Looks like Congress and the White House are close to a compromise on the war spending bill.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_43[/url]

Far as I can tell:

1. Bush gets the funding he wants
2. No date for withdrawal
3. Although there are "benchmarks" of sorts, they are effectively unenforceable.

In return for these massive concessions, the Dems get to spend more money domestically. Just what we need.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

How does a Democratically controlled Congress come out so far on the losing end of a deal with a President who is nurturing some of the lowest sustained approval ratings in history? FFS, Bush hasn't gotten consistently over 40% since last September.

The Republican reaction to this highlights why it is entirely appropriate to set benchmarks or even withdrawal dates:

[QUOTE]"I'm optimistic that we will achieve the following: a full four-month funding bill without [B]surrender dates[/B]. I think there's a good chance of that," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky.

Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory [B]surrender dates[/B] in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process." [/QUOTE]

Surrender dates, eh? Is that what they're calling them? Excuse me, but it's only a surrender date if you intend to fail. How about viewing it as a deadline to get shit done? If your boss came into your office and said, "I need this done, get it to me by the end of the month," you'd fucking get it done. As Bush's boss, it's time the American people said, "Look, we'll give you a chance to demonstrate you're making progress (via benchmarks), and if you can't do it by X date, you're toast." That's not setting a date for surrender -- that's setting a date for success.

Bush has been running this war, badly, without oversight for far too long. We finally get a Congress in there to serve as a meaningful check on his power in a trouncing in November 2006, and they fail to insist upon the oversight that the electorate demanded. Why not some benchmarks? Why not insist upon progress before spending more money? After 4 years of wheel spinning, that is entirely reasonable.

Re: Splendid

it's all the norm...I'm sure the republicans will call the dems weak on defense and spendthrifts as a result of this.

but it's funny, actually sad, as I've been having these exact same thoughts. When the two parties used to disagree on things, they'd actually work towards a compromise where both sides get a bit of what they want. Here we have nothing but a payoff...pathetic! :( It'd be nice if the dems could show even a little bit of guts, rather than just talk...

Re: Splendid

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Democrats are thinking about '08 & don't want to get on the bad side of the American public. As much as we hate the war, people hate more when troops don't have the means to fight the war. I think Bush's team knew that they could press hard with some compromise to get what they wanted. No funding would mean that a Democrat Congress would be blamed not Bush. Bush is already seen negatively so he doesn't have much lower to go in approval.

The flip side is if the war isn't going well by year end, I think you'll see Republicans in Congress start pushing for more specfic benchmarks of progress or staged withdrawl. A continued losing war will only hurt the Republican candidates in '08. I'm guessing the strategy if no progress is made will be to slightly distance yourself from Bush's war strategy.

Unfortunately, I think the terrorists know this too and will continue to plant IEDs to get on the news every night till America goes away. Iraq is a political war as much as a military one.

Re: Splendid

Check out this blog post by Cenk Uygur -- sorta related. On the long side, but it's an interesting read, IMO:

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i-was-told-things-would-b_b_49141.html"][QUOTE][B]I Was Told Things Would Be Different [/B]

"Wait till the Democrats gain power. Then you'll see!"

How many times did we all hear this? Well, I'm still waiting.

Yes, Democratic majority has made a huge difference in covering the scandals of the Bush administration like the US attorney firings. Yes, oversight has improved. Yes, some legislative proposals have fared better. And yes, it is far, far better than the alternative.

But, and this is an enormous but, the major issue of Democratic weakness and capitulation still exists. Gaining the majority has not changed the mind frame of the Democratic Party. They still cower from pathetic, ridiculous Republican talking points.

"You are going to hurt the troops by not supporting Bush's war policy." This sorry excuse for a talking point should have been blown out of the water years ago. Not only has it not gone away, but it has been strengthened because the Democrats continue to base their whole political strategy around it.

They still buy into the Republican idea that ending the war hurts the troops!!! That's insanity. How can people be this stupid? This inept at politics?

How is this for a challenge: A Democrat gets up in front of Congress and says to his Republican colleagues, "If you want to continue this war and tell us it's going to get better, will you promise to get on your hands and knees six months from now and apologize to the families of the troops who got killed and wounded in those six months if it does not get better?"

