Overplay! MAybe they got dealt 2 and 9, you never know.

It will be interesting to see if those who oppose the anti-surge resolution will use the recent "revelations" about Iran's involvement in killing Americans. If even the possibility of hostilities with Iran exists, the surge can be seen in a very different light -- much like all the carrier groups heading to the Gulf. (Which is what I think it was intended for from the start).

JS:(Which is what I think it was intended for from the start).

So if Gilchrest's prediction about the upcoming vote is accurate, it will probably happen with the help of closer to 30 Republicans than 60.

If their argument becomes "Opposing the surge will send the wrong message to Iran at a time when Iran is targeting American troops" -- if it gets formulated this way, then we will have a new campaign of intimidation, and it could well be less than 30.

Are anyone but the 30% dead-enders buying into the admin's Iran bullshit?

OT but Digby is mocking our favourite political pussycat...

'...Poor little Republican geeks, so desperate to be relevant in popular culture, so desperate to be tough guys...'

Thats the dirty Digger Digby talking about '24' torture fans. Fans like our favourite political vegetable and host, Kevin Drum - please...make it stop!

http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Raise a hullabaloo!

So, you think the Democrats will finesse this resolution and be correct both morally and politically in handling the Iraq war? Color me less sanguine.

We need to de-fund this abomination and begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney for lying us into this conflict and letting Osama bin Laden and Zayman al-Zawahiri run free in the process. The incompetence and deceit of this Administration is unprecedented.

If Bush/Cheney are planning to attack Iran (which seems increasingly apparent), my question is "Why aren't you planning to attack Saudi Arabia?" The Saudis have been providing financial support to their brethren Sunni in Iraq for years now. The Sunni insurgency remains the biggest source of American casualties. Isn't anyone else appalled by this glaring hypocrisy???

Abe's birthday and, yes, our own Third Paul's as well.

Happy birthday, felicitations and that juicy long-shot in the fifth to ya, guy.

Fortunately the Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief. And we know the President will carry out his constitutional role with vigor. So any vote by the House is meaningless.

'So any vote by the House is meaningless.'
--Al

Except the vote for Bush and Cheney's impeachment...

THE CONSERVATIVE DEFLATOR: We need to de-fund this abomination and begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney for lying us into this conflict

Well, see, the problem with that is nobody wants to do it. Oh, sure, plenty of people want it done. While there are few polls conducted gauging the public's preference regarding Bush's impeachment and they are but minimally reported, the results of those taken have shown that a majority of people think he should be impeached if he lied us into war. And a larger majority believes he lied us into war. So lots of people want it done. But nobody (okay, comparatively few) want to do it. There are, after all, only so many Russ Feingolds in the Senate. (So many = 1)

But forget about politicians and look around the liberal blogosphere. Yes, you'll notice some commenters such as yourself (and myself on occasion) waving the impeachment banner. But how many bloggers make it a regular theme in their posts? With the administration's daily outrages being the primary focus of most blog articles, it would not be difficult to work it in regularly. They simply don't have the will. For a time, well-known blogger, Brad DeLong, tagged all of his posts with, "Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach him now!" He doesn't do that anymore. I imagine DeLong hoped that others would pick it up and it would gather momentum. But it didn't.

Then there's the press. They don't write stories about impeachment. Part of that is because nobody's talking about it, but they don't write stories when people do talk about it--unless it's to paint those calling for it as part of a fringe. Which they are--because nobody wants to do it; they just want it.

And, ultimately, the public doesn't really have the will for it either. The divisiveness in this country is such that people have grown weary of being called traitors for criticizing the president. Workers know their bosses wouldn't approve if they became politically active in opposition to the status quo. People remember (to the extent that it was reported) what opposing the war in massive, record numbers before it started got them: nothing. Nothing but scorn. And the public doesn't see any real mention of it from their representatives, from the press, nor even from online sources.

It's a vicious circle. Meanwhile, our vicious administration goes along merrily committing its shameful and monumental crimes of destroying the Constitution, stealing the national treasure and murdering citizens and non-citizens alike. Some people complain about torture and secret prisons, but not so much, lest they be tortured or imprisoned. It's a vicious circle.

But I'll sign a petition if you've got one.

