Comments anyone?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, you have an answer for everything, don't you?

Let's try to stay topic orientated. This is suppose to be about the healthy exchange of ideas, right?

[Dr. Shane]

I am not of the opinion that going into Iraq wasn't an error. Hindsight is 20/20 and we now know there would have been better ways to handle the situation. However I try to look at the situation honestly like the President, Congressmen, Senators and our allies looked at it at the time. They did not have the benefit of hindsight.

[bevin]

Nothing that has happened in Iraq was not predicted by the average person in the average western country.

Bush didn't need hindsight. He needed other things he badly lacks - a realistic understanding of the world around him, and the ability to choose moderately competent underlings rather than yes-men and people who's sole claim to fame is their ability to get people to vote for him.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Since Congress, including 29 Democrat senators and 81 Democrat representatives supported the authorization to use force in Iraq, I guess they were all lacking this common knowledge of the common guy that doesn't have access to top secret government intelligence.

BTW: The House of Representatives voted 296-133 to invade Iraq and in 1990 250-183 to liberate Kuwait! So there was more Congressional support for the Iraq War than the First Gulf War.

[bevin]

When Congress does what Bush wants to do, they are evidence it is the right thing to do. When Congress goes against Bush, it is because they are wrong and Bush is right.

If you think Congress' support for the war was reason for the decision being right, then you should also be backing them now.

Of course, the resolution that Congress passed did NOT say "go to war", what is said was "we authorize you to make a decision". Bush got the authority to make a decision, and got the decision wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Quote:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Let's get beyond the left-wing talking points.

The Wars Powers Act of 1973 spelled out what a President must do before going to war. He has the choice of asking for a formal declaration of war or asking for the authority to use force. A President is not going to do either unless they have every intention of going to war and Congress knows that. The only one that could have stopped the war after Congress passed that resolution was Saddam himself.

The President and Congress made the decision to go to war together. Congress now is trying to make the decision to pull out by themselves. The Speaker of the House will not even go to the White House. How can any well-balanced moderate like myself support that? Congress must work with the President to end this war just like they worked with the President to start it. They should not sacrifice the troops welfare because of politics. Is the Democrats gaining more power in 2008 worth the lives of troops dying that don't have to? I say no. I say support the troops regardless of one's position on the war.

[bevin]

Quote:

Let's get beyond the left-wing talking points.

ROFLOL - A Bill, passed by Congress and the Senate, is a left-wing talking point?

George "I am the decider" Bush took the nation to war because he wanted to. It was the most disasterous decision since VietNam.

Quote:

Congress must work with the President to end this war just like they worked with the President to start it.

It is Bush who won't work with anyone - he is forever insulting and ignoring everyone who doesn't do exactly what he wants them to do, who got himself a rubber-stamp Congress full of spineless Republicans who let him do whatever he liked for 6 years, and who is claiming that the last election sent him a message to INCREASE the number of troops in Iraq!

Bush needs to work with Congress. He doesn't deserve another bunch of spineless rubber-stamp Congress who let him do whatever he wants. He used the one he had to destroy the country's reputation, degrade its citizens liberties, and get us into a quagmire.

The truth is, there IS NO SOLUTION TO IRAQ, we have lost, the only question is how to minimize our losses.

The Democrats are right, there is no reason to believe this surge will solve anything - Bush just wants to do it to postpone the inevitable until after he leaves the White House.

He wants to spend tens of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, just to avoid admitting he has made a mistake.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Left-wing Liberal Talking Point:

Quote:

the resolution that Congress passed did NOT say "go to war", what is said was "we authorize you to make a decision". Bush got the authority to make a decision, and got the decision wrong.

I have heard that scores of times from several different liberals on radio and TV. Of course thinking people know it is a pile of bull dung. It is rhetoric some Democrats use to try and run away from their vote and blame Bush for what they authorized him to do. If the war had went well, these same Democrats that now are running away from their vote, would be taking credit for it.

Quote:

it is Bush who won't work with anyone

That is a very idealogical statement. Both sides are engaging in a lot of antagonistic rhetoric. If one cannot see the issues being played out by both sides, they cannot grasp what is actually going on.

Quote:

The truth is, there IS NO SOLUTION TO IRAQ

That is an opinion. When we state our opinions as if they are fact, we only hurt our own credibility.

[bevin]

Shane, go back and read the text

Quote:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

They did not order him to do it, they let him make the choice.

George "the decider" Bush decided - and got it wrong.

Quote:

Both sides are engaging in a lot of antagonistic rhetoric.

Correct.

