House has just approved Iraq War Withdrawal Timetable

[nlm]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

[nlm]

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

To mean that the only "meaningful way" is to leave, right?

Yours words - not mine. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy, I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had on this issue.

[nlm]

Yours words - not mine. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy, I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had on this issue.

I just ask, because of the praise Gates and Petraeus received when being selected to their posts and their proposed change in strategy by Bush's opponents, just to have those same people trying to pull the resources and support they need to implement the new strategy before it even has a chance to get off the ground. 

I'm old enough to remember surge after surge in Vietnam and what that amounted to - so are some of the members of Congress. I think you are twisting things up when you confuse praise for the men in a hearing and approval of the strategy being used. Those are very different things. I think you are also ignoring the middle ground (perhaps I'm wrong about that - appearance can be deceiving) - our choices don't amount to either doing what Bush wants or leaving the area completely, there have been any number of plans layed out that do neither of those things. That is also the direction that Congress is pushing Bush. However - Bush can turn it into an all or nothing situation by refusing to negotiate, in which case he may end up with nothing - and that would be bad for the country. It will not surprise me if he does that - brinksmanship is about the only tool he has in his bag.

Let's also not pretend that Gates and Petraeus define what the mission is - Bush does that. They just try and figure out means to achieve the goals that Bush sets. There are a great many people trying to muddy the water about that in addition to trying to claim that the troops and the mission are the same thing (how insulting is that to the troops?). Bush being at the front of that group.

[nlm]

I'm old enough to remember surge after surge in Vietnam and what that amounted to - so are some of the members of Congress.

So am I, and I'm sad to see Congress trying to repeat their past mistakes.  Let the military do their job so the country can succeed.

Again - your statement muddies the waters. The mission was created by Bush, not the military. The mission can be changed - in fact Bush himself has changed it a few times. This has nothing to do with letting the military do their job. This is about defining what we should do moving forward and what the militarys mission should be - as opposed to what a proven incompetent like Bush wants it to be. He has been invited by Congress to be a part of that process moving forward - he has declined their invitation to this point. At the end of the day Congress is going to have to approve of what they are funding in some form or another - if Bush would come to the table now, I'm sure he will get more than if he comes to the table later.

[nlm]

It's non binding.

Yes, it's been totally watered down to appease right-wing Democrats.
Hopefully Bush is stupid enough to veto it anyways.

He is.

[nlm]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

I know I'm going to regret asking - what are the ground you see for Hagel and Smith being tried for treason? Please keep it within the realm of the law - if you can.

[nlm]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

I know I'm going to regret asking - what are the ground you see for Hagel and Smith being tried for treason? Please keep it within the realm of the law - if you can.

I meant in the terms of to the Republicans and the American people, not necessarily legally

I don't understand - what terms are those?

[nlm]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

I think the public/pro-troop Americans (most) will discourage that and it'll hurt the Dems, not help them - especially w/ the independents/undecideds.

That depends upon if the American public is so stupid and disrespectful of troops that they can not see the difference between the troops and the mission. I never put much faith in the American public being smart - but we shall see, there are indication that at least some of the American public has clued into the fact that the troops and the mission are different things, and that throwing away money and the lives of our troops on a pipe dream of a mission about establishing a democracy in Iraq is anything but supporting our troops - it's simply getting them killed for nothing.

But as I have noted many times - the spin machines on both sides will be working overtime for the next few months - and the Bush administration will be out and about selling their pipe dream and telling folks that the troops and the mission are in fact the same thing. I expect Bush will not change the political strategy in Iraq and will keep up his rhetoric about supporting the troops - when in fact he is really talking about supporting a mission that simply results in our troops being killed for nothing.

[nlm]

I am with the Democrats here.  Bring the troops home.  They don't want to be there anymore and Bush's stubbornness will not make things better.  Conservatives are always talking about letting things work themselves out without government intervention... let's give it a try.  Let Iraq work things out without the U.S. breathing down their neck.

Give me your honest opinion of what happen to the middle east as a whole, not just Iraq, if we do that.

I'm not going to hit with fear mongering about terrorists following us home - but what do you think happens to the region, and what impact do you think it has on us?

I see a disaster.

You would instantly see the Shia militias that essentially are driving the current government backed by Iran.

You would immediately see them consolidate their power. That means consolidating Iranian influence. They'd also look to expand that.

The Arab states in the region, America's allies, who have been screaming about this since before the invasion, would not be able to sit back. They'd have to respond by supporting the Sunnis.

So you would see the country immediately turn into an Iranian proxy kind of territory or Iranian sponsored territory and then an al Qaeda-dominated Sunni-Arab regional backed semi-state, at war with each other, that would suck in all the regional players.

I'm on record all over the place here with what my opinion is and why it is such (and I'm not with the Dems or the GOP) - but if you are going to make a statement like that - it's fair to ask you what the end result of your suggestion would be.

[nlm]

Still waiting Snowguy.