Hi Gang:

So Bush has his Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight to his ranch for a big pow wow on what to do next in Iraq.

So he has Cheney,Condi , Gates and Pace to come up with a new stragedy[that a new word combining strategy and tragedy].

But how's he gonna come up with a new idea with the same old gang to do the brainstorming???

The only newcomer to the group is Gates and I really doubt that he will rock the boat...so how is anything fresh or new going to come out of this meeting ???

Unless the Democrats pull the rug out from under Bush,nothing new is going to happen except more bloodshed.

And I don't see that happening either.


So what's new???

Somehow the words Bush and Brainstorming in the same sentence don't seem to go together.

I'm afraid we're in for more deep doodoo unless the Democrats somehow grow some testicles.

hippolips

Hippo, don't you think that you should really wait until the Democrats actually take office before you find fault with their performance?

The Democrats have been working for so long trying to find fault, now they are in the position they have to come up with some solutions...something they ain't got

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
The Democrats have been working for so long trying to find fault, now they are in the position they have to come up with some solutions...something they ain't got

Sholdn't require much imagination, should it? If they follow the recommendations of the bipartisan report, which is more than the President wants to do, they won't go far wrong

"The Democrats have been working for so long trying to find fault..."

It really wasn't much work, and it didn't take long to find the faults. But why won't you

a) allow the Democrats to actually take office before you complain about their lack of action

and

b) show the same patience you have show when the Republicans were running things, like maybe giving the Democrats the same amount of time you've given bush to find bin Laden, or pacify Iraq, or do something about the national debt, or do something positive about health care, or....

This is no different than after Clinton won his first election. There was impeachment talk before he even took office.
--------
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress will have the same problem that the Republican Congress did, i.e. an administration that hasn't a clue. Fortunately, the Dwemocrats know this going in. Many Republicans took a few years to realize it. I guess some people are just slow learners.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:


But why won't you

a) allow the Democrats to actually take office before you complain about teir lack of action

and

b) show the same patience you have show when the Republicans were running things, like maybe giving the Democrats the same amount of time you've given bush to find bin Laden, or pacify Iraq, or do something about the national debt, or do something positive about health care, or....

________________________________________________

Sounds good to me,dg.

How much time is enough???

1 year ???

2 years ???

4 years ???

6 years ???

How much time would be fair ???

hippolips

It is my opinion that you will see progress in the first year. That's not bad, considering the number of years things have been headed downhill. But, in any case, things will probably not get as bad as quickly as they got in the last 6 years. That alone will be quite a change and good news.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
"The Democrats have been working for so long trying to find fault..."

It really wasn't much work, and it didn't take long to find the faults. But why won't you

a) allow the Democrats to actually take office before you complain about their lack of action

and

b) show the same patience you have show when the Republicans were running things, like maybe giving the Democrats the same amount of time you've given bush to find bin Laden, or pacify Iraq, or do something about the national debt, or do something positive about health care, or....

This is no different than after Clinton won his first election. There was impeachment talk before he even took office.
--------
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress will have the same problem that the Republican Congress did, i.e. an administration that hasn't a clue. Fortunately, the Dwemocrats know this going in. Many Republicans took a few years to realize it. I guess some people are just slow learners.

So I am suppose to give the Democrats some slack??? No way in hell!!!

Ever since 9-11 the Democrats have been playing their old brand of gutter politics and playing it to an all time low. And when their willing accomplices in the news media helping them out every step of the way, playing games on the minds of the American people. Wearing down their resolve of fighting the war.

What has really happened is the Democrats have intentionedly undermined the war effort by the Bush Administration. There have been more leaks of classified information come out during the last six years than at any time during the history of the country. All for the sole purpose of trying to undermine & discredit the President. The Democrats have put their lust for power ahead of the National Security of our country. Anybody who can't see that is as blind as a bat.

And the worst part about this is our enemy sees this. They love seeing the public relations nightmare. They love seeing the Democrats helping their cause. They love seeing our country disintegrate from within, the disunity being caused by the political power struggle. When the Democrats took back control of both houses of Congress, also prompting the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, that was a great day for terrorism, because they won too.

This past election was a scam. The Democrats come in with no real plan yet they got what they wanted. They got back their power. I certainly hope the American people wake up over the next couple of years and see what a mistake it was giving it back to them.

Getting back to the o.p., what is Bush's much awaited new plan likely to be?

This article predicts 'that Bush -- presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney -- has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis.'

Is it possible?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Getting back to the o.p., what is Bush's much awaited new plan likely to be?

This article predicts 'that Bush -- presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney -- has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis.'

Is it possible?

For several days now the BBC has been guessing that the President will send twenty or thirty thousand troops to make a big push to 'secure' Baghdad. Then, presumably, after that he'll pull them and others out as soon as he can, claiming that he's now left Baghdad in a condition where the Iraqis can run it.

This "last big push" idea has already been tried in Baghdad -

'...Bush's trip comes as at least 70,000 troops -- most of them Iraqi -- prepare to deploy Wednesday on the streets of Baghdad in an effort to bring security to the Iraqi capital, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

The additional security will include Iraqi police, police commandos, soldiers and emergency police as well as U.S.-led coalition forces, the ministry said.

The forces will secure checkpoints on Baghdad's roads as well as enforce a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. There also will be a ban on civilians carrying weapons.

The forces will wear new uniforms to distinguish them from insurgents, who often wear police or military outfits to carry out attacks.

Officials said it's the largest operation in Baghdad since the U.S. turnover to Iraqis in June 2004...'

- and what a success that was.

Bush seems to be stuck. He won't (it seems) push for talks between the parties in Iraq (although Merkel has persuaded him to call for more talking in Palestine). That leaves Bush with the military option, which can't work - certainly not without some kind of viable political plan.

