With support for the War waning, I am surprised that McCain is calling for an increase in troops. I am equally as surprised that he is talking about higher casualities and many more years of fighting in Iraq. Keep it up McCain.
Posted by Judith at November 10, 2005 10:37 PMSoto:
That's good analysis. Note also that McCain's speech was a response to Kerry's withdrawal plan, and that McCain mischaracterized some of Kerry's statements in that regard. Kerry responded today, expanding on his withdrawal plan and rebutting McCain's claims.
Because these two have taken a shot at the presidency in the recent past it's easy to forget that they're both old warhorses, that they worked together on the POW/MIA issue, and that they come from opposite sides of the tracks on Vietnam. While they both clearly have presidential aspirations, as per your analysis I think the real interest here is that the Senate is suddenly becoming the point of focus in the greater national policy debates we're having. Kerry and McCain are staking out territory on each side of this issue, and it may end up that Bush's own views become secondary as this debate continues.
Posted by Beacon at November 10, 2005 10:45 PMSometimes I think in movie clips. It can be annoying. Like some people get songs stuck in their head, I get movie clips stuck in mine. I have a new one running and it's on a loop. Everytime I think of the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Irag, I begin seeing scenes from the Fall of Saigon.
Posted by OffTheFence at November 11, 2005 12:34 AMi believe john mccain to be a wolf in sheeps clothing..polls show that the public no longer trusts george bush..with good resaon..it's sinificant because it will undermine all else from now on..if the public feels it was misled on iraq..which it was..his numbers aren't going to climb...he's done..and dick cheney and he belong in jail
Posted by dennis at November 11, 2005 03:27 AMI keep thinking, what is the one event, the home run, that might get the wagon back on the road for Bush? What effect would a very dramatic capture of Bin Laden have now? Everything negative, and I mean EVERYTHING, would disappear into the ether for a good long while. Plame, Meirs, Libby, Rove, Chalabi, it would all take a back seat for weeks or months. Certainly Bush would have total control, dribbling out daily or weekly bits of news and gossip, photos and interviews, keeping the focus on his victory over the 9/11 beast, the vanquishing of terrorist numero uno. I see nothing else rehabiliting Bush to the degree this would. Because Bush always gets what he wants I'd wager Carlyle agents are hard at work right now to deliver.
Posted by steve duncan at November 11, 2005 04:50 AMi disagree..when trust is breached it's difficult to get it back...if people feel they were misled into a war ..then osama and what happens to him is irrelavent..and i also don't believe that he'll ever be captured alive..he ain't saddam...saddam worshipped his glory and lifestyle...osama worships allah..crazy as he may be..he believes in what he is doing..and in many ways has triumphed ...the invasion of iraq by the u.s...was like pennies from heaven for him..he got what he wanted...the american people got screwed
Posted by dennis at November 11, 2005 05:05 AMI'm amused that you think the Congress is all of a sudden abandoning Bush. They've been opposing him on a LOT of things over the course of his Presidency.
BTW, it's not the conservative GOP who is balking at the spending cuts, it's the moderates (RINO's as I like to call them). They rarely support Bush on anything.
Posted by The Real Truth at November 11, 2005 05:05 AMThe capture of Osama now would look like a stunt.
Posted by Judith at November 11, 2005 05:19 AMAlso, Dennis is right, he will never be taken alive even if we were interested in capturing him.
Posted by Judith at November 11, 2005 05:20 AMI'm amused that you think the Congress is all of a sudden abandoning Bush. They've been opposing him on a LOT of things over the course of his Presidency.
BTW, it's not the conservative GOP who is balking at the spending cuts, it's the moderates (RINO's as I like to call them). They rarely support Bush on anything.
Posted by The Real Truth at November 11, 2005 05:05 AM
_____
Baldfaced fucking liar. Prove your contentions or shut the fuck up. Only jackals like you would attempt to rewrite history while still experiencing the event. Guess what asshole...it ain't gonna fly.
Posted by God Of War at November 11, 2005 06:07 AMI'm amused that you think the Congress is all of a sudden abandoning Bush. They've been opposing him on a LOT of things over the course of his Presidency.
give examples
Posted by at November 11, 2005 06:14 AMTruth,
The difference is that GOP conservatives don't have DeLay to keep the moderates in line anymore. That's why the DeLay indictment was so important. Roy Blunt is a rank amateur. Nobody in the Yankee - I mean moderate - GOP caucus fears Roy Blunt the way they feared DeLay. Sure, moderates complained before, but in the end they went along with every major GOP move. If the moderates start abandoning the GOP leadership on key votes as a regular matter of course, the ability of the GOP leadership to set the agenda is effectively shot. This is precisely what happened in 1994 to the Dem leadership when the conservative Dems abandoned the leadership on the crime bill and gave Newt Gingrich the power to control the agenda.
Real Kool Aid---
Oh yeah, the Republican Congress is really seen as opposing Bush on A LOT of things.....that's certainly the accurate view of the last five years of Congressional/White House relations!!
There appears to be no limit to the size of clown nose you happily apply to your face.
Posted by euzoius at November 11, 2005 06:35 AMI'm amused that you think the Congress is all of a sudden abandoning Bush. They've been opposing him on a LOT of things over the course of his Presidency.
Riiight!!! How funny! They've been the legislative branch of Bushco - and by being so - they've tipped the "balance of power". I hope that dems remind the voters of this - come 2006! btw, the latest polls show that the folks back home are quite displeased!!
Posted by leftydem at November 11, 2005 06:58 AMI'm not sure I'd agree with Duncan about the effect of a Bin Laden capture. I think the fact that he's been on the loose since 9/11 says more to the public than a "capture". Also,the Bushies have invested alot in the Zarqawi Devil, while soft pedaling Bin Laden. There is a lot more to the now 2/3 of the public's dissatisfaction with Bush than the fact Bin Laden is still loose. I don't think the Bush Family is too interested in putting Bin Laden on the witness stand, anyway. The one thing Bush does not want, at any cost, is the true story of 9/11 coming out.
Posted by T2 at November 11, 2005 07:16 AMi'm starting to think that the real truth is one of those performance artist types, satirizing the propaganda robots. no one could be as stupid as his 5:05 a.m. suggests he is.
no one.
Posted by howard at November 11, 2005 07:22 AMTom Delay had access to oil rich Texas reactionaries who were large fundraisers for the GOP. That juicy carrot was also a powerful stick to keep the moderates in line. Blunt is aptly named for his threats don't have to same backup.
meanwhile, clueless joe says "habeas whatsis?"
Posted by benjoya at November 11, 2005 07:24 AMbin Laden's capture would do nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism. Does anyone think Osama bin Laden is now controlling all the turmoil that is occuring throughout the Middle East?
He will never be captured alive. He would not submit to the humiliation we would put him through. He will blow himself up if he believes his capture is imminent. Images of his dead body would comfort (in some macabre way) the American public. In that sense it would be a positive for Bush. And perhaps to a lesser extent a positive for whoever gets in the position to be his successor on the GOP 2008 ticket. However, bin Laden's demise would also reveal the truth about what Bush has wrought in the Middle East as the killing and bombings would go on without even a hiccup.
Posted by snark at November 11, 2005 07:32 AMSteve, you're such a clever child. I always enjoy your bursts of intellectualism. I'll believe Congress is through with Bush the day the troops are recalled.
Posted by Mal Feasance at November 11, 2005 07:36 AM'Why are we following these guys? They're taking us off the cliff.' "
Wrong tense, it should read took us off a cliff.
As in done deal.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 11, 2005 07:40 AM'Why are we following these guys? They're taking us off the cliff.' "
Because you gave up your ability for critical thinking when you let Rush's drug-addeled rantings become your personal jesus? Because Cheney's shriveled up prostate gland has a hold of your nose and wont let go?
I'll play your silly game Tony Fabrizo, why do you still follow these guys?
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 11, 2005 07:47 AMI'll believe Congress is through with Bush the day the troops are recalled.
Since it is well known that Republicants have suspended belief for the duration, why would anybody on this board care about your current suspension of belief?
I'm just wondering from a clincical point of veiw.
Know the enemy and all that.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 11, 2005 07:56 AMmeanwhile, clueless joe says "habeas whatsis?"
snipets from benjoya's link:
(praise the good) - kudos to:
In addition to Mr. Specter, Republicans voting against the bill were Senators John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
and to "our" DINOs:
The five Democrats voting for the bill were Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Shame on you!!!!!!!
Posted by at November 11, 2005 08:12 AMI don't think it's a given Bin Laden would commit suicide were capture imminent. He has had time to plot out whatever benefit could be derived from his confinement should it come to that. Saddam, despite the idiot he is, has caused a few minor disturbances in the force since his capture. I say it's possible Bin Laden could put capture and imprisonment to good use somehow. He was smart enough to orchestrate a military operation that has robbed the treasury and economy of a trillion dollars, nearly bankrupted the U.S. airline industry, depleted and demoralized our military and further polarized our populace to the degree nothing gets done. He's played Bushco like a fiddle. If he's caught I see no reason his mastery of our politicians wouldn't continue.
Posted by steve duncan at November 11, 2005 09:17 AMI don't think Bin Ladin will ever be caught. The Bush's and the Saudi's are too close. Remember that the day after 9/11 the only airplanes flying were those taking Saudis out of the country - and several of them were Bin Ladin's relatives. The Bin Ladin issue has already been resolved, quietly, by the Bush's and the Saudi's - he's never going to be caught, but he's probably no longer active in the terror network either.
Posted by Maracel at November 11, 2005 10:34 AMI wouldn't be surprised if Bush is either still working with OBL, or, conversely, OBL is now dead. More likely the latter.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 11, 2005 11:18 AMOBL certainly NOT dead! With Saudis in particular and the world in general no longer marching in step to the Bu$hCo beat (soon to be the topic of a post if time allows), OBL sees no need in playing ball with George to reprise the role of terror boogeyman. It is, instead, time for him to develop new lines of profitability elsewhere.
Posted by pessimist at November 11, 2005 11:25 AMMaybe Bin Laden could pull a Chalabi and emerge as the Interior Minister of Afghanistan or something. Sure, he's a wanted man, but so is Chalabi. Jordan convicted Chalabi in absentia for hundreds of millions in bank fraud and embezzlement and it doesn't matter to Bush. I say give Binny another chance, maybe Condi wants to play footsie with him, too.
Posted by steve duncan at November 11, 2005 11:41 AMCapturing bin Laden would be about the same as overturning Roe v. Wade - what would the Reps use to mobilize their base?
Posted by ann at November 11, 2005 12:30 PMYes. I have a sneaking suspicion that Osama is a latter day D.B. Cooper.
Disappeared into the night leaving behind only enough evidence to tantalize those interested enough to look.
Posted by snark at November 11, 2005 01:31 PMWe can't get too excited about the Republicans losing in 2008 because their most likely candidate is advocating sending more troops to Iraq. So is ours! Maybe when 75% of Americans want us out of Iraq Hillary will feel she has the cover she needs. Meanwhile we have Biden and Clark and probably Bayh all trying to take on Bush from the right (in foreign affairs).
Posted by Howie at November 11, 2005 09:18 PM