Comments Posted By johnuw93
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
"Despite warnings of catastrophe in Iraq if we pull out precipitously from just about every analyst who has bothered to look at the problem of our disengagement – good, smart people from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum – the Democrats insisted on going to the mattresses last night in their war against a man that they have allowed their hate and loathing to overtake any semblance of common sense and patriotism."
Couple of problems here. Evidently, Maliki does not agree that catastrophe will ensue if US soldiers leave. He says, go any time. Most Iraqis agree. A number of analysts have outlined likely scenarios after departure that do not spell disaster, unless you consider Halliburton's prospects an important factor. The other is that the author is so persuaded of the obvious rationality of his own position that no reason for opposing it can exist save hatred for George Bush. Why hate Bush? He is just one more empty suit representative of his class. He may be a particularly obnoxious one, but they'd throw up another one if he were not available. Take Giuliani, or Romney, say. Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. The problem is not personal animus against W. It is the policy. Yawl need to realize that.
Comment Posted By johnuw93 On 18.07.2007 @ 23:43
Oh, and steve, what has been backfiring on the Democrats has been not doing enough to stop Bush and Cheney. If you think stronger action to force a change of policy will backfire in favor of Bush and the pro-war crowd, you are delusional. No offense intended.
Comment Posted By johnuw93 On 18.07.2007 @ 11:24
Seems folks here are over-analyzing. The all-nighter was about showing the Republicans, who once were the world's biggest advocates of up-or-down votes, that simply stating the intention to filibuster would not be enough. With each battle like this, the fact that a minority is obstructing a bipartisan majority in the Senate that represents the will of 70 percent of the American people will become increasingly obvious.
Say, help me out here. McConnell said several times that the Reed-Levin bill could have been voted on at any time, so the overnight session was political theater. But when he had a chance to allow the amendment to be voted on, he voted no (against cloture). The vote on cloture was about whether to allow Reed-Levin to come to a vote. Since it was not allowed, McConnell must be lying. What he must have meant is that the Senate could have voted on cloture at any time. Well, of course. That was the whole point. But McConnell cannot stop himself from mischaracterizing a situation to serve his own partisan interests. My question is why he felt it necessary to lie? Is it just a knee-jerk response for Republicans?
Comment Posted By johnuw93 On 18.07.2007 @ 11:22
