Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Iraq Supplemental Negotiation in a Nutshell

Democrats: We want a binding timeline

Bush: No

Democrats: We want a non-binding timeline

Bush: No

Democrats: We want binding benchmarks

Bush: No

Democrats: Ok, we'll give you whatever you want

Bush: Thanks

Democrats: This is not a blank check. This forces a new direction in Iraq. This shows we are committed to ending the war.

Me: Whatever

The best part of this is hearing the leadership say they are just extending the debate to the defense authorization bill and the defense supplemental bill. Will someone explain to me why the President would take any future threats from this congress seriously?


Andrew Kaduk said...

You crack me up Jeff.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

I think it demonstrates how poor of a job the Democrats are doing...

They have accomplished almost nothing and they remind me of the Republicans they replaced.

Mike Sylvester

Craig said...

Okay, I'm a sucker. I'll defend the indefensible.

It's a no win situation. Bush vetos a bill again and the Dems get heat for delaying the funding. The timelines are removed and they get heat for caving to Bush (which they did). They obviously chose the latter. The votes just aren't there to override the veto. That's reality.

I don't like it, but I'm not too upset seeing how the Dem I voted for didn't win his election anyway.

As for you Mr. Sylvester, you're full of it. First you whine because you didn't like the earmarks in the bill, and now you whine because, I don't know why. The Dems could nominate the corpse of Ayn Rand for president and you'd probably still complain.

Jeff Pruitt said...


They have tried to accomplish quite a bit. It's difficult when the president threatens to veto every bill you pass.


Here's the problem I have w/ their strategy. They talked tough about timelines and benchmarks day after day and made everyone beleive that they were not going to give the President what he wanted. Then, all of a sudden they simply folded and everyone knows it.

Politically, the smarter move would've been to acknowledge from the very beginning that you are going to give the president what he wants while stating that the party vehemently disagrees w/ his strategy. Granted they would've taken heat for that but they're taking that heat now anyway AND they look like disorganized and weak.

They act like the American people support the President and his disastrous policies in Iraq. They should've sent the same bill back to the President and told him that this was it and he wasn't getting another one. The decision would've been his to either take that bill or end the war because there would be ZERO funding to continue.

That is a winning strategy. That is standing up for what you believe in. That is obviously asking too much...

LP Mike Sylvester said...


You are making a little less sense each time I read your comments.

The Democrats need to stop making promises and breaking them. They should do the following Craig, I will make it SIMPLE so that even you can understand it:

1. The Democrats should remove all of the pork and unrelated items from the Funding Bill for Iraq. This bill should ONLY fund the conflict in Iraq.

2. The Democrats should set a series of Benchmarks that the Iraqi Government MUST comply with. The benchmarks should be specific and have hard deadlines.

3. The bill should state that no future funding will be authorized unless EVERY benchmark is met on time.

It is not complicated Craig, spend less time inhaling tractor fumes and writing poetry and spend some time reading something other then Daily Kos.


The Democrats are failing to produce on just about every major promise they made and everyone knows it. The only thing they accomplished were a few items in the first "100 hours." This is just the latest example.

The Democrats in Congress could NOT even get a bill passed forcing a withdrawl of troops without a whole bunch of pork to some Democrats. What a joke.

Jeff is right. The Democrats should stick to their guns.

They do NOT have to send a bill to Bush. They should tell him that if he vetoes the bill and refuses to compromise that the Democrats will cut funding to the conflict.

Believe me, Bush would change his tune quickly.

The Democrats appear to be weak and they are breaking promises to their supporters...

Mike Sylvester

Charlotte A. Weybright said...

Okay - I put my comment in the post above. Maybe it should have gone here.

It is pretty darn simple. We have no business in Iraq, and we have made it a mess, and, as a result, the Middle East is less safer now than it was before Bush decided he would high-handedly change things. His arrogance is mind boggling.