They should have said that three years ago, two years ago, six months ago. They could still say it now. They never make the Republicans pay a price for being so wrong - and hurting the troops so much.

The Republicans are throwing these poor kids into the meat grinder for a war they absolutely, positively know can't be won - there isn't even a definition of victory - and they have the unending audacity to claim the Democrats don't support the troops. And the Democrats have the unending stupidity to agree with them.

Tell us who they are. Grab your so-called Blue Dog Democratic colleagues by the collar, drag them out into the light and show us the losers who cower in the face of ridiculous, Republican talking points. Who are the ones so pathetic they can't fight back?

The overwhelming majority of the country is with you. There is now a poll that shows the majority of Republican voters in Iowa are in favor of timetables for withdrawal. How much support do you need before you bring your sorry, scared ass to vote the right away?

Here is point number two: We don't need a radical solution. We are not what the right-wing talk show hosts claim we are. We are not in the least bit extreme. We are the American people. We just need something. It doesn't even have to be timetables. It can be benchmarks with real consequences. If the Iraqi government cannot get a peace deal in a certain period of time, then we leave.

The whole country would agree to this. Who can argue for staying in Iraq if the Iraqis refuse to make peace among themselves? How can the Democrats not realize the wisdom - and the overwhelming political advantage - of such a proposal?

What we cannot have is a complete capitulation like we just saw from the Democrats. Why would you give the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes every single thing he wanted on the most important issue of the day?

What did we get in return? A minimum wage bill? Are you kidding me? You couldn't get that passed on its own when it has about 80% approval in the country? If the Republican idiots want to filibuster bills that are immensely popular with the country, let them. If they are looking for rope to hang themselves with, hand it to them. Do you have any idea how politics work?

We are so lucky that the Republicans are wrong on almost every single, major issue in the country because if they were just a quarter right on the policy, they would ride these Democrats out of town.

Look at what they just did. They won on all fronts when they had the whole country united against them on Iraq. It might be terrible policy and it might do them damage in the long run, but they know how to win a political fight. And that is something you definitely can't say for the Democrats.[/QUOTE][/URL]

Re: Splendid

I for one never thought it'd actually get better by the democrats doing...they're still nothing but a disorganized and gutless party. The vote was not so much a vote for the democrats to do a better job, but to send a signal to the republicans to get their policy back ontrack. Let's be honest, they're way more organized and for as many mistakes as they've made they do have guts...they just haven't had the right policies and have completely forgotten their father's face (ie. where they came from...you know, fiscal conservatives). It's a pretty pathetic and helpless position our political system is in at the moment :(

Re: Splendid

[quote=rubyraks;491759]I for one never thought it'd actually get better by the democrats doing...they're still nothing but a disorganized and gutless party. The vote was not so much a vote for the democrats to do a better job, but to send a signal to the republicans to get their policy back ontrack. Let's be honest, they're way more organized and for as many mistakes as they've made they do have guts...they just haven't had the right policies and have completely forgotten their father's face (ie. where they came from...you know, fiscal conservatives). It's a pretty pathetic and helpless position our political system is in at the moment :([/quote]

exactly - our political hopskotch sickens me.

Re: Splendid

democrats are fucking retarded. they are. all of them. they have essentially become the french. thier socialist ideas are stupid.

Re: Splendid

are you saying that they actually have ideas? It seems like they have none other than not what the republicans or this white house is doing.

Re: Splendid

i am acutally counting down for the next-next election now. cuz we are really fucked next year, the country's only hope at becoming less polarized is rudy. if any democrat runs, it will polarize us even more, and frankly, the market is gonna DIE. but lets get real, if the dems lose the election... it will have to be something that makes john kerry look smart. they already have it in hte bag, they should just shut up to the public, put obama on the ticket, with cuntbags as the VP, and they could just move in now. imagine barak and hillary discussing curtain schemes while GW is finding a way to stop muslims from killing everything in their path from lahore, to london. they should just let the AICPA and the Generals of the forces runthis place for awhile,. balance the budget, take care of what the real threats are, and we can move on. seriously, i hope an anthrax attack happens at the next DNC, its our only hope.

Re: Splendid

we barely have an opposition party as is, how is anthrax at the dnc gonna help?

Re: Splendid

it would shut hillary up thats for sure. and hopefully fat boy moore would be there.

Re: Splendid

^^^ :CrackUp: