Gee, does't congress have other things to do.

Yes - cursed Democrats, pandering to that far-left fringe 72% of America that wants us to pull most of our troops out of Iraq, in two years or less.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Don't get me wrong - you're absolutely right in that all the Democrats have to do, is stick to their guns and push bills through that limit the funding.

Heck - all they'd have to do is pass a bill demanding an audit of Halliburton, so we can see what happened to that $8.8 BILLION they 'lost'. (I'd love to try that trick on the IRS some time...somehow I don't think it would work.)

So the Democrats are letting me and all the nation down, by not being firm enough. It looks to me like they're playing a waiting game...which is frustrating to me and the majority of Americans who voted them into control of both houses.

Still, at least they're not just rubber-stamping Bush's as much as the GOP Congress and Senate was. They're pursuing a line of independent thought and action, even if it's not in my opinion strong enough.

Once again, "jim,": If you are going to use polls to justify your position, then you MUST first admit that invading Iraq was the RIGHT thing to do, since it enjoyed overwhelming support in the opinion polls at the time.

Either that, or admit you are a two-faced hypocritical moron.

I for one am glad the timetables bills are failing.

Things are going so well in Anbar. Bush has figured out you can't govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, so he's arming the ex Baathists to the teeth.

Bush is repeating exactly what worked for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and later. Our very own dictator repeating the same tactics that Saddam used. Ain't that special.

One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don't trust each other--a potential recipe for further disaster.

Timetables? Bah Humbug. Let these neocons hang themselves for 2008

And you know that for a "fact" cb?

"The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass."

Uh, it failed to even garner a MAJORITY of Senators!

p.s. to jhow66, CB is allergic to "facts"

Jhow,

Why don't you try actually refuting what general betray us and the decider in thief have outlined as their "return on success"is.

They've been doing exactly what Saddam did.

Try refuting why they have decided to follow in Saddam's footsteps as far as tactics go.

I tell you why you won't. Because they are doing exactly what worked for Saddam and admitting that is antithetical to what your propoganda tells you to espouse.

Some surge.

cviil behavior: "they have decided to follow in Saddam's footsteps as far as tactics go."

Here're a few for you, CB:

mid-March of 1988, Saddam Hussein and his cousin "Chemical Ali" drop chemical weapons on the town of Halabja in northeastern Iraq...killing an estimated 5,000 civilians

1987-1988 Saddam Hussein ordered the "Anfal" campaign against the Iraqi
Kurdish people...killing between 50,000 and 100,000

In March and April of 1991,Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians, as part of the suppression of the 1991 uprising.

Saddam ordered the draining of the southern marshes beginning in the early
1990's...killing and displacing hundreds of thousands

Routine and systematic killings of political opponents and anyone even suspected of being one. Beyond the killings are the documented tortures and rapes.

Just a few of the "TACTICS" you find so similar as to how WE are achieving success in Iraq.

CB,
I apologize for being ill-informed but could you elaborate more specifically on how the US Military in Iraq is following the tactics of Saddam Hussein?

Yep...a grand victory...
in November 2008...by then at least over 4500 dead..with continued too short rotations....
This election...on all levels will be about
Iraq...
This is now officially the Republican's War..
Not just Bush...
If you folks think escalation without commitment by the Iraqi govt is a winning hand with the voters in America...then keep on cheering...
Let every Republican running for office use these votes as the cornerstone of their candidacy...

I surely hope the absentee ballots from our brave...extended troops...are counted..
God Bless those making the real sacrifice..
They will really start coming home in 2009.
After a Democratic Party landslide.

cb,

It gose even futher back into the history of this facist evil experiment known as America. In 1943 we were fighting a war against Germany. Germany had invaded the Soviet Union. Even though we had defeated Hitler, by 1948 we were training German soldiers to fight the Soviets just like Hitler had.

"It's ugly to watch unfold..."

Are you talking about the war? We're in agreement.

civil behavior,

Oclarki's got you dead to rights on that.

By the way, we are not arming the Sunnis, they already have their own weapons, which 10 months ago were using on us. I have no problem with us figuring out how to have them shoot AQ rather than us.

jim:

Yes - cursed Democrats, pandering to that far-left fringe 72% of America that wants us to pull most of our troops out of Iraq, in two years or less.

Something doesn't equate. This from you own poll on the same day:

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

The total for those that are willing to leave troops in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 40%.

"How much longer do you think large numbers of U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq: for less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, or will U.S. troops have to stay in Iraq for longer than five years?"

The total for those that realize troops will be needed in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 82%

As I said something doesn't compute.

But that's true of all polls isn't it?

"attempting to appease the rabid anti-American interest groups with avoiding taking any responsibility for surrender."

Pick a poll..any poll...put in back in the deck, now shuffle the deck.
If you want to call a clear majority of Americans anti-American then fine.
Remember we are following a commander-in-Chief who said this yesterday in his press conference yesterday.

"I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them."

Our Commander-in-Chief truly believes Nelson Mandala is dead..and his family was wiped our by Saddam. If you all want to support this Commander's vision...well...ok

nogo,

Your comment shows that you have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader. If I was a stupid as you, I wouldn't be so eager to share it. Either that or you are just a liar, and you understood what the president was saying but wanted to distort it to score a point. Either way you are scum.

nogo:

I surely hope the absentee ballots from our brave...extended troops...are counted..