Quote:

That ("there IS NO SOLUTION TO IRAQ") is an opinion

No-one, not even President GWB himself, has proposed a solution. His "surge" is not based on a demonstrably solution - it is just the next straw he is clutching at.

When you can point to something that a set of responsible unbiased analysts say is likely to succeed, then you can claim it is not a fact. Until you can point to a solution, it is a fact that there isn't one.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

They did not order him to do it, they let him make the choice.

Yes, I understand the liberal talking-point. I have heard it several times. It is just a way that the Democrats that voted for the war can walk away from it. Many of them even framed their vote in that context before they voted because they knew they might have to run from their vote later. They wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to run away from the vote if things went bad, or take credit for the war if things went good. While I disagree with the congressmen, like mine, that voted against the war, at least I respect them for taking a stand and not trying to have it both ways.

Quote:

No-one, not even President GWB himself, has proposed a solution.

I guess I get my news from a few more sources because I have heard a lot of proposed solutions. One that is undesirable but perhaps the most practical is dividing Iraq in three parts.

[bevin]

There are lots of ideas - but none of them that most analysts think has a chance of flying.

The specific "three parts" proposal is one of the reasons for the current fighting.

(a) Only two of the three parts get oil

( The Turks don't like it because one of the three parts, right on their border, is Kurds - which will further incite the separatist movement of Kurds inside Turkey

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

none of them that most [liberal] analysts think has a chance of flying.

Again, seems I am getting my news from more sources.

[Dr. Shane]

Imagine a 15 year old comes home from school on the bus and asks his mom if he can take her car across town to meet some of his friends. She says sure. So he takes the car and gets in an accident. When the father finds out he asks his wife why she gave their son permission to drive the car. The wife takes a step back and says, hey, I just gave him permission, I didn't tell him to take the car. I just gave him the right to make the decision. It isn't my fault he made the wrong decision.

[Bravus]

I think I'm with Shane on this one, in that the Democrats share some responsibly. Bush was wrong, they were wrong. They wanted to be seen as 'strong' post-911. Real strength would have been opposing the push for war, not joining it.

There are solutions for Iraq, but not military ones. They require massive diplomatic efforts, including sitting down with (at least) Iran, Syria and Turkey. They would also be massively helped by a real attempt at peace in Palestine, but that's a separate but related issue.

This was a mistake going in, a badly botched handling of the aftermath, and an on-going refusal to do the things that will lead to solution. Keeping American troops there forever is not a solution, it's a stopgap that is barely working.

People say 'there'll be a bloodbath if we leave'. You mean there isn't *already* a bloodbath?

[Bravus]

By the way, John Howard, my Prime Minister, is as culpable as Bush in many ways. I'm talking about this, not to bash America or Bush, but because my country has a real stake in this war and soldiers on the ground. I live near Amberley Air Force Base, and have friends in our church and our home group who are in the military.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Let's get beyond the left-wing talking points.

and let's be a bit more accurate here. They are not "left wing" talking points. They are what the majority of americans want. The dems are doing their job, that is, representing their constitutants.

And the dem are not 'not' supporting the troops. They have given Mr. Bush more dollars than he requested for this war effort, but they want a date, a deadline for a pullout...And he dont want to give one. THAT"S THE BOTTOM LINE.

All this stuff about dem not supporting the troops is right wing spin, plain and simple. What you are seeing is a curtailing of presidential power, and someone who likes that power.

What's that saying...absolute power currpts....

[Neil D]

Quote:

I think I'm with Shane on this one, in that the Democrats share some responsibly. Bush was wrong, they were wrong. They wanted to be seen as 'strong' post-911. Real strength would have been opposing the push for war, not joining it.

one of the things that the american people are struggling with is that ol' concept of who knew what...

With Ms Clinton, they are willing to let her say that she acted on the best information that was given to her...and that information was cherry picked, or 'hand fed'. IOWs, she was duped just like the rest of the american public because a bunch of chickenhawks wanted to make some $$$$ for thier croneys. As much as I would like to have disagreed with Shane on this, I am afraid that is not the case. She played politics then. And it was a wise thing for her at the time...

[Neil D]

President Bush met with congressional Democrats at the White House Wednesday to discuss their differences over funding wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports that the president says he will veto legislation passed by Democrats in the House and Senate because it includes timetables for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

President Bush told reporters before the meeting that he expects this will be one of many conversations with opposition legislators about how to fund the war in Iraq.

“People have strong opinions around the table, and I am looking forward to listening to them,” said Mr. Bush. “I’ve got my own opinion, which I am more than willing to share. The whole objective is to figure out how best to get our troops funded, get the money they need to do the job that I have asked them to do.”

Democrats say their legislation supplies all the money President Bush is asking for. The obstacle is a timetable for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq if the government there does not meet certain benchmarks.

Democrats say the deadlines hold Iraq’s government accountable for more of its own security and force the president to stop what they say is an open-ended commitment in Iraq.

President Bush promises to veto that legislation because he says timetables for a troop withdrawal would embolden the enemy and limit the flexibility of U.S. commanders on the ground.

Following their talks, it was clear that the president and Democrats in Congress remain at odds over the funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she appreciates that the president took the time to hear their views.

“It’s about accountability,” she noted. “As I say, it gives the president all of the benchmarks that he himself proposed, and all of the benchmarks regarding the Iraqi government that he has endorsed. It does so, though, with an element of accountability. We cannot give the president a blank check, but we are willing to work with him to come to agreement.”

A public opinion poll by the newspaper USA Today says 57 percent of Americans favor a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

President Bush says Democrats are trying to score political points, so he says they should get him the bill as soon as possible so he can veto it and get legislators back to work on a spending bill without deadlines.

The House and Senate measures passed in close votes, making it highly unlikely Democrats could find the two-thirds majority needed to override the president’s promised veto.

Source: VOA

[Bravus]

Quote:

They are not "left wing" talking points. They are what the majority of americans want.

'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'

[Neil D]

[quote name='Bravus'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

They are not "left wing" talking points. They are what the majority of Americans want.

I am to understand the majority of Americans want the Democrats that voted for the war to run away from their vote without admitting they were wrong? I have heard a few Democrats, maybe just a couple, admit they were wrong to vote for the war. Most use the left-wing talking points that they didn't really vote for the war. they justed voted to give Bush permission.

I think the majority of Americans would prefer they either stick with their vote or admit a mistake, not try to spin things to put the responsibility for their vote on someone else.

Mrs. Clinton, of all people, was not sold a bill of goods. Try to imagine that for a moment. Of all people, I don't think Mrs. Clinton could ever be sold a bill of goods by President Bush. Clinton went directly to CIA officials and discussed the matter with them. According to her, she also spoke with high-level cabinet members of her husband's administration. Having listened to her explanation of why she voted for the war, she sounds like she was very independently informed.

I don't know what the answer is but one almost has to believe that Iran and Syria need to somehow get on board. The best way for that to happen maybe for the new government in Iraq to work with them diplomatically as the US humbly bows out. That I don't know.

Quote:

They have given Mr. Bush more dollars than he requested for this war effort, but they want a date, a deadline for a pullout...

Now this is a bit of SPIN too. Imagine the husband that doesn't like his wife to work. But she went to school to be a medical secretary and loves her work. He earns more than enough to support them and she really doesn't earn that much to contribute to the household budget. Well, one day she asks him for a new car. He says to her that she can go down to the new car lot and choose any one she want. Money is no object. But, on the condition she quit her job and stay home. That is what the Democrats are doing. They are giving Bush everything he wants with a condition that is unacceptable. The husband may as well tell his wife no. She can't get a new car.

The Administration SPIN in all this is that it doesn't seem as urgent as what the President is making it. I believe the troops have until June before their funding will run out. However if the Democrats are not willing to compromise, I suspect we may see something like a government shut down like we did with Clinton/Gingrich. Bush has nothing to lose. He is not running for re-election.

[bevin]

Quote:

However if the Democrats are not willing to compromise

What about Bush? Isn't HE required to compromise too? Bush's basic strategy is

I didn't use to listen to people, but I have changed - just like the election told me the American people wanted. Now I will listen to some people but I will ignore everything they tell me, tell everybody what I want them to do, and then whine that they are not being cooperative

This has been his tack with North Korea, with Iraq, with China, with Iran, with the other branches of government, ...

He is "the decider".

Unfortunately he is the incompetent, unable to take advice, unable to change his mind, decider.

Tell me where HE has changed on Iraq since the elections...

He has not improved relations with Syria.

He has not started setting reasonable metrics.

He hasn't proposed a better plan.

He hasn't even clearly defined 'win'.

His sole idea is 'more of the same' - to send in more troops with no likelyhood of success.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

What about Bush? Isn't HE required to compromise too?

Again, I guess I am getting my news from more sources. Republicans have made offers at compromise. Nothing has been accepted.

[bevin]

No - I guess you just can't tell a compromise from an offer not to change anything

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

They are not "left wing" talking points. They are what the majority of Americans want.

I am to understand the majority of Americans want the Democrats that voted for the war to run away from their vote without admitting they were wrong?