Disappointed Democrats Map Withdrawal Strategy

NY Slimes ^ | 13 Sep 07 | CARL HULSE

[SkyPilot]

Beyond 2008 means they would have to deal with the war if they won. Also, not getting their way means Move-On.org will be angry with them.

I can see why they are not happy campers.

[Tarpon]

Elect Hillary, lose the war, let her explain it.

Better Fred than Red.

[G8 Diplomat]

[G8 Diplomat]

let her explain it.

You know what she'll say...Bush's fault

[top 2 toe red]

Also, not getting their way means Move-On.org will be angry with them....also angry with them, the NYTs.

ED Hill just had a report on showing that the NYTs gave a whooping 64% discount to moveon.org for it's slanderous ad assaulting General Petraus on Monday.

[hsalaw]

the problems Democrats are having finding a way to take on the president that unites their party and avoids criticism that they are weak on national security

How about the concept of WINNING by completing the stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, so as to establish non-terrorist-supporting democracies in the middle east? The dems ARE weak on national security, and their continued floundering around for a way to lose just proves it.

[Signalman]

The libs are desperate to withdraw the troops prior to the election. They know withdrawing the troops will result in a bloodbath and a defeat for the U.S. Then they can use this defeat against the GOP.

But, if they win in 2008 and THEN the troops are withdrawn, THEY will be blamed for the defeat.

They’re in a real quandary.

[Maceman]

Elect Hillary, lose the war, let her explain it.

That'll be easy for her: "Bush lost the war. All we can do is try to clean up his mistakes. We worked harder than we've ever worked before to try and save our troops, but General Betrayus and Bush have made it impossible to do that the way we would have wanted. And blah, blah, blah . . ."

[NonValueAdded]

Good, let them withdraw to Canada.

[freepertoo]

It’s not their role to do this sort of thing.

[LIConFem]

;o)

[andy58-in-nh]

The Democrats need to map out a strategy to withdraw their heads from their asses.

[Kevmo]

I think we SHOULD withdraw from Iraq

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

points to tagline

[Tarpon]

Won’t work, as soon as she makes a move, it will be all her war. What do you think they are scared of now?

Today the newspapers are full of the dimms saying to Petraeus, it’s his war now. Works both ways.

[Froufrou]

If those murderous thugs get back into office, I don’t know what I’ll do.

I don’t know why #43 doesn’t just loudly - and pointedly, with ALL the press there - say, “take over, then. You’re so convinced this is way to go, put your money where your mouth is.”

[avacado]

"Even if those proposals draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster — a level that has eluded Democrats this year — any real strictures on the president would face a veto,"

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They’re surrendering Congress before the election???

[goldstategop]

They're just making noise. Trying to interfere with the Commander In Chief's prerogatives will draw a swift veto.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Gritty]

[vigilence]

This daily search for a new strategy by the Legislative Branch to force the Executive Branch to do their bidding is hilarious. All they can really do is to de-fund the war and they know that’s political suicide and aren’t about to do it. So every day there’s a new stategy floated that goes nowhere. As the irresponsible seek to evade their duty the responsible go about doing theirs.