Article

2007-04-16 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-04-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Dick's a great guy but he's whistling past the graveyard on this one. The Demonrats will send up a bill with timetables; W will veto it; the timetables will get watered down in renegotiations; W will sign the bill; everybody will declare victory. That's the way these things usually work.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2007-04-16 00:03|| 2007-04-16 00:03|| Front Page Top

#2 They'll drop it if Bush makes it known that he will veto any "time-table included" funding bill that hits his desk

Posted by Mike N. 2007-04-16 01:30|| 2007-04-16 01:30|| Front Page Top

#3 The Dems would have to be stone-cold stupid to do anything more than float talk about that idea. That's why I worry so . . . .

Posted by gorb 2007-04-16 04:01|| 2007-04-16 04:01|| Front Page Top

#4 IMO Cheney's on the mark > in case Radical Islam fails to initiate Amer Hiroshima(s) inside America, the DemoLeft for 2008 elex and beyond will likely try to hedge + PC claim full credit for US-Allied flags propping up all over the ME around Iran.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-16 05:02|| 2007-04-16 05:02|| Front Page Top

#5 The bill will contain timetables; the Dem base and good strategy demands it. Then Bush gets faced with having to veto it, which will mean fodder for the 'Bush doesn't care about the troops' people, plus lots of delay and shuffling of other funds to meet day-to-day needs. If he doesn't veto, he 'loses' his battle with the Dems. At this point whether there is a timetable or not matters little - it is pretty certain we are going to (declare victory and) quit pretty soon anyway.
All this death and destruction in Iraq was unneccesary - but not for the reasons generally given. The war would have been avoided if the other world players (Russia, France, Germany, etc.) had put forward a united front with the US - but that did not meet their internal financial and political desires. The 'insurgency' might have been avoided if the internal parties within the coalition had presented a united front - a 'will to win' - that would have 'encouraged' Iraqi reconciliation and clearly identified the strong horse. But just like before, internal political desires overruled doing the right thing for its own sake.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-04-16 07:23|| 2007-04-16 07:23|| Front Page Top

#6 Just like the start of WW 2, Glenmore. I'm afraid the parallel will not end there.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 07:32|| 2007-04-16 07:32|| Front Page Top

#7 I think the question in each congress critters mind will be Homer Simpsonesque:
"Hum, bacon or time tables... bacon or timetables"

Posted by Capsu78 2007-04-16 11:40|| 2007-04-16 11:40|| Front Page Top

#8 Yeah, Capsu, Bush could always make the point that there are a lot of other bills he could veto too. When it starts to interfere with the pork barrel they may back down.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-04-16 12:52|| 2007-04-16 12:52|| Front Page Top

#9 W will sign; his spine has left the building.......

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-04-16 14:11|| 2007-04-16 14:11|| Front Page Top

23:53 Brian H
23:50 Silentbrick
23:44 gorb
23:34 Zenster
23:31 trailing wife
23:29 RD
23:27 RD
23:27 newc
23:23 trailing wife
23:20 mrp
23:16 trailing wife
23:13 Hyper
23:10 Icerigger
23:08 WTF
23:04 RD
23:03 Zenster
23:00 mrp
22:58 gromgoru
22:58 Icerigger
22:56 Galactic Coordinator Elmaving4888
22:54 RD
22:53 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:38 Barbara Skolaut