Heh...there is just something so right with the phrase 'nuked the crap out of...' There isn't any other way of putting it. You can't 'slightly nuke them', can you?

Oh...I laughed out loud at that one...thanks.

Bush should announce he will be bi-partisan and follow Truman's example.

This is just part of the Democratic strategy to do nothing about ending the war, hold hearings to highlight mistakes by the Bush administration, encourage the enemy, and demoralize our troops and allies.

If they can maximize the number of US casualties and if they can blame the GOP for the lost blood and treasure, they will maximize their chances to win the White House and more seats in Congress in 2008.

Short of cutting off the funding, there is nothing the Democrats can do to actually end the war. That is up to the president. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can't order the troops home.

So much for the "Democratic strategy to do nothing about ending the war."

Audient;

As the Center for American Progress (and others) have stated, Congress has the power to:
* Condition, limit, or shape the timing and nature of troop deployments and the missions they are authorized to undertake;
* Cap the size of military deployments; and
* Prohibit funding for existing or prospective deployments.

The power over the funding gives them simple, direct, and veto-proof power over what goes on in Iraq. They can bring this to a halt is short order, if they had the guts to do it.

This is a president who has taken signing statements to an unprecedented (and probably unconstitutional) level. I doubt this president would honor any strings attached to future funding of the war. I don't think this congress can do anything to actually end this war except cut off the funding in its entirety.

Audient:

If you believe that the Bush administration would actually violate the limits placed on the money, then your party has a responsibility to make that case. In simple terms: the confrontation must be made. Do it, and push for the Constitutional crisis if it happens.

The answer is very simple: Congress votes -- right now -- today -- on the DOD appropriations bill for next year and includes zero money for operations in Iraq. They tell the world that they will fund operations in Iraq on a quarterly basis. The Bush administration and the Iraqi government will conform to certain rules and regulations (specificed later), and Congress will monitor what goes on. The moment they screw up: the funding stops. The funding becomes a three-month-long (maximum) chain that Congress can yank anytime they feel like it.

This (and more) is how the Vietnam war was put to sleep.

Face it: Democrats now have the power to act.
They must now stop talking tough and actually do something.
They must stop making excuses and actually put together a plan.
Otherwise, their election in 2006 was just a farce.

If liberals truly believe that Iraq cannot be won, then what bizarre, twisted ethical system allows them to let this continue one single day? How can we ask young men and women to put their lives on the line simply because the majority of politicians are afraid of losing their jobs or give up a chance to win the White House?

Kevino, I'd like to know what bizarre twisted ethical system enables them to get their knickers in a twist over the surge plan and then unaimously confirm the guy who wrote it. Bush is a dope for thinking it's worth trying, oh, hello General Petreus, glad to see you! Sounds like Eddie Haskell.

Anyway, we have't left Japan. Sixty years later we still have troops there. The good news is that the Japanese have made significant strides towards democracy.

Hey! Hey! LBJ!
How many "heights of irresponsibility"
did you scalew today?

Steve:

RE: Confirming Gen Petreus unanimously while trashing his mission
Absolutely right! How you tell tell the world that the "surge" is a dumb idea that has been tried before and failed, and then confirm the General who wants to do it? In my book, it's even worse to ask young men and women to put their lives on the line for something that they think is impossible or not worth doing.

--------

Here's what I want: I want the Dhimmicrats to grow up. Specifically, I want them to take a little responsibility for what they say and do.

They have spent the last several years as the minority party complaining about pretty much everything, and their philosophy has been "We're against what the GOP is proposing." That's not much of a principle for governing, is it? They won in 2006 by (once again) running against the GOP without proposing anything of their own beyond the first 100 hours.

OK, they won, and the first 100 hours are over. What now? Well, they're against the "surge", and they pretty much trashed everything that President Bush proposed in the SOTU. And they plan to hold hearings about Bush policies.

We have a President whose approval numbers are so low that he is effectively gone from public sight. Few in the country listen to him at all anymore. The Dhimmicrats now have the power. It's time for them to decide what they intend to do, and all we get is a lot of tough talk and excuses.

Basically one of two things should happen in Iraq:
1. The Dhimmicrats actually follow through on their threats to "redeploy" in 4-6 months or by the end of this year (depending on which plan you're looking at). If so, they do the work, and they do the adult thing and take responsibility for their actions.
2. The Dhimmicrats let the war continue and are forced to say why. For example:
(a.) We can't get out without damaging US prestige, which in turn damages our national security.
(b.) We can’t let the Iraq government splinter, leaving Iran with effective control over about a third of the country.
(c.) We don’t want to cause open civil war that ends in a Sunni blood-bath.
For the Dhimmicrats to say any of these things means that they have to finally tell the American people that Bush was right, and they were wrong.

My message to the Democratic Party: if you want to govern, you have to have ideas and courage to implement them. If you can't do that, then go back to the kiddy table and leave the governance to the adults.

I am not a member of the Democratic Party, so when you call it "[my] party" you are wrong in your assumption.

I supported going into Iraq. The president has simply done an embarassingly poor job of it.

The so-called "surge" is too little, too late. We should have had more troops earlier, not this small increase years later.

And now that this president has screwed the pooch, and wants to compound his error with a belated "surge" -- people like kevino want to blame the new majority in congress instead of the commander in chief who led us into this thing.

audient:

There are no excuses. The Democrats have the power, and they must act. It's not about assigning blame.

If the Dhimmicrats really believe that the presence of US troops is making matters worse, then they have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

I'm sorry if I mistook the Dhimmicrats for your party, but I've been arguing with Dhimmicrats for weeks now. Before 2006, they have promised to get us out of Iraq, and now that they are in power, I'm getting a lot of garbage about how they really can't do anything -- even after they've won the debate and the election.

I refuse to award cowardly behavior.
I refuse to award inaction.
I absolutely require leadership to accept the consequences of their words and actions.

Hmm, since 'Sister'is tellin us about it, maybe she can tell us what was the deal with those missing Rose Law firm records they found in her closet, or maybe what she and her husband did with those 1000 confidential FBI records they somehow got a hold of, or just what it was that Sandy Berger stole out of the National Archives?

But what I really want to know is how she made $100,000.00 from $1,000.00 in commodities in 18 months.

Gah.

I sort of shrugged her off afore this outburst - now she can kiss my O-4 ass. If she wins, I will be an O-5 coasting toward retirement (after my third deployment) or just finishing my last deployment. I shudder for the damned fine junior officers I serve with now...

Bah.

Bush has a long...

LONG...

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG....

way to go before he kills one-hundredth as many innocent civilians as Harry Truman did.

Think he'll make it?

I'm not betting on it.

The real reason Shrillary wants the troops out before the next election is so that the Demonrats (if they win) won't have to take responsibility for the consequences of either removing them or leaving them in place. If removing the troops causes any of the Bad Things
enumerated by kevino, then it's Bush's fault for taking them out. If nothing Bad happens, then the 'rats can take the credit for forcing Bush to remove the troops.
But God Forbid they should actually have to do something, and take actual responsibility for it. After all, it's always much easier just to heckle and complain from the sidelines than it is to actually try to come up with workable solutions.