"will back the nonbinding resolution" - Kevin

The Dems really know how to put teeth into their legislation huh?

How's that impeachment coming along?

And let me get this straight; The Dems unanimously support Patreaus, but not his plan? Is that about right?

As one Republican congressman put it, "This next week is going to be a very tough one for us to get through. The Democrats know that. We can sit back and hope they overplay their hand, but I don't think they will."

Given that Matthew Marler has, since the election, been gloating with anticipation here at the prospect of the Democrats being forced to clean up the Republican mess in Iraq, this quote is especially sweet.

Let me get this straight, Jay: You "support" the miserable failure Bush and his train wreck of a war, including the so-called "surge", but not enough to get your own ass over there in uniform. Is that about right?

"..since the election, been gloating with anticipation here at the prospect of the Democrats being forced to clean up the Republican mess in Iraq,..." - greggy

I didn't realize NON-BINDING resolutions accomplished so much. Oh wait. They don't.

Nothing but empty rhetoric. Just what Dems love. That way they don't actually have to do anything.

"Let me get this straight, Jay: You "support" the miserable failure Bush and his train wreck of a war,..." - greggy

Of course I do. It's the most successful "war" campaign in the history of the US. Fatality rate is just under 2.2%, we've deposed, tried and hung a brutal dictator (I know how that saddens you), conducted three successful elections resulting in a representative gov't, and now are putting the finishing touches on hunting down and killing the mass murderers that remain.

Greggy, can you wrap your mind around anything other than what the MSM feeds you?

Say hi to Katie Couric for me. Now there's a journalist.

"Except the vote for Bush and Cheney's impeachment..." Deflator

Will that also be non-binding?

Nothing but empty rhetoric.

Then, gee, Jay, why is it the Republicans who are tying themselves in knots about how to deal with it? Moron.

Of course I do.

Oh, really? When did you enlist?

Oh, you haven't? Ah....nothing but empty rhetoric. Just what chickenhawks love. That way they don't actually have to do anything.

Another great liberal solution brought to you by the cut-n-run Democrat party!

A non-binding resolution is to sooth the moonbat side who wants to abandon our soldiers "black hawk down" style. Are there any brave men left in the Democrat party?

This is for show to their own base - Repubilicans who fall on the liberal side will jump on board.

Killer rabbit Amejenejerk is on the lose. Run away! Run away!

"Then, gee, Jay, why is it the Republicans who are tying themselves in knots about how to deal with it? Moron." - greggy

Because they have no backbone. Much like yourself.

"Oh, really? When did you enlist?" - greggy

More intellectual dishonesty from the left. Greggy, I presume you support the gay agenda. Are you gay? If not, then how can you possibly support the agenda.

Now your argument seems foolish, doesn't it?

Congressional limits on war powers are hardly unprecedented
http://tinyurl.com/tww7g

So jay let me get this straight. You are saying that this war is an unqualified success. And if that's the case ,where do you come up with that? If I'm not mistaken even the Bush-Cheney ball lickers are pretty much going with the line that the new strategy is our last chance for saving face here. Sort of a hail mary if you will. Hardly what I'd call the most successfull war in U.S. history.

Jay,

Not sure how your've made G's argument foolish. Supporting "the gay agenda" and supporting a senseless slaughter are two different things, and you probably know it.

But you sure make yourself sound clever, don't you?

I am so frustrated with the Dems not looking at least a couple of steps ahead when framing these issues.

To me, the point is that all the horrible things Cheney/Bush say will happen if we leave Iraq, we are already doomed to face because of his failed war -- i.e. the war has already failed and all keeping troops in place (and incurring additional casualties) only delays these horrors and probably makes them worse when they occur.

Until the public buys in on this - by having it argued to them, rather than the simple mantra, "bring home the troops" we can't win the argument. Every time the administration and its supporters say "we can't afford to lose" they cast the argument between "cut and run and lose" or "stay and win" a false premise. We have to immediately change to focus to " Oh yeah? Well show us how you are going to win." - and point out how the current surge is not a new idea, and it is (that is, if attack, clear and hold" with hold being the new term) -- what kind of idiots have you been running the whack a mole strategy for such a long time? How can we have faith in people this stoopid?

