View Single Post
Old 05-09-2007, 07:08 AM   #42 (permalink)
ubertuber
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am not ignoring the fact that you point out.

I agree, Democrats are in a tough position. When I said that perhaps one of the problems was in the way the Democratic Party message was being communicated, the first response was that it was my problem.

At this point I am not just posting things for the sake of argument, I am interested in understanding how the Iraq problem can be solved. One way is the Bush way, which will cost billions more dollars and who know how many american lives. The other way is for the Democrats to over-come the obsticals and present a plan to the American people that we can understand and support.
Fair enough...

The way I see it, there are two possibilities here.

The first would be a spending bill with some sort of verifiable and meaningful benchmarks for funding to continue. There is a lot of room within this for good and bad bills though, depending on the quality of the benchmarks. Ideally, these would be set up more to ensure meaningful progress in quality of life and security in Iraq, rather than embarrassing President Bush. Even those kind of standards would be hard enough to meet.

The second would be to give Bush money, but only for the short term, forcing him to fight this funding battle over and over. I kind of like this because it is poetic justice in a way - Bush would be hoist in the very petard he created by keeping war funding out of the budget. If the public continues to perceive our presence in Iraq as a debacle, benchmarks couldn't save the President anyway - as ignoring the public will in high profile headline inducing budget fights would ruin the Republican party.

Notice that neither of my suggestions are deadlines. Personally, I think that deadlines without reasons (built into the legislation) are almost the worst possible option, after funding with no strings attached and a long leash. Deadlines are a demagogic position, much like free money with no stipulations. They can too easily go awry tactically for the Iraqis, and they are too easily misportrayed by the opposition.

I definitely agree that Congress needs to grow a pair and step up to its Constitutional responsibilities. The power of the purse means that they control funding. Bush's vetoes don't mean that Congress won't fund, it means that he won't accept the money they'll give. That could be a powerful rhetorical position - IMO it's the moral and ethical high ground.

___________________________________________________________

EDIT: May 10, 2007 10 AM

Ace, this one's for you. This NY Times article indicates that support for the President's policies among the Republican members of the house isn't monolithic. Apparently the current debate is less about the democrats failing to articulate a plan than it is that these guys are just on board with the Pres until they have to jump ship, which may be soon. It'll be interesting to see if this meeting generates any softening of Bush's stance at all.

I find Bush's comparison of what will happen upon withdrawal to South Asia post-Vietnam to be...surprising. In my opinion, the violence in Iraq will be much worse, at least in the short term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
May 10, 2007
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.   click to show 
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 05-10-2007 at 05:56 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
ubertuber is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360