate about Bush's new policy.

"I think it's important to get congressional support," the spokesman said. Yet he would not say whether Bush will seek specific congressional approval for his new strategy.

"Rather than me jumping out and talking about resolutions and budget items and all that, I'm not going to do it," Snow said. "But there will be a debate about the particulars in the way forward, as there should be. We welcome it."

Pelosi on Sunday cautioned Bush to think twice before proposing a troop increase, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding.

But the Senate's top Republican said he believed that Bush will get the money he needs and cast doubt that Democrats would ? or could ? block him. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In issuing her warning, Pelosi made clear that her party supported boosting the overall military size "to protect the American people against any threats to our interests" and would not cut off money for troops already in Iraq.

But Bush will not get a blank check for an open-ended commitment there, she said. Any funding he seeks for additional forces in Iraq ? Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 more U.S. troops ? will get the "harshest scrutiny."

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq,
Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds ? a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

While leading Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to a troop buildup, several did not join Pelosi in suggesting it was possible Congress could deny Bush the money for the additional forces.

"I don't want to anticipate that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

"As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'" said Biden, D-Del., unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong.

First off - is Tony Snow the biggest douche on TV right now or what?  People aren't buying the 9-11/Iraq tie in anymore.  It blows me away to see him still saying the two in the same sentence.  There were hardly any terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked!!

Secondly, it sounds like its not up to the Dem congress to deny funds - unless an overwhelming majority says so - so will the repubs do the right thing and stand up to Bush? 

[-Jack-]

Pilferk I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were right. Especially if you feel like you know it for a fact. I only hear things you know? And sources could definitely be wrong/ biased..

Sorry I announced some things as "fact." I usually try to let people know its only my opinion.

 

[Guns N RockMusic]

First off - is Tony Snow the biggest douche on TV right now or what?? People aren't buying the 9-11/Iraq tie in anymore.? It blows me away to see him still saying the two in the same sentence.? There were hardly any terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked!!

Secondly, it sounds like its not up to the Dem congress to deny funds - unless an overwhelming majority says so - so will the repubs do the right thing and stand up to Bush??

Hanna, what part aren't you seeing.? Snow isn't saying Iraq was tied into 9/11.? What he's saying is that Iraq is a breeding ground now for terrorists.? If America pulls out completely, the terrorist, now much better organized, will strike America again.? The point he is making, and I have echoed many times, is that it is better to force them to fight us in Iraq where they are unorganized and running scared, rather than pull out letting them establish themselves and striking.? It was obviously clear this is what he meant.? However, as it so often happens, you read what you wanted to see.

The Democrats aren't going to deny any funds.? Doing so would be political suicide.? Like all smart politicians, the Democrats are going to try to find the best way to leave Iraq and minimize political attention - meaning no one in a position of power seriously thinks we should just pull out tomorrow.? As my article explained, the idea is floating around at the very far left, grass roots level and the Dems want to stomp it out quickly.

We all agree that Iraq is a cluster fuck right?? Is it not fair to say Iraq will become much worse if America and England completely pull out, the "terrorist" won't be hiding any more and actively train and recruit?? When they strike America, those who called for an immediate pull out will be more to blame for the attack than Bush for invading.? Democrats don't want that stigma; they'll fund the war.

[Bill 213]

First off - is Tony Snow the biggest douche on TV right now or what?? People aren't buying the 9-11/Iraq tie in anymore.? It blows me away to see him still saying the two in the same sentence.? There were hardly any terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked!!

Secondly, it sounds like its not up to the Dem congress to deny funds - unless an overwhelming majority says so - so will the repubs do the right thing and stand up to Bush??

Hanna, what part aren't you seeing.? Snow isn't saying Iraq was tied into 9/11.? What he's saying is that Iraq is a breeding ground now for terrorists.? If America pulls out completely, the terrorist, now much better organized, will strike America again.? The point he is making, and I have echoed many times, is that it is better to force them to fight us in Iraq where they are unorganized and running scared, rather than pull out letting them establish themselves and striking.? It was obviously clear this is what he meant.? However, as it so often happens, you read what you wanted to see.

The Democrats aren't going to deny any funds.? Doing so would be political suicide.? Like all smart politicians, the Democrats are going to try to find the best way to leave Iraq and minimize political attention - meaning no one in a position of power seriously thinks we should just pull out tomorrow.? As my article explained, the idea is floating around at the very far left, grass roots level and the Dems want to stomp it out quickly.

We all agree that Iraq is a cluster fuck right?? Is it not fair to say Iraq will become much worse if America and England completely pull out, the "terrorist" won't be hiding any more and actively train and recruit?? When they strike America, those who called for an immediate pull out will be more to blame for the attack than Bush for invading.? Democrats don't want that stigma; they'll fund the war.

Running scared? Unorganized?  Never discredit your enemies guy.....these terrorists may not have the military structure of the US, but they've put up quite the fight don't you think?  I have yet to see them "running scared" as attacks are at one of their highest levels.  They're just not fighting a battlefield war.  I mean the US military is touted as the strongest in the world and yet...they're not winning.  Seems like this goes back to the original mistake made by the Bush administration as he descredited and ignored these problems.

[Guns N RockMusic]

They can't stay in one place.  They're excellent at guerilla tactics, but pulling off an organized terrorist attack like 9/11 isn't feasible - yet.  Allow them the comfort and stability of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and we'll be hit again.  I don't want to stay in Iraq to bring them peace and freedom -  I really don't care.  I want to stay in Iraq because we will have to go back if we don't finish the job.  Just look at Germany from WWI and WWII - the job wasn't finished so bam! 100x wore 20 years later.  The same thing will happen in Iraq.  You're going to have years of turmoil and instability - but radical Islam will be the stabalizing factor rather than National Socialism. 

We stay in Iraq, they remain unorganized and on the move.  We pull out without some safe guards, we're going to be sorry.  And pointing fingers at Bush for getting us there isn't going to justify pulling out immediately nor will it bring back the thousands that will suffer.

[GeorgeSteele]

They can't stay in one place.? They're excellent at guerilla tactics, but pulling off an organized terrorist attack like 9/11 isn't feasible - yet.? Allow them the comfort and stability of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and we'll be hit again.? I don't want to stay in Iraq to bring them peace and freedom -? I really don't care.? I want to stay in Iraq because we will have to go back if we don't finish the job.? Just look at Germany from WWI and WWII - the job wasn't finished so bam! 100x wore 20 years later.? The same thing will happen in Iraq.? You're going to have years of turmoil and instability - but radical Islam will be the stabalizing factor rather than National Socialism.?

We stay in Iraq, they remain unorganized and on the move.? We pull out without some safe guards, we're going to be sorry.? And pointing fingers at Bush for getting us there isn't going to justify pulling out immediately nor will it bring back the thousands that will suffer.

What, specifically, is "the job"?

[Bill 213]

They can't stay in one place.? They're excellent at guerilla tactics, but pulling off an organized terrorist attack like 9/11 isn't feasible - yet.? Allow them the comfort and stability of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and we'll be hit again.? I don't want to stay in Iraq to bring them peace and freedom -? I really don't care.? I want to stay in Iraq because we will have to go back if we don't finish the job.? Just look at Germany from WWI and WWII - the job wasn't finished so bam! 100x wore 20 years later.? The same thing will happen in Iraq.? You're going to have years of turmoil and instability - but radical Islam will be the stabalizing factor rather than National Socialism.?

We stay in Iraq, they remain unorganized and on the move.? We pull out without some safe guards, we're going to be sorry.? And pointing fingers at Bush for getting us there isn't going to justify pulling out immediately nor will it bring back the thousands that will suffer.

What, specifically, is "the job"?

The job was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and install a pro-US government full of democracy which the people of Iraq have rejected.  As for Afghanistan being a safe haven for Bin Laden.....don't you think that's also the US's fault?  I mean wasn't that our first whole reason for entering foreign soil in the first place?  Bin Laden openly admitted to being the backing force of the 9/11 attacks, however we decided to say oh well.....we got the Taliban out of power and split them up, let's move on and attack Iraq because Saddam and Osama are buddy boys!  Intel proven false, ignored, who cares, let's attack anyway.  Meanwhile Osama has been hiding now for years laughing at the pathetic attempts to find him.  Instead of doing a door to door terrorist search in Iraq, shouldn't US forces be checking every nook and cranny in Afghanistan to find Osama?  I mean couldn't they have covered the whole territory and found him by now instead of spending the last 4 years in that cluster fuck in Iraq?