This new

If I were advising the GOP reps, I would simply say to treat this like a band-aid stuck to their arms or legs--the quicker you rip it off, the less it will hurt. Simply support the anti-surge bill. Do so gracefully. Cut your ties to the dead-ender in the White House. The public might actually reward you for having the decency to do so.

Or they can instead act like Hillary and waffle on the issue and look somewhat foolish (although I think her overall strategy to focus on the Bush cockups in Iraq as being the real cause of the mess there is the general direction to maintain).

Boy, who left the gate open to the Hannity Hordes today.
How refreshing; it is so nice to finally hear these authenticated facts about Bush's war after 5 years, in accordance with Jay. Where have you been hiding all this time, Jay, you and your special link to the truth. Doing covert operations in your bedroom while News Talk was on? Perhaps you can see that we already have a select committee of Keyboard Commandos who enlighten us Dems about life, liberty, and justice from a safe distance.

Are there any brave men left in the Republican party? All I see are rats abandoning the sinking GOP ship and a lot of mini-Bush weenies pumping their fists in agreement to their car radios but never actually signing up for their convictions.

Convictions, Jay, in case your vocabulary is as limited as I read here, is putting your ass, not your mouth, on the line. Lets see you put yourself in harms way for oil, Mr. Republican, which neither your president nor your vice president saw fit to do, Mr. Republican. Or go back to your covert bedroom ops and leave the real world to real folks who are really fighting in a real war FOR you.

Sorry about the long piece. Peace.

The war is only failed if you believe in the sales rhetoric coming from the White House about peace and prosperity in Iraq. But if you are an ambitious Machiavellian bureaucrat like Dick Cheney things are not all that bad. The primary goal, call it stage three after the first war and the sanctions, was to overthrow the disruptive regime of Saddam Hussein and to get a large and permanent force into the Middle East to put pressure on other, less vulnerable, regimes. It also fed oceans of money to Republican allies who will turn the funds around to get Republicans elected. It gave Israel a level of security it has never enjoyed in its history. One dark perk of the war is that it raises nationalist sentiment at home, which in theory favors Republicans, and it causes terrorism, which again gets Republicans elected.

The biggest risk, and the biggest benefit, was always to America’s reputation as guarantor of the oil supply and protector of the Saudi Kingdom and the Gulf States. If the US cannot pull this off not only do Bush and friends get fewer nice contracts but also the kingdom may look for other protectors or opt to protect itself with nuclear weapons.

Jay,

What is this "gay agenda" of which you speak?

You can be sure that if the surge policy works

The so-called "surge" cannot work as it doesn't even put the number of troops we had in country two years ago when violence and daily attacks were thousands of percent less than they are today. Only someone with a pretty tenuous grip on reality could assert otherwise.

80 Iraqis died in bombings alone today. How's that surge working?

trex: The so-called "surge" cannot work as it doesn't even put the number of troops we had in country two years ago when violence and daily attacks were thousands of percent less than they are today.

If it's just numbers of troops, then the surge cannot work. If it's also a change in the Rules of Engagement, then it might work. In particular, if we (and and the Iraqi government) will attack insurgents of any party, then there's a real chance. According to one Iraqi blogger, this may be occurring.

I encourage you to read the entire cite to see what things look like to people living in Baghdad. E.g., note this paragraph:

After some time, the convoy moved off, their engines fading slowly as the streets swallowed them up. I stood for a moment thinking about the men in those vehicles who stay up at night patrolling the dangerous streets of Baghdad to protect the few insomniacs like myself, and the millions of other sleeping Baghdadis. I said a prayer (in my own way) for their safety and went back to toss and turn in my bed.

Orwell—what a perfect name for a man who hates democracy, big D or small. You, sir, are a traitor and fool.

jayarbee:

Sadly, you are right. It is absolutely astounding to me that the Democrats won't impeach these bastards. Mark my words about two things: (1) There will be an attack on Iran. The only question is whether the U.S. or Israel will initiate it. Then, liberals will be screaming, "how did we let this happen?" and any calls for impeachment will be moot because no one is going to want to impeach a U.S. president in the middle of a live, shooting war (unlike Iraq, which is a guerilla war). And, (2) The GOP will do everything in it's power to impeach the next Democratic president. Count on it. Whether it is lying about their golf score or their shoe size, the Republicans will make a federal case of it, backed by their trained monkeys like Limbaugh and Coulter and the American people will buy into it. Trust me, politics is a blood sport to these vermin. We need to bring Articles of Impeachment against both Bush and Cheney today, to stop these bastards in their tracks.

TCD

In particular, if we (and and the Iraqi government) will attack insurgents of any party, then there's a real chance.

That's impossible since there is no central government in any meaningful sense of the word. There are only members and ministries with their own competing agendas who are themselves bad actors in this situation. Witness government agencies running death squads, actually engaging in gunfights with one another and even defying the orders of the Prime Minister by arresting an Iranian diplomat and refusing to release him.

Clearly you are not conversant with the facts on the ground, as further attested to by your appeal to selective sentimental tripe.

In particular, if we (and and the Iraqi government) will attack insurgents of any party, then there's a real chance.

Also, if we have not been able to make progress against a finite and limited number of "enemies" in Iraq, how is it that we will all of a sudden make progress by expanding that list to include any and every group that is engaging in violence?

In other words, if we have not been able to defeat an estimated 20,000 insurgents, how will we defeat a group of say 500,000 that includes Sunnis, Shia militias, local tribes, and those elements of the police and army that will turn against us for fighting their clans?

Let me answer for you: we can't.

Greggy, can you wrap your mind around anything other than what the MSM feeds you?

Shorter Jay: That's right, I'm a pussy.

"...We can sit back and hope they overplay their hand, but I don't think they will." I don't think so either.

The more likely problem is not that the Dems overplay their hand, but that they stay behind the curve, only reacting to what Bush does. The problems we see in Iraq could look minor if Bush escalates this into a regional conflict by next bombing Iran. It will be difficult for Dems to preempt this chain of events, but they will need to be a lot more proactive than passing non-binding resolutions if they want to do anything about it.

trex, you need to distinguish betweeen "some" and "all". Yes, some ministries are not loyal to the government and are even running death squads. But, the army and most of the police are loyal to the government, from what I read.

FREQUENCY KENNETH: Harry Reid COULD force a vote on the Resolution opposing the surge, he simply chooses not too. McConnell is demanding the Senate also vote on a Resolution dealing with paying for the Iraq War.

from what I read

Yeah, ya know, Weekly Standard, National Review, Little Green Fascists.... According to those guys, things are going great!

trex, you need to distinguish betweeen "some" and "all". trex, you need to distinguish betweeen "some" and "all". Yes, some ministries are not loyal to the government and are even running death squads.

So imagine if the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense were running death squads in our country in defiance of the President. What do you think the prospects would be for the continuation of such a government and could it be described as a functioning, stable democracy?

Of course not.

In fact, if you'd bother to educate yourself you'd discover that Maliki has not even been able to get many of the members of Parliament to meet on a regular basis or even LIVE in Iraq. Why would they? It's too dangerous, it's much easier to live in luxury in safe countries and draw a paycheck, and many of them are terribly corrupt and too busy siphoning government funds to enrich themselves and build their own militias to be serious about governing.

A government composed of members who will not

1) live in their own country
2) meet to actually govern
3) give up their own militias in favor of a unified army and police force
4) seriously address their own rampant and extreme corruption

is not a government. Period. There's nothing else to be said.

But, the army and most of the police are loyal to the government, from what I read.

Then you've read wrong. In fact American commanders and trainers have complained ad nauseam that the Iraqi army is generally untrustworthy, corrupt, and that the members' first loyalty is to their own tribes. Worse, officers have even alleged that their units have at times even been set up for ambushes by the Iraqi units. Further, Iraqi citizens have described midnight massacres and abductions by members of the army and police.

There is no stable, coherent, legitimate government in Iraq. What you are defending is a fantasy concocted in your own head in a misguided attempt to defend the reputation of George Bush.

the army and most of the police are loyal to the government, from what I read

I can't decide if that statement is astoundingly ignorant or astoundingly dishonest.

Since it's "ex-liberal," I'll go with the latter.

What you are defending is a fantasy concocted in your own head in a misguided attempt to defend the reputation of George Bush.

With all due respect, trex, I disagree. "ex-liberal"'s purpose here is to carry water for the neocons, not Bush per se.

