Republican Senators Warner and Lugar turn on Bush

I don't know what to say about low poll ratings about congress?

It doesn't say anything directly about hating or loving either party. The low poll ratings may reflect an overall unhappiness with a stalemate status. I don't know. Maybe if the questions about congress were more specific or narrower I would have stronger feelings and an ability to comment.

As to Reid, I can't comment yet. He is pushing the "pull out of Iraq now" perspective.

that is not where I stand....but I definitely stand opposed to the "keep doing the same thing perspective" of the administration.

I think they (congress) are in a process....and time will tell.


When the Vietnam war went on....first the Johnson administration then the Nixon administration kept moving it forward for years. Opposition to it came from the public and from the Congress. It took years for opposition to the Vietnam war to outweigh and change direction of the two administrations.

In the short term, the US leaving Vietnam wasn't good for freedom in SE Asia. In the longer term it was fine for US interests.

The executive has a majority of the power and can do more things more quickly. Legislatures aren't like that. Too many decision makers.

But they serve to balance the executive and keep it from becoming dictatorial.


The main thing I think is that the Iraq situation for the US is a huge mess. Any changes will be ugly for US interests. Current status is ugly for US interests. I think current status is worse than exploring and making changes.

We have nowhere nears the troop levels necessary to "win". Winning in my understanding means seeing a totally disarmed Iraq so all the mfers can't kill maim and bomb each other or bomb our guys.

We don't have near the troop levels for this. We can't secure the borders. That would take additional thousands or tens of thousands of troops. We have no allies willing to add that number of troops. I read somewhere that the total of troops in Bosnia.....was dramatically higher relative to that population than in Iraq.

We would need tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of additional troops to work our way through all of Iraq and smash all the bad guys.

Without that we get this whack-a-mole situation, as McCain said, where the mfer's split where we are showing strength and turn up somewhere else.

I'd do three things in the current and long term.

Set up a basis where US and strong allies would have more troops available to overwhelm any groupings of enemies like Al-Queda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

The way this war is going, the way are troops are being killed primarily by IED's, the way troop tour lengths have been extended etc. all works against that in the short term and long term.

Long term work to get other energy sources than oil. That would drop the price of oil and weaken nations that are the primary sources of mfers. It would suck the money out of the middle east, (and Russia and Venezuela) and make their current governments or those that are enriched cut back on sponsoring bad guys.

I'd combine in the West and work w/ every possible source in the middle east to foster counter philosophies against extremism Islamic hatred. The only way that will work is when the Arabs/Islamics start pushing it and fostering it effectively themselves. Its got to start.

Alternatively or aligned w/that thought maybe promoting and helping the West Bank while starving Gaza will slowly convince 1 million gazan residents that they'd be better off w/out Hamas. maybe. It would need lots of effort from lots of sources like Jordan, Egypt, us, Isreal, Arab/Muslim moderates of some sort etc.....and some groups have to keep reminding the million in gaza they are getting fooked by bad guys.

I'm intrigued by the stuff about real politicians who are addressing stuff and getting accomplishments of one sort or another on the local and state level.

In fact the Federal Govt has pretty much sucked for a number of years IMHO.

 

No. I'm not a moonbat. I am a free thinker and a rugged individualist. If I wanted to agree unconditionally with everything someone said, I'd be a democrat.

No, he's human. He's not perfect. But, alas, unlike democrats, he is able to admit he is not perfect. Imperfect people do not let a pursuit for perfection dictate their thinking. Bush has had to make some pretty tough decisions during his time in office. Probably more tough decisions than any president since FDR. History, and only history will tell if those decisions were good or bad. Second guessing yourself and making decisions based on the court of public opinion might be the popular thing to do, but they are not the right thing to do. Bush seems to recognize that.

I would say based on his consistent reasoning, while I do not agree with him 100% of the time, I respect him 100% of the time, and I unlike you and other moonbats, sleep well at night because of that.

 

fft. Bush is one of the last people on earth to admit he is not perfect or makes mistakes. He only started doing that a little bit.....when polls started showing people were dissatisfied with his responses on Iraq.


To date the following Republican Senators have shown some level of dissatisfaction with the Bush administration direction in Iraq: Some of the disagreement has been around for a while (Hagel) and some of the disagreement is more recent (Dominici):

Hagel--Nebraska
Spector--Pa
Coleman--Minn
Collins--Maine
Smith--Oregon
Snowe--Maine
Dominici--NM
Voinivich--Ohio
Lugar--Indiana
Warner--VA

(have I missed any others?)

That is dramatic number relative to a year or two ago and provides a significant opportunity to craft solutions that would dramatically alter course from Bush's direction.

The constitution was originally written to create effective controls on the power of the executive. If anything it was the reaction to the danger of an all powerful monarch.

It would be a strong step for the Congress to reassert power they have given to Bush and redirect American policy in a way that would be support American interests and no longer support the policies of a tiny few administration individuals that seem to have a hard time dealing with reality!

