Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace, the case I would make for continued funding with strings is the old standby:
"you break it, you buy it". To me, the idea of doing the damage we've done without setting viable structures in place is pretty repugnant. In that vein, I'm not all that interested in President Bush's proposal of more of the same, without strings, benchmarks, or expiration. There's a reason the corporate world doesn't function that way.
|
In that case the Democratic Party should offer an alternative plan, not benchmarks. Why not the Biden plan?
If the Democrats and the majority of US voters want a new direction, the Democrats need to force the issue.
I don't want to discuss it any further, but this is why I had a problem with the confirmation of General Patraus. The Democrats should have forced the adoption of a new plan at that moment in time, now we have wasted more lives, time and resources.
When will the Democrats take a stand, if they won't do it now with Bush's popularity below 30%, and when most people in Iraq want us out, when will they ever do it? Bush will push his Iraq agenda until the day he leaves office, we all know that. And, Bush is almost certain not to compromise anything material unless forced, we all know that too. So we sit, wait while they play games in Washington.