Comments anyone?

[Dr. Shane]

The compromise I have heard discussed is that milestones be established for the Iraqi government and the funding of the war be dependent on those milestones being met. If a milestone is not met than rather than the funding being cut off, it would trigger a reauthorization of Congress for the funding. That would mean that the funds would be on hold until they were reauthorized. There would be no set time-table for getting out of Iraq but definite milestones would be set. That's the Republican compromise I have read about. It sounds like a solution but are the Democrats willing compromise?

[bevin]

Who defines the milestones?

"it would trigger a reauthorization of Congress for the funding" and more sound-bites of Republicans calling anyone who wouldn't vote for it "voting to surrender".

"funds would be on hold until they were reauthorized" so that Bush could accuse the Democrats of not supporting our troops when the milestones aren't met and he wants to escalate further

No - this is not a compromise - because it does not result in Bush doing anything different to the poor plan he is doing now - running out the clock so he came blame his successor for his failures

If Bush was serious HE would say as part of the compromise what the milestones were, and they would be realistic, and HE would promise to withdraw the troops in the milestones aren't met - rather than trying to put the burden back on Congress to fund/not-fund.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The milestones would be in the bill sent to Bush to sign. The milestones would result in things being done differently - not just by the Bush Administration but also by the Iraqi government. It looks like a good compromise.

If Congress wants oversight on the President, they should establish the milestones and they would want the issue to come back to them if the milestones were not met.

[bevin]

So, if a Democratic milestone was

Iraqi cities must have security, utilities, and freedom of association and of speech by Dec 2007

then Bush would simply say "you have given our enemies something to stop so that we will surrender"

Bush is against milestones because there is nothing you can do when they are not met. He has been refusing to set them. In this he is actually right - milestones are no good unless you have an acceptable alternative plan when they are not met.

If the acceptable alternative plan is to withdraw the troops, then that plan is acceptable now.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Politics is all about compromise. The Republicans in Congress have taken a step in that direction. I do not believe that either the White House of the Democrats in Congress have. That is what needs to be done. As I pointed out before, the President has nothing to lose, the Democrats have their new but narrowly held majority to lose. So the stakes are much higher for the Democrats than for the President.

[bevin]

Quote:

As I pointed out before, the President has nothing to lose

Ain't that the truth - he can choose to throw away hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to protect his own tarnished reputation - and the only people who can stop him from doing it are Democrats.

So they have to hang tough, because otherwise he will ride rough-shod over them just like he did over the Republicans

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Well, the Democrats won a slim majority because of Bush's disapproval ratings. They did not win because of the people loved their vision. The Democrats won simply because they were the only other choice.

In 2008 Bush will not be running. Democrats are hoping and praying that somehow they will be able to form a strong enough connection between the Republican candidate and Bush that they will again win by default. Republicans tried to do the something with Gore, tying him to Clinton, when he ran in 2000. They were not successful. Gore was able to run as his own man. It is yet to be seen if the Democrats will succeed where the Republicans failed.

So this whole showdown is an attempt for the Democrats to win a popularity test between them and Bush. They, obviously have the most to lose - especially if their Presidential candidate is part of this Congress (Clinton or Obama).

A wise adage is to choose one's battles wisely. This showdown will not stop the war. The Democrats do not have the votes to override Bush's veto. All it is going to do is give them a lot of publicity. And they have a lot riding on it while the President has virtually nothing to lose.

[Jeannieb43]

Didn't have time to read this whole thread...

...but, please! Don't fall for Bush's rhetoric and try to blame the Democrats. The whole COUNTRY hates this war. Many leading Republicans are publicly opposed to Bush's stubbornness in continuing on with it, in view of the toll it's taking in human lives.

I saw this quote in Wednesday's newspaper:

"If we take [the difference in population between the United States and Iraq] into account, we might say the Iraqi civil war is producing the equivalent of 35 Blacksburg massacres a day, seven days per week, 365 days per year." -Syndicated columnist Paul Campos.

[Dr. Shane]

One word: SPIN

[Neil D]

One word: SPIN

actually, Jeans post is not spin. there are many ways to achieve human behavior. It is not a black and white situation in achieving certain behavior... there are mores and cultural values to take into concideration. Bush's emphases on war is only one way to achieve the same goals as the democrates who want to lessen the lost lives ON BOTH SIDES.

[Dr. Shane]

Anyone who thinks Paul F. Campos doesn't spin doesn't know what SPIN is.

[bevin]

Shane, as far as I can tell, you use the word SPIN to describe any analysis you disagree with.

Why don't you state your disagreement, rather than just say without reason that you disagree with it.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Anyone who thinks Paul F. Campos doesn't spin doesn't know what SPIN is.