Assuming some asshat doesn't "pull a kerry" you mean?

That aside, so do I, because despite your delusional wish you will be sadly disappointed int he results.

As for the failure of yet another surrender bill, note this is essentially the same bill that was attempted to ram thru the Senate last summer, it received 5 less votes for passage this time.

The dems are losing ground, not gaining it.

How disapointed the liberal will be in the demacrats they must be ready to pull their hair out

nogo:

Our Commander-in-Chief truly believes Nelson Mandala is dead..and his family was wiped our by Saddam. If you all want to support this Commander's vision...well...ok

A clear case of BDS and seeing something that is not there.

Reading comp is one of many of your weak suits.

we've all, at one time or another, seen a child throw a tantrum like this one I witnessed AT a shopping mall a couple weeks back...(I capitalized and bolded "AT" for a reason)

A mother was half dragging a small child into a store at the mall to buy school clothes (the child screams this at one point, is how I know).

Child: "I don't WANT to buy clothes"
Mother: "Well we're going to"
Child: "I don't WANT to go to the mall"
Mother: "We're AT the mall"

Reminded me of the Dems. A lot. Whenever a discussion about comes up regarding how the war is GOING, or how end the war SUCCESSFULLY...or even how to end the war AT ALL...they always bring up the fact that they didn't want the war in the first place!

Hey...we are AT THE MALL!!! I mean, the war is a FACT.

The FACT that it is going well (finally), and that we can in fact achieve a very worthwhile success is what needs to be discussed...whether you believe we should have been there in the first place or not.

If he wasn't referring to Mandella to whom was he referring?

Way to spell JFO.... geez....Mandela

Seriously JFO, you are purposely being obtuse. There is no way you could read the quote and think the president thinks Saddam killed THE Nelson Mandela. I thought you guys were the smart nuanced ones.

Apparently you are even able to understand an abstraction. What the president was communicating is the idea that there is no one in Iraq to unify the country in the manner of Nelson Mandela, becasue under Saddam such dissidents were killed. If you understand it any other way its because YOU are stupid, not the president.

JFO

If he wasn't referring to Mandella [sic] to whom was he referring?

Surprised?

Not in the least.

nogo, JFO help is on offer.

Not that it matters to you two idiots.

Pretty pathetic that jfo and nogo can't understand Bush's point. Though something tells me they know exactly what he was saying but just want to get some kind of shot in anyway...luckily it just displays their own idiocy.

[hattip to the WSJ Opinion Journal]

alReuters started the "Mandela" thing, thusly:

Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

What Bush ACTUALLY said:
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed ALL the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this.

WSJ editor:
In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of "Where's Mandela?" is "Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela played in postapartheid South Africa?" This was a pithy metaphor, not an "embarrassing gaffe."

Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong? There are, it seems to us, three explanations:

Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he simply did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.

Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and didn't bother to check the context of the quote.

Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."
********************

Justrand here...my bet is on DISHONESTY

Baghdad barney:

The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout.

By democrats are you implying ALL democrats? If so your either a partisan hack, a liar, or sadly misinformed.

Both Dennis "Dept of Peace" Kucinich and Sen. Dodd are on record supporting an immediate pullout.

So which of the three options given are you Badhdad?

BarneyG2000: "The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout."

November 2005 Murtha submitted H.J. Res. 73 calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced SHE would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal

more recently Chris Dodd sponsored a bill in Senate that DEMANDED immediate withdrawal!

Last week Obama DEMANDED immediate withdrawal, claiming "There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was"

Gee, BarneyGoogle...it sure seems like you don't know much

Bagdad barney - I forgot two, Obama:

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in a speech to about 500 people.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now," the Illinois senator said.

Bill Richardson:

What I would propose is a deauthorization resolution, under the War Powers Act, Article I, that basically allows the Congress to determine whether we're at war at not. And what has happened now is, I believe, is that the first resolution that was voted on several years ago is not operative anymore.

In simple terms, out now, or as soon as his purposal passes. (never mind it's a pipedream)

So again Baghdad, which are you a partisan hack, a liar, or sadly misinformed?

Gee, BarneyGoogle...it sure seems like you don't know much

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

What about pelosi barney, is SHE a leading democrat?!

Nice try Baghdad barney - but what about the rest of those cited as supporting an immediate pullout?

As far as Dennis K, he is hardly a leading Democrat.

But he IS a democrat and he IS running for president.

C- is your grade and that's just because I'm feeling charitable.

Why do the democrats themselves use the word "immediate" barney? murtha, pelosi, obama, edwards, kerry, the list goes on and on.

Also, why can you not understand the President's metaphor?

Baghdad barney:

I should have used that term "cut off funding" and not "immediate" that was my mistake.

To cut off funding is an immediate withdrawal numbskull.

There is no magic wand the DoD can wave to instantly remove them.

Your hanging your hat on parsing words and semantics. Never a good choice and the second mistake you made in trying defend an obvious BS statement to start with.