 

That must be the understatement of century. The motto for his presidency seems to be:

"I fu*ked up again, let's forget about it and go on."

 

Republicans turned on Nixon as they are turning on Cheney and Bush, so expect them to be condemned by their own party soon since there is no draw down of troops in Iraq, impeachment is the only way forward for America Earl.

These guys still defend Nixon and they were not even born when his ass was run out of Washington, they love Kissinger and Company no doubt.

 

I really don't like you comparing Bush with Nixon. Nixon was a son of a B*tch but he was a smart son of a B*tch while Bush can hardly tie his shoe without a help.

 

There is only one person here that seems to love Nixon to death, and that is the queen of banishment, AnthonyCEA...

 

Nixon was set up by Henry Kissinger, note that he served as Secretary of State in the Ford Administration, it is a well known fact that he was turning the screws that doomed Nixon.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/27/former-president-gerald-ford-dies-at-93/

In addition, the reason Kissinger is influential in the current Bush administration is because Kissinger was responsible for getting Bush Senior, Cheney and Rumsfeld jobs in the Ford Administration.

 

For some time I thought the analogies to Nixon by AC were overstated. I don't think that anymore. I was a young adult during the Nixon years--so I experienced them first hand.

The overlap and similarity are striking with regard to actions taken by the administration and the efforts to keep them secret.

It is one thing to keep vital issues like military strategy secret--duh....you don't want the enemy to know what you are doing.

The other major reason to keep something secret is because you were doing bad stuff and you don't want anyone to know about it. Its invariably about bad stuff.

Big similarity between this Bush administration and Nixon.

Examples:

Would Clinton want the world, his wife and kid to know about Monica, he, and their love of bananas? No. He tried to keep it secret.

Something that shouldn't be secret. Why in the world won't the white house reveal what they have and discussed with regard to the Pat Tillman case.

His own family requested the information and the White House won't reveal it.

First why did the death of a soldier in Afghanistan go all the way up to the White House? Are the death's of every soldier being discussed in depth at the White House? With thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan do they have time to deal with any other issue if they are going into depth in discussions on every death?

This guy took an extraordinary act by spurning the fame, public awareness, and money of a pro sports career and joining the military and 9/11. The press made a big deal of it and rightfully so....clearly a selfless, courageous, and patriotic act.

Then the government got involved. Somehow his death through a mistake (friendly fire) was retwisted into it being broadcast that he died a hero in a fight. Soldiers on the ground knew instantly this wasn't the case but were muzzled.

So how did this get to the White House? Did they orchestrate the publicity? Were they involved in spreading propogandistic misinformation?

Who knows? They won't reveal anything and won't even honor this guys family by revealing their involvement.

Very Nixonesque.

(and that is only one example!)

But to get back to the point of the thread....maybe these examples contribute to why a growing number of Republican Senators are breaking ranks w/ the administration.

 

Earl, we got rid of Nixon, but never the cancer (Kissinger), the entire Republican party should have been outlawed after Watergate, we should have at least banned the entire Nixon administration from ever serving in government for life.

If Democrats would have had the wisdom to do that they would have never cut a deal allowing Ford to become a shill for Nixon and appoint his administration goons to continue the fraud that plagues America to this very day.

Kissinger and Cheney plan and plot strategy to this very day, Bush wanted him to head the 9/11 investigation but Kissinger had to resign because of conflict of interest since his firm represents the King of Saudi Arabia in Washington.

GTech would call that a terrorist supporter, but you won't hear anything from him on this most likely, he is part of the smokescreen.

PS: Anyone wonder why oil prices are at world records ???

 

Here we go again.. Nixon this and Nixon that.. If this ingrate is not going to remain banned, can we at least add "Nixon" to the list of banned words on DP?

Oil prices are at world records because of price controls and the fact that 2/3 of the worlds oil is controlled by Islamic Terrorists.

 

Get lost Mia, head off to your local Republican party meeting man, no one wants to read your lunacy (spam posts) !!!

You just can't see reality because of the RNC propaganda smokescreen you live within Mia !!!

 

Did you even bother to read my reply to Earlpeal's question, or were you too busy spanking it to pictures of Nixon?

 

Yeah, it was a joke like most of your posts on web forums Mia, you can't really think anyone takes anything you say serious man !!

 

Nice cop out. In other words, you DID NOT read it.

Nice.

 

Face it Mia, you are the same kind of guy that voted for Nixon twice, let's face it, you voted for Bush and Cheney twice and they are worse than Nixon.

Talk about disgraceful, and you still promote their lunacy daily before the world, you need to find a new way man, America has passed you and your buddies by man!

 

You have no idea who I voted for. Stop assuming..

How many times do I have to tell you to ease up on the drugs?

 

So you voted for Gore and Kerry then !!!!

LOL man !!!

 

Again, assuming...