OT:Bush has a political future...

That's a shot at all the politicians, not just the Halliburton types, The neocons were the genesis for the war in Iraq, the lack of planning for after the Iraqi collapse, and a host of mistakes since. About the only thing to agree about is if we can't do this any better than we have been, we owe it to the troops to get them out of harm's way. You'll notice between trips to your home planet, that the Senate repubs have not joined their Democratic colleagues in any numbers to bring the troops home. Since the magic number for a veto override is 67, the country needs one more election cycle to have a shot at veto override. Of course, shrub won't be there to veto the spending bill, so the problem is "just" the folks who will die in the interim for shrub's ego.

They have a very slim majority and all fear that cutting funding for the troops looks bad. Much of the elctorate is simpletons. And they won't get far now that Bush has found his veto pen. Being obstructionist looks bad and you can't make new policy work, unilaterally, with the tools they have.

From 00 to 06, the Republicans had a majority in both houses and control of the White House. What did they get done? SS reform? Nada. Balanced budget? Not so much. Immigration reform? Nope I don't even remember the other promises any more.

On 2007-06-11 21:37:26 -0700, "tak" said: ...Senate repubs have not joined their Democratic

And that's the tragedy. Repeating once again:

Fight war like it should be fought. Stop screwing around and finish the job properly. If not, get out. Now.

I'm sure we agree on that.

On another group, years ago, I wrote something similar to the following:

We've (the Republicans) have got it all now. House, Senate, and WH. It's ours to do with what we want, but it better be good because we've got no excuses.

I saw the beginning of the end when Bush started compromising with Kennedy on public education. I thought, "we're doomed". Now we're in a war that cannot be won as it's being currently fought, and we have a President that's completely recalcitrant when it comes to the public's desire for meaningful border and immigration control. What part of "illegal" does he not understand?

Bush claims to be concerned enough about fighting them over there rather than waiting to fight them here. Any idiot realizes that as long as the borders remain as porous as they are, they'll find a way to get here easily enough.

Worst case scenario involves mushroom clouds over large cities, delivered by extremists posing as Mexicans. Dozens of Middle Eastern men have been caught in Arizona and other areas doing exactly that, but how many made it in successfully, and to what end?

Actually, it SHOULD have been a social experiment, not a war, at least not in Iraq. The conflict between Shias and Sunnis goes back almost 1500 years, which, if that number was exactly correct, would be about 1493 years longer than your president's knowledge of the situation. This will not be solved with a war.

...and Dims have no character or backbone....

You ran on getting out of Iraq.

Cut off the money.

Noooooooooooooo that would require balls.

Dims are cowards in many ways.

All talk and NO action...

I think you're hung up on semantics. "We need to do..." is a statement of intended direction. What happens after that is politics. Bush holds a LOT of cards. Veto power, he's got the high ground in public relations (which is why the funding cutoff collapsed), a very friendly court system (2/3 of the judges at the federal level were appointed by Bush, Bush or Reagan) and the Democrats hold very slim majorities in Congress. That's not a lot of political power, entirely inadequate for ramming through a foreign policy agenda with an entrenched and in-denial President 12 blocks away.

As for the troops being handcuffed, Congressional Democrats certainly don't write Rules of Engagement; those are a result of the President's intentions in Iraq (win the war against the insurgents without wholesale slaughter of the population, which would turn all of Iraq against us and thereby lose the war).

If someone at the policy level in the early Bush Administration had given this 10 minutes of thought, they might have noticed there were a lot of possible downsides to invading Iraq and held off for a while. If all they really wanted was a demonstration democracy, they should have stuck with Afghanistan and then we might have one by now. Hamid Karzai is not a bad politician and with proper support might have Afghanistan pulled together by now. I was very much heartened by Afghanistan's prospects after their initial Loya Jurga, which drew well on their traditions to get the ball rolling. But security concerns have caused Afghanistan to stagnate.

Had it been started as a social experiment, the conclusion would have been foregone.

This "culture" knows only one thing: war. As you've so correctly pointed out, fifteen centuries of conflict have no hope of being ended in a few years; probably not in a few decades.

There is only one language being spoken by them, and we're unwilling to translate it into ours. I repeat again: If you're not going to let the military do their job the way it's supposed to be done, the way they're trained to do it, then bring 'em home.

Now.

And there's the rub. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner, and can't get out.

It IS interesting to watch the cockroaches scatter when the lights are turned on.

Are you referring to the bit about soldiers having to contact their CO before they can shoot back? If that's what you're referring to, then perhaps I missed something in this discussion because I've only seen one person claim the story is true. If it were true, I find it impossible to believe that such nonsense wouldn't have been all over the news.

I refer only partly to that truth. Two other points. Just because you've only heard of one person verifying it, doesn't detract from its veracity. And if you're hoping that the mainstream media is going to tell you everything you think you need to know, then I've got some beachfront Arizona property you might be interested in.

You're fed what they want you to digest. Period.

The media have got the military so scared of their criticism that the war simply will not be fought effectively.

Bring 'em home. Now.

Sorry, but there's absolutely NO WAY a policy like that could remain hidden for four years. Impossible.

the sooner we can forget about him down in Crawford or wherever, the better!

Yup.

Amazing 'cockroaches' these dims....

The sooner that we can forget YOU, the better. Calling all psychopaths, calling all psychopaths.......

Are you kidding?

Bush will be to blame for the next twenty five years.....

As I stated earlier, and you are ignoring, the "policy" was only mentioned by one person, who said he heard it from one acquaintance. If I recall, the acquaintance had spent time in Iraq. One person.

One person.

Got it?

One person. This whole discussion is based on what may well be nonsense.