Then there's this theory;

'"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy - literally, not figuratively."'
White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Dwemocrats

I don't know, but the term might stick

DG is right to advise not complaining about the Democrats before they actually take office. If they were elected because of Iraq, however, why is it missing from their agenda (stem cell research, minimum wage, etc)?

This is the open letter Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California sent to President Bush on Friday:

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.

Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid, Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they sworn in on Thursday? Even before they were sworn in, Pelosi and Reid made it known that

a) bush was no longer going to get a free pass to do whatever he wanted in Iraq

and

b) withdrawal of troops was going to happen sooner rather than later.

While I am certain that LR will complain that the Democrats haven't ended the war or won the war or something in their "first week" in office, it is obvious to any objective onlooker that major changes are coming in the Iraq war, Congressional oversight, legislative hiding of both income and special earmarks, and, in general, having a more transparent government. (It's no wonder that some don't like what is coming up.)

By the way, I see that another general who disagreed with bush is out, and being replaced with one who thinks more troops will make the Iraqis loves us. I can see why few in the military will speak out publically against failed policies. Now the poor guy won't get his medal like the others who went along. He'll have to sit with the others who time has proven right.
_____________________
House Tightens Disclosure Rules for Pet Projects

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 — The House voted on Friday to pull the shadowy tradition of Congressional earmarking into the daylight, requiring lawmakers to attach their names to the pet items they slip into spending or tax bills and certify that they have no financial interest in the provisions.

More than any of several ethics rules adopted by the House this week, the earmark measure could prevent the kind of corruption that led to several big scandals in recent years, including former Representative Randy Cunningham’s sale of earmarks to government contractors for cash, gifts and campaign contributions.

The cost of earmarks has tripled in the last 12 years, to more than $64 billion annually. Some lawmakers treated their share of that money as personal accounts to dole out to constituents or, in many cases, campaign contributors.

In what lawmakers of both parties called a recognition of the backlash against such corruption in the November elections, the earmark rule the Democrats passed extends far beyond the proposal they introduced last spring and campaigned on in the fall. That proposal applied only to earmarks that are typically already well publicized.

It also goes further than a measure the Republicans passed just weeks before the November election. As in other efforts to change the earmarking process, the Republican leaders foundered against the opposition of the powerful Appropriations Committee, which doles out earmarks as it writes spending bills. - New York Times

The vote was 280 to 152, with 48 Republicans joining all 232 Democrats. Now, can anybody think of a reason that this bill, with its tighter provisions, wasn't brought to the floor when Dennis Hastert and his pals ran the House? Obviously, some of the Republicans wanted it, and obviously, almost all (if not all) of the Democrats in the last Congress wanted it. Why does such a needed bill have to wait until the House changed hands to pass?

(You have to admire the stones of Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio (R.), who said, " “I’m pleased that Democrat leaders agree with Republicans that earmark reform is a critical issue." When did it become a Republican Issue? They had 6 years to get a good bill passed, and didn't. But now it's a Republican issue? Does the Hon. Boehner, who was the Republican Majority Leader in the House until the Democrats won, not understand the decimal system? Only 48 Republicans (of the ones that are left) in the House voted for it. Over 150 Republicans, or about 75% of them, didn't want it. What was he in a previous life, an East German Olympic skating judge?))

Hi Gang:

In today's newspaper the New York Times News Service reports that under Bush's new plan ..."it may take another two or three years to gain the upper hand in the {Iraq}war".

How do the Democrats propose to counter that???

New Presidential hopeful,Joe Biden,stated,"As a practical matter ,there is no way to say'Mr.President,stop' "".

"He'll be able to keep the troops there forever,constitutionally,if he wants to ".

Sen.Barbara Boxer said she would like to see a congressional vote on whether Bush can send in additional troops.

Looks like we'll find out soon who's gutless and nutless.

hippolips

If I remember correctly, a president can send troops for a limited time for anything construed as being in the national interest. The definition of "national interest" varies with the political view of the speaker. Thus, bush can legally (by US law) send in troops for a limited time. Obviously, there can be all sorts of playing around with this, and this administration has already shown and said that it does not feel constrained by any acts of Congress. (See any explanation of bush's use of "signing statements.") If my memory is correct (and is usually is in most matters), and if bush decides to do what he wants regardless of what Congress says (and he has demonstrated that doing so is no problem for him), I don't see how the Democrats along with the increasing number of Republicans who see Iraqas a huge mistake that is just getting worse can stop such an escalation using legal or legislative means. However, pressure can be put on bush in other ways, and, while most Democrats are reluctant to use all the pressure available to Congress, some will want to use it, and that number will grow as Iraq worsens. If you see Republicans joining them, the situation that bush will find himself in will be very serious.

Remember that if bush vetoes any legislation, it requires a 2/3 vote in both Houses to override a veto. While a 2/3 majority may come out of the House to override a veto about Iraq, I don't think 16 Republican Senators will vote to override anything bush vetoes, and it will take 16 Republican Senators along with all the Democrats and both Independents to get that 2/3 majority.

What all this could result in is Congressional gridlock, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Hi dg:

But it won't get us out of Iraq...

and Bush will get to pass this hot potato on to the next President...

Unless you could impeach both Bush and Cheney...

then Pelosi would become President...

but Hillary Clinton would never support that idea ...because she wants to be the next President.

What a bundle of snakes...and our boys continue to die as each day passes.

hippolips

Impeaching bush and cheney would be a waste of time, money, asnd resources. Unless this tactic of sending in more military for a while works, bush and cheney will add to the evidence of being the worst administration the country ever had. Those who doubt that appellation need to be reminded that the investigations haven't started yet. Just because no impeachment is forthcoming is no reason not to find out the truth behind some of their potentially criminal acts.