tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post116369783261229962..comments2024-03-28T21:09:56.223-05:00Comments on Althouse: No further Murtha.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163834390526670412006-11-18T01:19:00.000-06:002006-11-18T01:19:00.000-06:00Syria, Rev. A bigger Syria.Yeah, I can see why you...<I>Syria, Rev. A bigger Syria.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I can see why you didn't publicize that "plan" *before* the election. "Let's turn Iraq into the biggest terrorist-sponsoring fascist state in the world" just doesn't sound good to the average American citizen.<BR/><BR/><I>Even Pat Robertson is hip to it.</I><BR/><BR/>An intelligent person would stop to think "wait, Pat Robertson agrees with me. That means my idea is probably insane".Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163830414574187982006-11-18T00:13:00.000-06:002006-11-18T00:13:00.000-06:00Revenant said... "All the whining from Democrats t...Revenant said... <BR/>"All the whining from Democrats that two years isn't enough time to fix Iraq is beside the point. Maybe "fixing" the Iraq situation will take five years, or ten, or however many. But coming up with a *plan* for fixing Iraq sure as fuck doesn't take any two years"<BR/><BR/>I can say 2 things with certainty:<BR/><BR/>1. ...sure as fuck...as you say is either the least sure thing in your life or is a total description of it and<BR/><BR/>2. ...if we can get President Crayon to cease messing in Iraq and freeze frame it then we can plan for it..he has had 3+ years of idiotic blundering and there can be no plan out until he stops blundering in.<BR/><BR/>by the way, using the good ol' "f" word my make your little keyboard fingers glow in anticipation but it isn't appropriate here unless you can't think of another word.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163809215124040272006-11-17T18:20:00.000-06:002006-11-17T18:20:00.000-06:00at long last a sensous republicanNo, this is the s...<I>at long last a sensous republican</I><BR/><BR/>No, <A HREF="http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000137/" REL="nofollow">this</A> is the sensuous Republican.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163808837092005732006-11-17T18:13:00.000-06:002006-11-17T18:13:00.000-06:00All the whining from Democrats that two years isn'...All the whining from Democrats that two years isn't enough time to fix Iraq is beside the point. Maybe "fixing" the Iraq situation will take five years, or ten, or however many. But coming up with a *plan* for fixing Iraq sure as fuck doesn't take any two years -- especially since they've *already* had more than two years to think one up.<BR/><BR/>So at the very least, now that the Democrats are in power we're entitled to hear what their plan is. Is it, as is widely suspected, surrender and retreat? Or is it something else?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163808531677851592006-11-17T18:08:00.000-06:002006-11-17T18:08:00.000-06:00knoxgirl..back up...my mind reals in anticipation....knoxgirl..<BR/><BR/>back up...my mind reals in anticipation....<BR/><BR/>at long last a sensous republicanhdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163797342050657342006-11-17T15:02:00.000-06:002006-11-17T15:02:00.000-06:00When Mary/derve and hdhouse get their backs up, I ...When Mary/derve and hdhouse get their backs up, I know I'm on the right track...<BR/><BR/>Mary, you're a freakshow.knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163784336693309762006-11-17T11:25:00.001-06:002006-11-17T11:25:00.001-06:00knoxgirl said... Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tag...knoxgirl said... <BR/>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?<BR/><BR/>... but it's the democrats who have set such high expectations. Implicit in their platform was "Iraq is a mess, elect us." They have the reigns now. That means we're all waiting for them to fix the "situation" as Pelosi calls it. <BR/><BR/>Given the complexity of the situation, we haven't been in Iraq that long. <BR/>---------------------<BR/><BR/>yes bush and his tagalongs have kept digging the hole and they refused to stop when it was clear there was neither daylight above or a goldmine below. please list the regular set of oversight hearings on the status of war conducted on a regular basis by the congress who, incidentally, has the job of regular oversight.<BR/><BR/>did you hear that the pentagon will ask for 180 billion in NEW spending in Iraq related expenses? by every measure you can name, except for the capture of saddam, please tell me how things are better day in and day out.<BR/><BR/>second, and I do love you knoxgirl, you mention, you somehow equate our post war occupation in japan and in germany with Iraq. Honestly, that makes no sense whatsoever. Japan and German ceased to be active combat zones at the conclusion of hostilities. we had hundreds of thousands of troops "in theater" after the surrenders. they were not fighting actively and the core death rate was statistically in keeping with that large a number of people. true there were skirmishes and bad things did happen and there were casualties above the norm. BUT, unlike Iraq, they were NOT in the middle of a civil war - small or big and that civil war, small or big, isn't getting any better it is getting worse. our casualty rate is UP not down. that isn't the law of averages.<BR/><BR/>as to unscrambling the egg and implicit "i have a secret plan alla nixon"..no democrat has stated a plan. in fact, the GOP drumbeat was that the democrats can offer no new direction. who knows where this lunkhead president will take us as commander in chief during the next two years and you KNOW we will be in Iraq for 2 more years. You know it, Bush knows it, and the American people know it.