[Prometheus]

They can't stay in one place.? They're excellent at guerilla tactics, but pulling off an organized terrorist attack like 9/11 isn't feasible - yet.? Allow them the comfort and stability of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and we'll be hit again.? I don't want to stay in Iraq to bring them peace and freedom -? I really don't care.? I want to stay in Iraq because we will have to go back if we don't finish the job.? Just look at Germany from WWI and WWII - the job wasn't finished so bam! 100x wore 20 years later.? The same thing will happen in Iraq.? You're going to have years of turmoil and instability - but radical Islam will be the stabalizing factor rather than National Socialism.?

We stay in Iraq, they remain unorganized and on the move.? We pull out without some safe guards, we're going to be sorry.? And pointing fingers at Bush for getting us there isn't going to justify pulling out immediately nor will it bring back the thousands that will suffer.

the problem with WW1 and then WW2 was not finishing the job as you say... i guess would have been a rather total elimination of germany in ww1 from your prespective, but was through the inefective LoN and failures from france and britian to stand up and sit down or we'll knock you down years prior to the german break out. And then actually stepping up to the plate when germany was in total violation of the treaty of from ww1.

[Prometheus]

First off - is Tony Snow the biggest douche on TV right now or what?? People aren't buying the 9-11/Iraq tie in anymore.? It blows me away to see him still saying the two in the same sentence.? There were hardly any terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked!!

Secondly, it sounds like its not up to the Dem congress to deny funds - unless an overwhelming majority says so - so will the repubs do the right thing and stand up to Bush??

Hanna, what part aren't you seeing.? Snow isn't saying Iraq was tied into 9/11.? What he's saying is that Iraq is a breeding ground now for terrorists.? If America pulls out completely, the terrorist, now much better organized, will strike America again.? The point he is making, and I have echoed many times, is that it is better to force them to fight us in Iraq where they are unorganized and running scared, rather than pull out letting them establish themselves and striking.? It was obviously clear this is what he meant.? However, as it so often happens, you read what you wanted to see.

The Democrats aren't going to deny any funds.? Doing so would be political suicide.? Like all smart politicians, the Democrats are going to try to find the best way to leave Iraq and minimize political attention - meaning no one in a position of power seriously thinks we should just pull out tomorrow.? As my article explained, the idea is floating around at the very far left, grass roots level and the Dems want to stomp it out quickly.

We all agree that Iraq is a cluster fuck right?? Is it not fair to say Iraq will become much worse if America and England completely pull out, the "terrorist" won't be hiding any more and actively train and recruit?? When they strike America, those who called for an immediate pull out will be more to blame for the attack than Bush for invading.? Democrats don't want that stigma; they'll fund the war.

Running scared? Unorganized?? Never discredit your enemies guy.....these terrorists may not have the military structure of the US, but they've put up quite the fight don't you think?? I have yet to see them "running scared" as attacks are at one of their highest levels.? They're just not fighting a battlefield war.? I mean the US military is touted as the strongest in the world and yet...they're not winning.? Seems like this goes back to the original mistake made by the Bush administration as he descredited and ignored these problems.

the thing is... the US has won the war against the iraqi goverment of saddam. hell they won the war in recor time crushing t he military of iraq like it did not exist. The problem is not so much as the us being the strongest military in the world not being able to defeat this gurrila enemy, it is the fact that there were far to ew soilders on the ground from the onset of the invasion, resulting in a need for a fst and non protracted ground ofensive to bring about a decisive victory. if the ground numbers were closer to that of GW1 a fast strike could have been accomplished in baghdad, with a slower search and secure to find all the weapons caches and military hardware that could be used against the US forces today.

this slower march would have resulted in higher losses in the earlier days / weeks but a more stable iraq now.

[The Dog]

Dude your avatar is going to get me fired from work and you might get a call from the FBI....