Comments on: Democrats Try to Have it Both Ways with Non-Binding Resolution

By: sid davisson

sid davisson — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:24:55 +0000

I think that the Democrats are going about it the wrong way.I think that they should demand that all our National Guard units return from overseas in 183 days.They are not the International Guard! If they don’t ,then cut off all funding for Iraq.The surge itself may work,if our troops and all concerned Iraq’s actually get the the training and equipment they need.Who is the lead expediter for this mad hatter’s tea party,anyway?

By: BenG

BenG — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:32:35 +0000

Mr. Carl,
I’m afraid I blamed you for the phrase that infuriates me the most; that voicing opposition of present policy ‘emboldens the enemy by signaling that the US Congress expects defeat’, even though you were quoting someone else. For this I apologize. Unfortunately when you put yourself out there and express your opinion truthfully and impressively, as you often do, you get crazies like me trying to prove you wrong. But make no mistake, we all appreciate your views because we learn something, and that’s what it’s all about.
What I should’ve said is that the “official scolding that does nothing to deter Bush” is a far cry from the official red carpet that he was previously receiving from the Repub. congress. I think the Dems. are being practical here, they know they can’t stop the ‘decider’ from being Commander n Chief. But they ARE playing it safe, and I think you want them to take the gloves off and put up or shut up. Some are trying to do this, others are being more pragmatic. Either way, to your point, it does seem a waste of time. Maybe we’re just too accostumed to the team play we get with the Repubs. Everyone in step like a good ‘ol Opry line dance. Look where that’s gotten us.
Anyway, keep up the good work, it is appreciated.

By: Alan Stewart Carl

Alan Stewart Carl — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:18:30 +0000

BenG,

For clarification, I am no Republican and do not hold the views you probably think I do. My opinion is not part of some party line but is based on my own thoughts, observations and ideologies.

That said, we clearly do disagree about the Dems actions. I’m not sure that the party wants to really debate Iraq. Debate implies that there are still decisions to be made. But the majority of the party seems to have decided already that retreat is the only sensical action. That’s fine–totally justifiable. What’s harder to justify is, if Dems see no possible path to success, why let more soldiers die during a debate that has a predetermined conclusion? Shouldn’t the party be doing all it can to save as many American soldier’s lives that they can? To me, the delay is politically motivated. And that’s nothing to cheer.

By: BenG

BenG — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:09:53 +0000

Mr. Carl; You are so wrong summing up the Democrats actions in Congress and the WSJ is so inept at presenting the reality of the situation that it just begs the overused conclusion that the Repubs just can’t do anything but “more of the same”. The same delusional policies that got us off the track of fighting terrorism and created this wag the dog, groundhog day nightmare. Clearly the greatest foreign policy blunder of my lifetime. And you wanted to impeach Clinton for doing what? It’s a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and you keep perpetuating it like GM robots just keep putting out big SUV’s.
I do, however partially agree with the previous comments that accountability is a hard commodity to fing in this Congress, and that the administration has at least showed they posess testicles of granite. Unfortunately their brains are made of the same stuff. Being stubborn only works when you’re right, and they haven’t even been close !
Now the Dems. actions may seem calculating and lame to you, but they insist that this is only the start of the debate on Iraq. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, after all, look how much patience you’ve showed with this President. You can somehow rational the policy of ‘I’ll trust the Generals on the ground. They’ll get what ever they need, and they say we don’t need more troops…’ So after much advice and rhetoric about ‘a new course of action’ in Iraq, what does he do but fire the goodfernothing bastards and send in more of the same.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:09:48 +0000

I think its perfectly reasonable to say, “we don’t support this mission, bring the troops home.” There is nothing inherently unpatriotic or anti-military about it. Now that all the military funding for Iraq is run through congress not just in the form of supplimentals, I see nothing wrong with the congress cutting off funds to the mission in order to stop it immediately.

It is completely disingenuous to have it non-binding, and then advocate the “slow bleed” method favored by Murtha, which will allow the surge to go forward, yet put our troops at risk over the next 2 years as it takes effect beginning next april. American troops will die simply because the Democrats want to humiliate the president and end the war without taking the responsibility to do so. I question John Murtha’s patriotism.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:36:22 +0000

That was a truly inspiring post in its clarity and one of the reasons I continue to grace Donklephant with my presence. It absolutely desires a response from any opposing view.

Accountability is the key political issue here. It is a big old gamble and so the natural response is to hedge your bet - Republicans are doing this too, obviously. Rational if not very courageous.