<BR/><BR/>So your hero McCain stands up and talks about massive influx of new troops in Iraq (which we don't have) and/or strategic redeployment and telling the Iraq government that they need to get their act together so we can get out. (cut and run???). and this commission has already leaked out a "new troops" which the Generals just yesterday said they don't need. Talk about mixed messages.<BR/><BR/>I go back to my opinion stated often throughout this blog...Iraq may well be lost in a conventional military sense. That is the reality not the dream. When we look at it that way, then we can form a plan to make it as good as possible for all parties, albeit there may not be any "good". but to keep on keeping on is not a plan...please reread digging deeper and deeper.<BR/><BR/>there is no pony even though there is a pile of crap.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163784323273329162006-11-17T11:25:00.000-06:002006-11-17T11:25:00.000-06:00knoxgirl said... Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tag...knoxgirl said... <BR/>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?<BR/><BR/>... but it's the democrats who have set such high expectations. Implicit in their platform was "Iraq is a mess, elect us." They have the reigns now. That means we're all waiting for them to fix the "situation" as Pelosi calls it. <BR/><BR/>Given the complexity of the situation, we haven't been in Iraq that long. <BR/>---------------------<BR/><BR/>yes bush and his tagalongs have kept digging the hole and they refused to stop when it was clear there was neither daylight above or a goldmine below. please list the regular set of oversight hearings on the status of war conducted on a regular basis by the congress who, incidentally, has the job of regular oversight.<BR/><BR/>did you hear that the pentagon will ask for 180 billion in NEW spending in Iraq related expenses? by every measure you can name, except for the capture of saddam, please tell me how things are better day in and day out.<BR/><BR/>second, and I do love you knoxgirl, you mention, you somehow equate our post war occupation in japan and in germany with Iraq. Honestly, that makes no sense whatsoever. Japan and German ceased to be active combat zones at the conclusion of hostilities. we had hundreds of thousands of troops "in theater" after the surrenders. they were not fighting actively and the core death rate was statistically in keeping with that large a number of people. true there were skirmishes and bad things did happen and there were casualties above the norm. BUT, unlike Iraq, they were NOT in the middle of a civil war - small or big and that civil war, small or big, isn't getting any better it is getting worse. our casualty rate is UP not down. that isn't the law of averages.<BR/><BR/>as to unscrambling the egg and implicit "i have a secret plan alla nixon"..no democrat has stated a plan. in fact, the GOP drumbeat was that the democrats can offer no new direction. who knows where this lunkhead president will take us as commander in chief during the next two years and you KNOW we will be in Iraq for 2 more years. You know it, Bush knows it, and the American people know it.<BR/><BR/>So your hero McCain stands up and talks about massive influx of new troops in Iraq (which we don't have) and/or strategic redeployment and telling the Iraq government that they need to get their act together so we can get out. (cut and run???). and this commission has already leaked out a "new troops" which the Generals just yesterday said they don't need. Talk about mixed messages.<BR/><BR/>I go back to my opinion stated often throughout this blog...Iraq may well be lost in a conventional military sense. That is the reality not the dream. When we look at it that way, then we can form a plan to make it as good as possible for all parties, albeit there may not be any "good". but to keep on keeping on is not a plan...please reread digging deeper and deeper.<BR/><BR/>there is no pony even though there is a pile of crap.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163774774094161332006-11-17T08:46:00.000-06:002006-11-17T08:46:00.000-06:00Derve you are a freakshowDerve you are a freakshowknoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163723097010275702006-11-16T18:24:00.000-06:002006-11-16T18:24:00.000-06:00Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress ta...<I>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry to pile on, MM, but it's the democrats who have set such high expectations. Implicit in their platform was "Iraq is a mess, elect us." They have the reigns now. That means we're all waiting for them to fix the "situation" as Pelosi calls it. <BR/><BR/>Given the complexity of the situation, we haven't been in Iraq that long. (Need I quote the statistics on how long we've had troops in Europe or occupied Japan after WWII? ) Those on the left were critical of Bush long before two years had passed... that makes it especially hard for them now. If I have little sympathy, well...knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163719361380643742006-11-16T17:22:00.000-06:002006-11-16T17:22:00.000-06:00MadisonMan wrote:Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tag...MadisonMan wrote:<BR/><I>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?</I><BR/><BR/>No, but it would be nice if they decided whether they want their eggs scrambled, poached, hard-boiled or in a shot glass wooshed up with a dash of Tabasco in a shot glass. Sorry for sounding like a stuck record, but the Democrats MUST decide what they stand <B>FOR</B> rather than what they're <B>AGAINST</B> and not only on Iraq. Extra points for saying the same thing to the Kossacks <I>and</I> the Blue Dogs who handed Congress to them last week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163715529721296832006-11-16T16:18:00.000-06:002006-11-16T16:18:00.000-06:00I wasn't arguing the origin of "all money bills," ...<I>I wasn't arguing the origin of "all money bills," I was arguing <B>(successfully, I thought)</B> that the president, in his role as commander-in-chief, controls the armed forces once military action has been authorized by Congress, as this one unfortunately was.</I><BR/><BR/>Not really. The difficulty is that people are pointing out an obvious and significant <I>check</I> on that power, and you're ignoring that check in favour of repeating that yes, the Constitution does indeed give the President that power. Well yes it does. So? The broader context we're talking about here is Congressional power to terminate the war in Iraq, if they really think we're throwing good money after bad.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, Madisonman's (implicit) point that winding down a war isn't something you can do in two years is a genuine response to this issue -- <I>yes</I> Democrats could cut it off immediately, right now, force the troops to come home, etc. But not if they have an ounce of responsibility in their bones. Nixon came in promising to end Vietnam and took rather longer than just two years to wind it down in catastrophic failure.Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163715403772094612006-11-16T16:16:00.000-06:002006-11-16T16:16:00.000-06:00Roger:"Certainly the anti-war folks are going to s...Roger:<BR/>"<I>Certainly the anti-war folks are going to see the election results as a mandate to get out now</I>."<BR/><BR/>One would think so, yet apparently, they don't. Doyle is as anti-war as they come, yet he doesn't seem to want the war over. He wants <I>Bush</I> to end the war, yet doesn't want the Democratic-controlled <I>Congress</I> to end the war. Why might that be, if not the reason I suggested in my previous comment?<BR/><BR/>Democrats sure seem to have picked a funny time to get God on the Commander-in-Chief powers, but then again, liberal regard for the Constitution has always tended to ebb and flow depending on whether they think it helps them in a partciular instance or not.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163715063407702802006-11-16T16:11:00.000-06:002006-11-16T16:11:00.000-06:00MadisonMan said..."Oh, that's rich. Bush and his t...MadisonMan said...<BR/>"<I>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?</I>"<BR/><BR/>It may be rich, but it's still accurate. Democrats can force us out of Iraq within one budget cycle. But I doubt they will, because they know as well as we all do that their campaign rhetoric about withdrawal is so deeply misguided as to precipitate disaster.<BR/><BR/>When are people going to get past this idea that the Democratic Party wants us to succeed in Iraq? This is a party that has nailed the balance of their political fortunes to the proposition that Iraq is a catastrophic failure. Success in Iraq would repudiate everything that Democrats have been saying for the last two years. Hence, their political goal is to transform that criticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy, <I>without the blame falling upon themselves</I>. Withdrawal from Iraq will make the situation worse, which is what they want, but if they force withdrawal themselves, then they might be blamed for the mess. No, they only have one option: they have to keep pushing <I>Bush</I> to withdraw the troops, and hope that the average joe on the streets has no better an understanding of the Constitution's checks and balances than does Doyle, and thus will not realize that if they really wanted the war over, they could do it themselves.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163714918831609382006-11-16T16:08:00.000-06:002006-11-16T16:08:00.000-06:00I wasn't arguing the origin of "all money bills," ...I wasn't arguing the origin of "all money bills," I was arguing (successfully, I thought) that the president, in his role as commander-in-chief, controls the armed forces once military action has been authorized by Congress, as this one unfortunately was.<BR/><BR/>I liked your little joke about Bush signing treaties though.Brian Doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652827640480365357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163714562217431262006-11-16T16:02:00.000-06:002006-11-16T16:02:00.000-06:00Doyle said..."The Constitution gives control of th...Doyle said...<BR/>"<I>The Constitution gives control of the armed forces to the president.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes, it does - but the Constitution <I>also</I> gives the <I>Congress</I> the power to decide whether the President has any armed forces to control or not. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises ... To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years," Art. I §8, and moreover, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," Art. I §9.<BR/><BR/>Wow - look at that! The President commands the troops, but can only command the troops with which Congress furnishes him. It's like some kind of <I>balance</I> or something, as if each power is, I don't know, <I>checked</I> by the other, so to speak. Gosh, those clever framers!Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163713575323993922006-11-16T15:46:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:46:00.000-06:00But be aware that if we're still in Iraq by the ne...<I>But be aware that if we're still in Iraq by the next election, that's because your party thought it was worthwhile to stay.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, that's rich. Bush and his tagalong Congress take the Country deep into the quagmire. The Democrats in Congress are supposed to unscramble an egg in 2 years?<BR/><BR/>Apologies for the mixed metaphors.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163713542834590182006-11-16T15:45:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:45:00.000-06:00The Constitution gives control of the armed forces...<I>The Constitution gives control of the armed forces to the president. Article II, if I remember from the phony defenses of illegal warrantless surveillance...</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but, uh, he can't do a whole lot with it <I>without any money.</I>Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163713121299381012006-11-16T15:38:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:38:00.000-06:00Simon -The Constitution gives control of the armed...Simon -<BR/><BR/>The Constitution gives control of the armed forces to the president. Article II, if I remember from the phony defenses of illegal warrantless surveillance...Brian Doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652827640480365357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163712769079811472006-11-16T15:32:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:32:00.000-06:00Doyle said..."How 'bout a Congress that actually d...Doyle said...<BR/>"<I>How 'bout a Congress that actually does the job envisioned for it by the Constitution?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Part of that job is checking and balancing the authority of the executive branch. You're attempting to defend an untenable position: that the war is so terrible and wrong that the President should bring it to an immediate halt, but not terrible and wrong enough that you're willing to bring a halt to it yourselves.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163711158896235472006-11-16T15:05:00.001-06:002006-11-16T15:05:00.001-06:00How 'bout a Congress that actually does the job en...How 'bout a Congress that actually does the job envisioned for it by the Constitution?<BR/><BR/>It's supposed to be adversarial. Bush clearly appreciates this, hence the (stillborn) Bolton confirmation and a fresh slate of unfrozen caveman judicial appointees.Brian Doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652827640480365357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163710922483885292006-11-16T15:02:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:02:00.000-06:00Doyle said..."I've really lost all grasp of what y...Doyle said...<BR/>"<I>I've really lost all grasp of what you're talking about. They're not going to cut off funding. VERY few have called for immediate withdrawal.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Your party has repeatedly called for withdrawal, under a variety of coy euphemisms. Are you now suggesting that, in fact, Democrats do <I>not</I> believe that the war is a colossal failure that is daily bleeding America of blood and treasure? I mean, what's the purpose of all of those "iraq war clocks" on liberal blogs if you people evidently think that it's going just swimmingly? <BR/><BR/>Now you have the power to stop it, you can't have it both ways. As of January 4th, your party has the power to stop the Iraq war any time it wants. If it fails to do so, it endorses the war and its conduct. It's put up or shut up time: if the war is a mistake, wrap it up and bring the troops home. Defund it. And if Congress <I>does</I> defund the war, and Bush continues to prosecute it, Congress can - and, in my view, should - impeach him. But be aware that if we're still in Iraq by the next election, that's because your party thought it was worthwhile to stay.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163710890877342712006-11-16T15:01:00.000-06:002006-11-16T15:01:00.000-06:00I was just listening to Michael Medved on my way b...I was just listening to Michael Medved on my way back from lunch. He gave an interesting rundown on the Pelosi-Hoyer relationship. Basically, they've been competing in politics ever since they were both interns for the same senator (? I think)40 years ago. Medved says Pelosi and Hoyer can't stand each other.<BR/><BR/>I hope he's right. Even if Hoyer just disagrees with Pelosi to annoy her, anything to stall her more whacko ideas would be a good thing.<BR/><BR/>ITA that there is no way to spin this as a positive for Pelosi. She came out big time for Murtha, and he lost. She loses face. It's obviously not a dire loss or even a serious one, but there are no upsides. And two big downsides for her are 1) having to deal with a peeved Murtha (reports are he looked like he was sucking lemons at the press conference) and 2) having to work with Hoyer, whom she detests. <BR/><BR/>Enjoy your speakership, Nance!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163710634786747512006-11-16T14:57:00.000-06:002006-11-16T14:57:00.000-06:00Doyle wrote:I just don't take Iraq War apologists ...Doyle wrote:<BR/><I>I just don't take Iraq War apologists seriously enough to respond to their whining about Democrats' lacking a cohesive plan.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you better start getting fraking serious because THE DEMOCRATS went out and campaigned on the issue, and THE DEMOCRATS no longer have the out of saying "it's all the nasty GOP majority's fault". As I've said here time and time again, we know what the Democrats are <I>against</I> (sorta) it's time to start telling the American people - and the world - what you stand <I>for</I>. Why don't you want to do that, Doyle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1163710382672743792006-11-16T14:53:00.000-06:002006-11-16T14:53:00.000-06:00Al -As far as Congress "actually check[ing] up on ...Al -<BR/><BR/>As far as Congress "actually check[ing] up on how the money is spent", that would certainly be a welcome change of pace from the current Congress. <BR/><BR/>But as for defunding the war, I just think it’s a political impossibility. I know some Democrats have made noises about using the power of the purse but I think that’s just crazy. Who doesn’t Support the Troops?<BR/><BR/>What needs to happen is for Bush to realize that we’re going to leave Iraq a mess, not a stable democracy, and that we need to do it before January 2009.Brian Doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652827640480365357noreply@blogger.com