I love the pointless, repetitive arguments that go on here. Basic points made:
The Democrats are doing something, but it isn't working. The bills will all fail, and thus are merely a PR stunt to make it look like they are doing something.
Point 2: The Dems have, in fact, put forward proposals to both cut funding and press for a timetable. The latter was vetoed, while the former a) wouldn't matter anyway since Bush could just requisition emergency funding or take $ from the Pentagon to fund the war, and b) see below.
The point you are forgetting is that, unfortunately, PR matters. Most Americans do not take the time to research and analyze the complexities of most issues at the national or international level. Thus, what the President says means a lot more than the truth or untruth of said words might suggest, because lots of people will listen to the ruling party because there is a common thought that, 'they got elected, they have access to information, they must understand things better than me'. What doesn't come into the equation is personal nature or use of the information and resources available. Just because someone is elected to serve the constituennts and country, doesn't mean they will. What Bush and others say means a great deal, true or not.
Therefore, if the Democrats were to halt funding for the war: as mentioned above, it likely wouldn't do anything concrete. On the other hand, it would give Bush and the Republicans a HUGE amount of ammunition of how the Dems don't care about the troops, want us to lose, are reckless or evil, etc. Ie, everything they've been saying for years. Except this time, they wouldn't need to lie or spin as much; just misrepresent the Dems' intentions. So what good does it really do to cut funding? The war would go on, character assassination of the Democrats would be like fishing with dynamite, and the Republicans would sweep the government again next year, and the same problems would persist.
So what, exactly, would you like the democrats to do? So far, you've offered very few suggestions. I, for one, would prefer regional talks, a shift away from combat operations and the Iraqization of the war, putting more emphasis on training and improving Iraqi government and security forces, and then drawing down the troop levels, maintaining only an advisory role, along with compensation and aid to try to bandage up the massive destruction we have wrought there. But of course, Congress can't do shit about that. It's all the Exec's call.
The Democrats are doing something, but it isn't working. The bills will all fail, and thus are merely a PR stunt to make it look like they are doing something.
Point 2: The Dems have, in fact, put forward proposals to both cut funding and press for a timetable. The latter was vetoed, while the former a) wouldn't matter anyway since Bush could just requisition emergency funding or take $ from the Pentagon to fund the war, and b) see below.
The point you are forgetting is that, unfortunately, PR matters. Most Americans do not take the time to research and analyze the complexities of most issues at the national or international level. Thus, what the President says means a lot more than the truth or untruth of said words might suggest, because lots of people will listen to the ruling party because there is a common thought that, 'they got elected, they have access to information, they must understand things better than me'. What doesn't come into the equation is personal nature or use of the information and resources available. Just because someone is elected to serve the constituennts and country, doesn't mean they will. What Bush and others say means a great deal, true or not.
Therefore, if the Democrats were to halt funding for the war: as mentioned above, it likely wouldn't do anything concrete. On the other hand, it would give Bush and the Republicans a HUGE amount of ammunition of how the Dems don't care about the troops, want us to lose, are reckless or evil, etc. Ie, everything they've been saying for years. Except this time, they wouldn't need to lie or spin as much; just misrepresent the Dems' intentions. So what good does it really do to cut funding? The war would go on, character assassination of the Democrats would be like fishing with dynamite, and the Republicans would sweep the government again next year, and the same problems would persist.
So what, exactly, would you like the democrats to do? So far, you've offered very few suggestions. I, for one, would prefer regional talks, a shift away from combat operations and the Iraqization of the war, putting more emphasis on training and improving Iraqi government and security forces, and then drawing down the troop levels, maintaining only an advisory role, along with compensation and aid to try to bandage up the massive destruction we have wrought there. But of course, Congress can't do shit about that. It's all the Exec's call.
Reply
Leave a comment