You are making assumptions here that we know nothing about. And you expect me/us to take your word for it???

Sorry, but you have to do better than that!

And Jean has much more credibility as being non-partison that either of us, Shane. So, perhaps you need to explain what she meant by quoting Paul Campos and then explain what you mean? of course, since you need to enter the mind of Jean, and devine what she meant by her post,that might be a bit hard for you...especially since I assume that you have not evolved into a higher state whereby your've aquired mind reading abilities....yet...I think you might have to ask Jean what she meant... [gasp!]

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, as far as I can tell, you use the word SPIN to describe any analysis you disagree with.

Let's be clear. SPIN is selective reporting. A journalist can completely SPIN a story without lying. Everything in an article can be true and still be SPIN. SPIN simply means that only portions of the facts or only selected opinions are used. It has nothing to do with me or if I agree with a story.

[Dr. Shane]

This is not about Jeannie and it is not about me. Jeannie is free to quote bias liberals if she wants to and I am free to point out they are bias liberals. No harm, no foul. I am also free to quite from Rush Limbaugh if I want and others are free to point out he is a bias conservative. No harm, no foul.

[Neil D]

This is not about Jeannie and it is not about me. Jeannie is free to quote bias liberals if she wants to and I am free to point out they are bias liberals. No harm, no foul. I am also free to quite from Rush Limbaugh if I want and others are free to point out he is a bias conservative. No harm, no foul.

[Dr. Shane]

I think lying is too strong of a word and certainly inflammatory. Many believe, and I am inclined to agree with them, that it is impossible to report a story without a certain amount of SPIN. That is why it is important for us, as consumers of news, to get our news from more than one source. If we are going to get it from idealogical sources, like Rush Limbaugh or Salon.com, we should balance it out with a source from the other side. If we get it from mainstream sources, like ABC, CNN or FOXNews, we should also see how other mainstream sources are reporting it.

[bevin]

I saw your request for a balancing liberal source, Shane, and admired the spirit behind it.

However the average of two lies is a lie.

I think one should deliberately seek sources that don't have a view to push - a thrid party that doesn't have a preference for one outcome or the other but simply for the truth.

The BBC used to be such a source, I don't know whether it still really qualifies and it was only about info relevant to Britain.

My preference is to get several middle-of-the-road sources and to use past record, consistency, and plausibility as my main criteria.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

If we get it from mainstream sources, like ABC, CNN or FOXNews, we should also see how other mainstream sources are reporting it.

You have posted that media is too liberal. There are studies out there that show just the opposite, that the media is too conservative. The truth is that mainstream sources are controled by corporations whose primary purpose is to make $$$$.... and make it at the expense of the common man. They make the common man pay for expenses that should come out of THIER pocketbook. That is why we have mercury contaminated fish in 49 out of 50 states aka, major polluters [but I digress].

If the media is looking out for the coporate interests, how can the comman man, who primarily information is TV but not librarys [they are not being supported by your tax dollars any more] nor newspapers nor radio??? And even if he did have access to radio and newspapers, unless regulated to provide the opposing viewpoint, how do you know you have an informed public to make good decissions for it's best interest? The answer is, you don't.

[Gerr]

Just tagging lon.

I don't care who reports it, liberal or conservative media that another NINE fellow Americans were murdered by Iraqis. Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis want us there. It's time to pressure Bush and Congress to pull our troops out of harms way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

If the Iraqi government were to ask us to leave, we would. Of course part of the problem over there is the Iraqi government but the point is still valid. The Iraqi government wants us to stay so we are.

[jasd]

umm..., doesn't "troops", necessarily imply, at least, some "harm"? or are our troops simply to be forever deployed in such friendly states as So Korea, Germany, etc? well, come to think of it, not so friendly...

The question that might obtain is, "Is the risk/harm to our troops outweighed by the advantage to the American people [specifically]?" Is there no 'advantage'

accrued to America -- despite the costs? The 'crats' believe so... (though not necessarily, America, in the greater sense)

in that the war effort plays into their 'red-diaper' politics; and hopefully, this time -- gaining power, they'll be able to ensure a perpituity of same...

Per the corporate media and $$$ -- Hertzl made the observation as to the efficacy of a monopoly in media that transcends mere profits.

Yo! towards a Soviet America!

[jasd]

Having stated the above...,

I fear, for reasons -- among them, a divided country -- that our geopolitical status (especially, in the Middle East) may [will] lead to

disaster for us. Hopefully not, and hopefully,

not sooner than anyone might suspect; and, there are Godzilla-like 'suspicions' permeating...