I'd like to think the republican congress is pulling a classic rope-a-dope, but I don't think congressmen are capable of that kind of coordination. I doubt they are looking for overcommital of the other side. Rope-a-dope is a one man operation.

Congress aside, Bush has lost the support of the American people. We see it clearly through last November's election results, opinion polls, more scope given to ridiculing Bush in the mass media, five grammys for the Dixie Chicks and prominent pundits, politicians, celebrities openly sharing their doubts or outright rejection of Bush's surge plan. You are now more popular if you disagree with the President. I think that's called a watershed moment.

Conservatives can complain all they want, but the majority of Americans no longer trust this administration, and they're not going to allow much time before demanding extraordinary success to prove the validity of the escalation tactic. Because of sloppy, superficial media coverage (previously used by Republicans, now turning to bite back at them)the current crack down in Baghdad is giving the average American the impression that the extra 20,000 plus troops are already there. So the clock is already ticking.

Congress may be dithering, but average Americans will not continue to support the war effort. They just won't. They'll load the Congress with members with an even stronger anti-war sentiment the next time, if this Congress doesn't deliver. And this might be a very good thing. It would change the character of Congress to a much less militaristic shade for a very long time. I guess it would be necessary anyway, because if we don't get the troops home soon, our Armed Forces will be broken.

Why don't the Dems push through Congress something stronger than a non-binding resolution, & why don't they start Impeachment? Hypocrits!

Could it be that there is a huge pileup of work to do because the opposition party went home early rather than work through the rest of the sesssion, when they had the majority? Could it have something to do with the fact the Dems & independents have only 50 votes in the Senate, when it takes 60 to put any resolution on the floor to debate, much less vote? Or maybe these same 50 are not the 67 necessary to Impeach the Pres. & VP?

Blame your own party for nothing at all being done. Your own Senate members who voice opposition to the Administration choose to vote as a bloc opposing what they say they believe in. Thanks for trying to impose a double standard that you conveniently choose not to hold yourselves to, Republicans & Conservatives. And don't think we voters won't remember your hypocrisy come the next election. You aren't just shooting yourselves in the foot. You are blasting your own kneecaps. Keep it up - we need a change where action can be accomplished.

cowalker is right,
The war is very unpopular and it belongs to Dick Cheney and the Republicans. My guess is that Middle America will reject escalation in Iran after a brief honeymoon with the flags and the fireworks. If they don’t get excited at all then the Republicans have suffered a historic sea change similar to what the Democrats witnessed during the Cold War.

Dems in Congress have to show how the current crop of Republicans is anti-American and anti-military. They need to walk the line that distinguishes between the Cheney administration’s militaristic policies and the interests of the nation.

As bob in fla points out there is a lot of heavy lifting to do after the mess left by the Republicans. If the stars are aligned then they would do very well by the nation to impeach Dick Cheney. There has never been a threat to republican values like that man and his ministers. After they have saved Old Glory they can figure out how to rescue the Gospel according to Jesus.

...The Dems unanimously support Patreaus, but not his plan... Jay at 8:36 AM

...Nothing but empty rhetoric... Jay at 8:58 AM

...It's the most successful "war" campaign in the history of the US...Posted by: Jay on February 12, 2007 at 9:04 AM

...Are there any brave men left in the Democrat party? ... Orwell at 9:23 AM

...I presume you support the gay agenda...Jay at 9:25 AM

...Like the Clintons they live by poll numbers... mhr at 11:06 AM

... he simply chooses not too.... F K at 11:33 AM

...If it's also a change in the Rules of Engagement, then it might work.... ex-lax at 11:53 AM

...the army and most of the police are loyal to the government... ex-lax at 12:44 PM

Conservative Deflator: There will be an attack on Iran.

The vote I am hoping for is a vote by Congress to prohibit an American attack on Iran. If Bush wants to attack Iran, let him get another declaration of war as he did for the invasion of Iraq.

Barack Obama has called for withdrawing American troops in March 2008, a little over a year from now. Russ Feingold has called for withdrawing American troops by 6 months after his resolution passes (except for a "small" force to guard installations.) When the Democrats introduce one of those resolutions into the House, then we'll know they really want American withdrawal. I don't think that will happen unless the surge fails utterly and instantly.

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy