Why the Democrats Won't Defund the War

[gipper]

There are two overriding reasons why it would be bad POLICY (and politics) for the Democrats to defund the Iraq War out from under Bush's blind ambitions: 1) there is the real potential that chaos would be created costing many US lives and casualties; and 2) there is the certainty that a simple defunding without a comprehensive plan (only implementable by a cooperative chief executive) would lead to chaos, regional roiling and indigenous bloodbaths. This is NOT a realistic alternative for responsible politicians (emphasizing the root "policy" in that word), and John Edwards's grandstanding is thus irresponsible politicking by a whore of the left-wing polls, he who voted so confidently FOR the war.

[sirs]

So they COULD, but they choose not to based on reasons stemming from "bad politics".  So, do they (the newly elected Dem majority) represent their consitutients, or not?

[gipper]

Typically, you misread my post, wantonly I say. As for representing the constituents, I and many like me are constituents, and we're looking for leadership on policy as well as responsiveness to political will. That is the crucible of our democracy.

[sirs]

And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even.  Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones.  Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit.  Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.

[gipper]

Don't even try to debate with me you poser. Sophism has a new face. BUSH will fuck up a defunding; you need a comprehensive, alternate plan which he is incapable of devising or implementing to make a withdrawal work.

[chickencounter]

 Posted by: sirs
And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even.  Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones.  Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit.  Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.

"as he sees fit"......that is the problem.

[sirs]

Spoken like the true arrogant arse we've all come to know and love around these parts          What we actually need is the gumption and fortitude to deal with the current dilemmas & threat assessments localized in and around Iraq.  Trying to lay the inability to defund the war in the branch of Government that has no control over it, is pretty lame, even for the all seeing, all knowing domer

[gipper]

Our ideas speak for themselves.

[sirs]

Posted by: sirs
And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even.  Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones.  Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit.  Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.

"as he sees fit"......that is the problem.

"As he sees fit" applies to EVERY President who is having to consider sending troops into battle, so your real problem is with the Constitution.  So, if the Constitution is a problem, by all means advocate for its being amended, Miss Chick

[sirs]

Our ideas speak for themselves.

Yo, domer, the only "idea" you keep speaking of is support of some form of responsible withdrawl, minus ANY substantive presentation of such......simply that that's what needs to happen.  Adding of course the frequent Bush bash slur, intertwined within the "idea that speaks for itself"

[gipper]

As I just said ...

[sirs]

Ditto, regarding your ideas that "speak for themselves".  Of course they must be speaking in sign language, since we're not actually hearing any ideas, outside of withdrawl without bringing about chaos.......which ironcally has been the plan all along from the Administration.  Imagine that

[Michael Tee]

domer, are you trying to tell us that the U.S. military, which has contingency plans for invading just about any place on earth, has NO contingency plans for hauling its ass out of Iraq on short notice?  I would find that very hard to believe.

[gipper]

The problem, Tee, is to execute the withdrawal in concert with coordinate activities that would minimize damage or maximize advantage.

[Mr_Perceptive]

The problem, Tee, is to execute the withdrawal in concert with coordinate activities that would minimize damage or maximize advantage.

Certainly doable if the hands are taken off. Establish a fire perimeter and hose anything that makes contact. Simple and effective.

Also, we we will be leaving a lot of equipment over there for them to use. That is the scuttlebutt anyway.